Interstate 11

[Sub-Urbanite]

The brine issue with desalinization is only a concern if one is discharging it in a stupid place.  Sent far enough out to the open ocean, the potential impacts are very minimal.
Or in some far, distant future where we are desalinating on a scale millions of times larger than what we currently need, then we're gonna have issues.

I wonder how well it will sit with Arizonians for a foreign country to essentially have control over their water supply if one goes the Gulf of California route.

Speaking on behalf of the Midwest; they're not getting our fucking water.  All y'all desert critters can put on your damn jacket and move on back here if you want some water.  Why on Earth would we want to further subsidize the continued migration of people to these large, southwestern states and thus increase their political clout?  What's in it for us?  Nothing.

One wouldn't go to the Gulf of California for desal. One would, instead, do desal in California and buy some of California's Colorado River allotment. If you can pull 100k acre-feet out of the Pacific and divert that to the CAP, that's a lot cheaper than pumping it up 1000 feet from Rocky Point. The next most likely would be to desal Gulf of California water for the Imperial Irrigation District and put their share into the CAP. Arizona could additionally pipe the treated sewage from Phoenix all the way to the Colorado, giving Arizona a credit for any treated sewage returned to the Colorado the same way Nevada gets credit for its treated water.

There's a host of other capital options as well, including buying / banning lawns, buying golf courses, sealing in the CAP to prevent evaporation and leakage, etc.

It was always my impression that Phoenix would die not because it would become impossible to live there (no fresh water, too friggin' hot, etc), but because it would become too expensive to live there. Fresh water supply based entirely on desalination would almost certainly make every aspect of life more expensive and wipe out whatever financial incentive Phoenix otherwise provided prior to such a point.

It probably won't get too expensive to live there. You'll end up with an affordable water rate for "internal-only" users, like apartment dwellers, where every drop they use ultimately winds up in a sewer for re-use down the line (see: connecting the sewage system directly to the Colorado so that the treated effluent is then used to irrigate the Imperial Valley). And then people who use water for landscaping will progressively pay more based on how much they're irrigating. The fact is, the CAP can probably provide most of the water *needs* of the population of Phoenix for now and a long time to come... assuming people can turn off their irrigation.

[andy3175]

Here are some thoughts from a Wyoming- based webpage about the Colorado River Basin and its ability to support additional growth in a variety of Western cities.

https://www.wyofile.com/wyo-looks-to-store-divert-more-water-as-lake-powell-dries-up/amp/

While water is key to growth, it's arguable that the portion of Interstate 11 at least northwest of Phoenix is needed today to accommodate existing development in both Phoenix and Las Vegas. But future growth and economic development are often cited when plotting new freeways.

Water is a factor in developing communities along Interstate 11. My reason for suggesting that the water discussion may take us off topic is because the water story gets us into regional politics, differences in water allocations, and the debate of whether growth is sustainable given limited water resources.

We could spend quite a bit of time debating water policy in the US West.... and that portion of the conversation strays off topic from Interstate 11 itself ... other than the recognition that growth requires water, and that growth is cited when plotting portions of the Interstate 11 corridor.

[kkt]

I think the timing would be off too.  The Mississippi is in flood in the spring (if I remember Huck Finn correctly).  More water in the Southwest would be needed midsummer to late summer.  I suppose as long as they're building 1000 mile pipelines they could build a bunch of dams to hold the water, maybe, but it would add to the cost and complexity of the overall project.

[Bobby5280]

There is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are.  The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed.  Not gonna happen.

There is enough room to build a standard "Y" interchange with ramps on the NW and NE sides of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange. It doesn't have to be a 5 level directional stack.

Those lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman.  I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.

So 3 traffic signals instead of two. Not all that big a deal. I think it beats having to drive way out past Barry Goldwater peak before starting to cut back East toward the city.

Don't know about Arizona-based rants, but no one out here in CA has seriously suggested a 1200-1500-mile pipeline from anywhere east of the Rockies, which would be what such a project would entail.  Now -- if the drought persists for a few years, and the Midwest is plagued with floods, the waters of which would otherwise run off into the Gulf, calls for such a remedy might occur.  I know the thought of this would rankle the residents of several Midwest and Gulf states, but such a project would likely be federally-initiated so as to dampen the direct objections such as expressed above.

Any attempts to try to pump water into California (or Arizona) from Midwestern and Southern states would very likely be met with very intense legal action. There is already a great deal of conflict over water rights between neighbors inside this region of the nation, never mind interests in Arizona or California trying to budge into the mix.

For example interests in Oklahoma, Texas and various native tribe groups have all been in court with each other over the years with water rights lawsuits. People in the Dallas Fort Worth area are trying to claim ownership of lakes well inside of Oklahoma because they have outlets that feed into the Red River. Lawton gets its water mainly from Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth, but also has to pump water up from Waurika Lake. Interests in DFW have tried staking a claim for all 3 lakes. My attitude is screw them; they can build some more reservoirs down there and leave us alone.

[nexus73]

We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed. 

Rick

[kkt]

We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed. 

Rick

And who decides that the Mississippi doesn't need its water?  Arizona?

[JayhawkCO]

We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed. 

Rick

Pretty sure they're called rivers. 

Chris

[vdeane]

I would not support pumping out water from the Great Lakes to keep desert areas going, at least not in general.  Such would be detrimental to the environment, recreational interests on the lakes (and the St. Lawrence River), as well as international shipping.  Let them move somewhere that actually has water.  However, I could see taking water from there on the high years like 2017 and 2019, where there was extensive flooding and erosion due to heavy precipitation in winter/spring.  For situations like that, sure, move the water to where it would actually do some good, but don't start siphoning it off on the regular and lower the water level.

[andy3175]

Hi everyone, let's please discuss national water policies in the Off Topic group, not here. Thanks.

[The Ghostbuster]

When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.

[sparker]

When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.

It would be more likely that a E-W connector between I-11 just south of Wickenburg and I-17 would be built more or less along AZ 74 -- but with the east end likely dipping down to Loop 303 a few miles west of 17 (just to avoid redundancy and save a few bucks) -- but knowing AZ, it would be "Loop 404" rather than the dreaded 3di!

[KeithE4Phx]

When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.

It would be more likely that a E-W connector between I-11 just south of Wickenburg and I-17 would be built more or less along AZ 74 -- but with the east end likely dipping down to Loop 303 a few miles west of 17 (just to avoid redundancy and save a few bucks) -- but knowing AZ, it would be "Loop 404" rather than the dreaded 3di!

There is a proposal for an upgrade to SR 74.  If not a full freeway, then as a limited access expressway.  It's not currently funded, however.  But it wouldn't be called Loop 404 unless the proposed Hassayampa Freeway becomes part of I-11.  It has the 404 number as of now.  Loop 505 maybe?  Or maybe just keep it 74.  Either way, it won't be a 3di because ADOT is dead set against using them.

[sparker]

When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.

It would be more likely that a E-W connector between I-11 just south of Wickenburg and I-17 would be built more or less along AZ 74 -- but with the east end likely dipping down to Loop 303 a few miles west of 17 (just to avoid redundancy and save a few bucks) -- but knowing AZ, it would be "Loop 404" rather than the dreaded 3di!

There is a proposal for an upgrade to SR 74.  If not a full freeway, then as a limited access expressway.  It's not currently funded, however.  But it wouldn't be called Loop 404 unless the proposed Hassayampa Freeway becomes part of I-11.  It has the 404 number as of now.  Loop 505 maybe?  Or maybe just keep it 74.  Either way, it won't be a 3di because ADOT is dead set against using them.

I remember seeing maps back in the '60's and early '70's showing I-510 where the N-S section of the I-10 inner PHX loop is today -- and ostensibly continuing north on the current AZ 51 alignment (cute, just drop the zero!) as well as a I-710 spur utilizing some of the present AZ 210 corridor.  If anyone knows, just when and why did AZDOT (or their political handlers) develop an aversion to 3di's? 

[The Ghostbuster]

I have no idea why Arizona has an aversion to 3dis, since previously proposed 410, 510, and 710 were all canceled (the first two utilized the 1/2-mile present-day Interstate 10 segment between the southern junction of Interstate 17 and Buckeye Rd. before becoming part of 10). I believe Arizona and New Mexico are the only states in the lower 48 that do not have any 3dis.

[KeithE4Phx]

I have no idea why Arizona has an aversion to 3dis, since previously proposed 410, 510, and 710 were all canceled (the first two utilized the 1/2-mile present-day Interstate 10 segment between the southern junction of Interstate 17 and Buckeye Rd. before becoming part of 10). I believe Arizona and New Mexico are the only states in the lower 48 that do not have any 3dis.

For the same reason why they don't allow a highway to begin and end at the same numbered road.  That's why AZ 88 between Roosevelt Lake and Globe was changed to AZ 188 a few years back:  AZ 88 began and ended at US 60 from the day it was assigned in 1927. It's also the reason why Historic US 66 is not signed as AZ 66 east of Peach Springs.  It would also have both ends at I-40 if it were signed that way statewide. 

There's no logical reason for it; it's just their policy, just like not assigning 3dis.

Of course, the Loop 202 violates that rule, and always has.  Not only does it begin and end at I-10, but it crosses I-10 at the Phoenix/Chandler city limits (its former end point prior to the South Mountain Freeway being built).  To enforce their policy, either the Red Mountain Freeway or the Santan & South Mountain Freeways would have to be renumbered so that one endpoint is US 60.

[jakeroot]

I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?

Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.

[sparker]

I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?

Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.

Seattle's I-405 was one of the "OG" Interstates specified in the "Yellow Book", which delineated the various authorized loops and spurs (many of which were the subject of freeway protests a decade or two later).  But 405 was built more or less according to the original plan.  I-705, OTOH, was added later by congressional action; slipped in to a yearly outlay back in the early '80's, IIRC.  Both received substantial federal funding; 405 was on the original 90% roster, while 705 got about 80% federal funding. 

[jakeroot]

I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?

Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.

Seattle's I-405 was one of the "OG" Interstates specified in the "Yellow Book", which delineated the various authorized loops and spurs (many of which were the subject of freeway protests a decade or two later).  But 405 was built more or less according to the original plan.  I-705, OTOH, was added later by congressional action; slipped in to a yearly outlay back in the early '80's, IIRC.  Both received substantial federal funding; 405 was on the original 90% roster, while 705 got about 80% federal funding.

Sounds about right, I know the local representative around here became quite the celebrity when the "Tacoma Spur" received funding; being completed in the late 80s, it makes sense for the funding to have come in during the early 80s. But compare the I-405 and I-705 freeways to 'state' routes like 509 or 167, where very little or no federal funding is involved: should be no surprise that they are taking forever to be built and will not be receiving an interstate designation when they are built to completion. I have to assume Phoenix operates in much the same way. As all but the 10 and 17 freeways were funded locally, there are no interstates 3di's.

[sparker]

I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?

Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.

Seattle's I-405 was one of the "OG" Interstates specified in the "Yellow Book", which delineated the various authorized loops and spurs (many of which were the subject of freeway protests a decade or two later).  But 405 was built more or less according to the original plan.  I-705, OTOH, was added later by congressional action; slipped in to a yearly outlay back in the early '80's, IIRC.  Both received substantial federal funding; 405 was on the original 90% roster, while 705 got about 80% federal funding.

Sounds about right, I know the local representative around here became quite the celebrity when the "Tacoma Spur" received funding; being completed in the late 80s, it makes sense for the funding to have come in during the early 80s. But compare the I-405 and I-705 freeways to 'state' routes like 509 or 167, where very little or no federal funding is involved: should be no surprise that they are taking forever to be built and will not be receiving an interstate designation when they are built to completion. I have to assume Phoenix operates in much the same way. As all but the 10 and 17 freeways were funded locally, there are no interstates.

Highways, including Interstates, that are on the NHS are supposed to be eligible for, at present, 80% Federal funding, as are designated high priority corridors.  Obviously, that doesn't always work out that way, depending upon the clout demonstrated by the congressperson and/or delegation requesting such funds.  Apparently the average federal input -- unless it's a well-publicized project (like the I-11 Colorado River bridge, built prior to Interstate designation but on a NHS since 1995), in which case the federal input can and does approach that 80% "cap".  "Squeaky wheels" and all that!  I'd venture a guess that the federal input for a project such as the initial expansion of US 93 to a 4-lane expressway gets federal funding at a rate in the mid-to-high 60's (similar to what Caltrans got for the CA 58 freeway across the desert).  Of course the problem is not the precise rate of that funding coming from D.C., it's identifying the remainder which, in the case of a full freeway, is often prohibitive even to relatively flush states -- which is more likely than not the choice of "phased" development -- get the ROW squared away, lay down I-geometry carriageways, install grade crossings and access points as needed, and wait to do any "freewayization" until later -- and often one small segment at a time.  In the case of US 93, it's a matter of prioritizing the safety of vehicles traveling between Wickenburg and I-40 while at the same time configuring the projects that do just that so as to expedite the expansion to a full freeway when that's possible.

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that standard NHS funding comes from the NHPP block grant.  Funds used for one project are funds not available for another.  And if the project is in a MPO area (every census-designated urban area with at least 50k is required by law to have one, and the boundaries of the MPO area are often extended beyond the urban area to encompass entire municipalities and sometimes even counties), then it's the MPO that decides if federal funds can be used.

[sparker]

It's worth noting that standard NHS funding comes from the NHPP block grant.  Funds used for one project are funds not available for another.  And if the project is in a MPO area (every census-designated urban area with at least 50k is required by law to have one, and the boundaries of the MPO area are often extended beyond the urban area to encompass entire municipalities and sometimes even counties), then it's the MPO that decides if federal funds can be used.

In this case, that would be applicable to the I-11 corridor portion south of Wickenburg; but the portion along US 93 north to I-40 would lie outside such MPO bounds and thus the parvenu of AZDOT.  But in any case, I'll reiterate that IMO that agency is pursuing an appropriate and realistic strategy by reconstructing US 93 as an upgradeable divided expressway -- essentially killing the proverbial two birds with one stone -- making the road safe for the volumes of commercial and recreational traffic it presently sees while taking that initial step toward a full Interstate freeway.  How the Phoenix/Maricopa MPO is dealing with the section between Wickenburg and I-10 is part and parcel of the just-released EIS; they've selected their preferred corridor and, depending upon future circumstances, will likely develop at least part of that corridor.   

[mgk920]

We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed. 

Rick

There is an international treaty in place that prevents water that is in the Great Lakes basin from being diverted out of that basin.  This is an issue in the Milwaukee, WI metro area because about half of the metro area is outside of that basin (drains to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico) and those western suburbs need 'city' water.

Mike

[US 89]

We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed. 

Rick

There is an international treaty in place that prevents water that is in the Great Lakes basin from being diverted out of that basin.  This is an issue in the Milwaukee, WI metro area because about half of the metro area is outside of that basin (drains to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico) and those western suburbs need 'city' water.

Mike

How does Chicago get around that issue? I know their water comes from Lake Michigan, yet most of the city drains to the Des Plaines River (and then to the Illinois and Mississippi).

[The Ghostbuster]

I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.

[mgk920]

We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed. 

Rick

There is an international treaty in place that prevents water that is in the Great Lakes basin from being diverted out of that basin.  This is an issue in the Milwaukee, WI metro area because about half of the metro area is outside of that basin (drains to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico) and those western suburbs need 'city' water.

Mike

How does Chicago get around that issue? I know their water comes from Lake Michigan, yet most of the city drains to the Des Plaines River (and then to the Illinois and Mississippi).

Before the Chicago River was reversed long ago, it was in the Great Lakes basin.

Also, I believe that the western Chicago and suburban services were grandfathered in under that treaty.

Much more recently, Milwaukee was able to sell its city water to suburban Waukesha, WI with a stipulation that Waukesha's treated wastewater be pumped back over the divide (it crosses I-94 at about Sunnyslope Rd) into Lake Michigan.

Mike