Interstate 11

[Max Rockatansky]

God a double decker it downtown Tucson would be hideous.  It's already a raised freeway with I-10 as is.  I'm still not getting this thinking with all these proposals for I-11 to Tucson or the border. 

[ztonyg]

There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.

What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.

The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.

It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.

This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.

[CobaltYoshi27]

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

[ztonyg]

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.

ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all. 

It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.

[Max Rockatansky]

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.

ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all. 

It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.

They aren't nearly as bad as Caltrans is that in that regard.  The big thing ADOT has a problem with is a highway terminating at the same place.  That's why you see things like AZ 188 replacing AZ 88 to US 60 in Globe and why there was such a big push to give parts of AZ 66 to Yavapai County.  But apparently AZ 202 being completed to I-10 past South Mountain is going to be okay now?..I'm surprised that didn't get a 404 designation.

[US 41]

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

I-19 uses metric, while I-17 uses mileage. Also that would be a long concurrency with I-10. I-19 is shorter in distance than the distance from Tucson to I-17 on I-10.

The real question should be "Why does I-11 need to go farther south than Phoenix or farther north than Las Vegas?". I think the Phoenix - Las Vegas portion is somewhat questionable, but at least its a reasonable idea. Running I-11 to Nogales is just pure insanity. In my opinion if I-11 was to end anywhere besides Phoenix, it should end in Gila Bend, not Nogales.

[ztonyg]

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.

ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all. 

It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.

They aren't nearly as bad as Caltrans is that in that regard.  The big thing ADOT has a problem with is a highway terminating at the same place.  That's why you see things like AZ 188 replacing AZ 88 to US 60 in Globe and why there was such a big push to give parts of AZ 66 to Yavapai County.  But apparently AZ 202 being completed to I-10 past South Mountain is going to be okay now?..I'm surprised that didn't get a 404 designation.

I'd actually argue Caltrans is a bit better.

The US 60 multiplexes with I-10 and I-17 around downtown Phoenix are horrendously signed.

At the Stack on I-10 E/B only US 60 E/B is signed (with no mention of how to access US 60 W/B). On I-10 W/B its even worse as US 60 isn't signed at all.

Not to mention that there is no BGS indicating that mainline US 60 leaves Grand Ave. going E/B. There's simply a "little" green sign indicating US 60 to I-10 and I-17 needs to exit at the 27th Ave. / Thomas Rd. exit.

The AZ 87 and AZ 260 multiplex between Payson and Strawberry is equally poorly signed. Most of the multiplexed portion is simply signed AZ 87 with occasionally a few "TO AZ 260" signs thrown in for good measure.

[Max Rockatansky]

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.

ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all. 

It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.

They aren't nearly as bad as Caltrans is that in that regard.  The big thing ADOT has a problem with is a highway terminating at the same place.  That's why you see things like AZ 188 replacing AZ 88 to US 60 in Globe and why there was such a big push to give parts of AZ 66 to Yavapai County.  But apparently AZ 202 being completed to I-10 past South Mountain is going to be okay now?..I'm surprised that didn't get a 404 designation.

I'd actually argue Caltrans is a bit better.

The US 60 multiplexes with I-10 and I-17 around downtown Phoenix are horrendously signed.

At the Stack on I-10 E/B only US 60 E/B is signed (with no mention of how to access US 60 W/B). On I-10 W/B its even worse as US 60 isn't signed at all.

Not to mention that there is no BGS indicating that mainline US 60 leaves Grand Ave. going E/B. There's simply a "little" green sign indicating US 60 to I-10 and I-17 needs to exit at the 27th Ave. / Thomas Rd. exit.

The AZ 87 and AZ 260 multiplex between Payson and Strawberry is equally poorly signed. Most of the multiplexed portion is simply signed AZ 87 with occasionally a few "TO AZ 260" signs thrown in for good measure.

After the 1964 renumbering they got rid of a ton of multiplexes out in California which led to the demise of most of the US Routes and multiplexes.  I'm more surprised when I actually see a miner's spade along with a US Route Shield or Interstate sign, they aren't a common sight.  My favorite is how CA 1 technically ends and begins at US 101 in segments.

But that's pretty common nation wide with US Routes being multiplexed onto Interstates; the US Route signage basically disappears until it branches off. 

I'm not sure what ADOT was thinking renumbering AZ 279 west of AZ 87 as AZ 260.  The designation from Payson to Show Low to Eagar makes sense since it crosses US 60 and basically serves as an alternate route.  West of Payson just never made sense I would think that it's signed that way to avoid confusing motorists.  I just don't get that renumbering since Arizona has so few route numbers to begin with.  The strangest signed multiplex is Valle to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon Entrance station where AZ 64 and US 180 apparently co-exist for some reason.

The strangest are the TO signage for routes like 238 where you wouldn't know it wasn't a state highway unless you'd know something about what sections really belong to ADOT. 

[pumpkineater2]

I agree that the idea of I-11 going all the way to Nogales is absurd, not to mention that it would look atrocious on a map. I think having it terminate at I-8 somewhere between Gila Bend and Casa Grande, (preferably closer to the latter) and then widening and upgrading I-8, I-10, and I-19 will reap the same benefits as building a whole new freeway while costing much much less.

I wonder which politician is behind this one.

[vdeane]

There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.

What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.

The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.

It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.

This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.

Suddenly the extension of I-11 south of Phoenix makes sense.  I'm betting that's what they're doing.  Otherwise, I don't see why they can't just add a lane to I-10 (which would be cheaper and the more direct route from Tucson to Phoenix).  Maybe the extension to Nogales is so they have an excuse to get rid of the metric signs on I-19?

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

I-19 uses metric, while I-17 uses mileage. Also that would be a long concurrency with I-10. I-19 is shorter in distance than the distance from Tucson to I-17 on I-10.

The real question should be "Why does I-11 need to go farther south than Phoenix or farther north than Las Vegas?". I think the Phoenix - Las Vegas portion is somewhat questionable, but at least its a reasonable idea. Running I-11 to Nogales is just pure insanity. In my opinion if I-11 was to end anywhere besides Phoenix, it should end in Gila Bend, not Nogales.

ADOT's been looking to get rid of the metric signs on I-19 for a while now.  Makes me wonder if I-11 is the excuse they're looking for to bypass the public opposition to changing the signage on I-19.

[kdk]

There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.

What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.

The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.

It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.

This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.

Suddenly the extension of I-11 south of Phoenix makes sense.  I'm betting that's what they're doing.  Otherwise, I don't see why they can't just add a lane to I-10 (which would be cheaper and the more direct route from Tucson to Phoenix).  Maybe the extension to Nogales is so they have an excuse to get rid of the metric signs on I-19?

I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?

I-19 uses metric, while I-17 uses mileage. Also that would be a long concurrency with I-10. I-19 is shorter in distance than the distance from Tucson to I-17 on I-10.

The real question should be "Why does I-11 need to go farther south than Phoenix or farther north than Las Vegas?". I think the Phoenix - Las Vegas portion is somewhat questionable, but at least its a reasonable idea. Running I-11 to Nogales is just pure insanity. In my opinion if I-11 was to end anywhere besides Phoenix, it should end in Gila Bend, not Nogales.

Yeah, it may be a negotiating tactic.  If the Tribe knows ADOT has another option, they may give in on some of what they want.  Plus if most of the truck traffic may be taken off the freeway, that hurts the tribes development aspirations- takes away demand for industrial space and even truck stops. 
However, most of the developable land for both Phoenix and Tucson for future residential development lies in this I-10 Corridor with the exception of the reservation and a few mountains.  Once that develops even four lanes on I-10 won't be enough, and a bypass will be necessary anyway.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Interstate 11 Right of Way in Arizona?

Does anyone know about the right of way for the future Interstate 11 freeway, where is will be west of Phoenix, Arizona or connect to Tucson, Arizona?  Many paths, but not one path has been chosen as of yet. 

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[roadfro]

Does anyone know about the right of way for the future Interstate 11 freeway, where is will be west of Phoenix, Arizona or connect to Tucson, Arizona?

No decisions have been made yet. If they had decided on an alignment, you can be sure that it would be thoroughly discussed in this thread.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Yes it would sound very ridicoulous for Interstate 11 being extended to Nogales, AZ, where it should end at Casa Grande, AZ at Interstate 8.  However it is still up in the air where Tucson, AZ is considered, maybe that section for Interstate 11 is not needed.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[howlincoyote2k1]

There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.

What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.

The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.

It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.

This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.

We would benefit from that I-10 upgrade, but it wouldn't hurt to touch up AZ 79 as well, as it is often used as an alternate route for folks in the East Valley and the north/northeast parts of Tucson. The stretch from US 60 to Florence probably ought to be four-laned, and while it would be the ideal for the remainder of the route, you could probably add a few passing lanes here and there and get away with it.  The more attractive of an alternate route it is, the more people will opt for that over I-10.

As for I-11, my preference is to connect it to 303 and route it down to I-10 from there, and call it good. The closer you can get the freeway to Phoenix, the better; after all, this is supposed to be a direct freeway connection between Las Vegas and Phoenix, not Las Vegas and Wickenburg. My question it, what are they going to do about Kingman? How are they going to build a direct connection between I-11 North and I-40 without obliterating Beale St?

[Max Rockatansky]

There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.

What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.

The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.

It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.

This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.

We would benefit from that I-10 upgrade, but it wouldn't hurt to touch up AZ 79 as well, as it is often used as an alternate route for folks in the East Valley and the north/northeast parts of Tucson. The stretch from US 60 to Florence probably ought to be four-laned, and while it would be the ideal for the remainder of the route, you could probably add a few passing lanes here and there and get away with it.  The more attractive of an alternate route it is, the more people will opt for that over I-10.

As for I-11, my preference is to connect it to 303 and route it down to I-10 from there, and call it good. The closer you can get the freeway to Phoenix, the better; after all, this is supposed to be a direct freeway connection between Las Vegas and Phoenix, not Las Vegas and Wickenburg. My question it, what are they going to do about Kingman? How are they going to build a direct connection between I-11 North and I-40 without obliterating Beale St?

Probably can't be done reasonably without Beale Street being wiped out.  That would require a huge swing west through Golden Valley or something uber expensive to plow through the mountains around Cerbat to bypass Kingman completely.

[Sonic99]

There were studies done a few years ago about possibly constructing a new direct interchange between I-40 and US-93 east of the existing Beale St interchange, but I haven't heard any more about anything actually happening yet.

[coatimundi]

The desired alternative for the interchange involves a directional T, and it using new ROW just north of Beale to make a more east-west approach (as opposed to dropping southeast, as Beale does). If you look at the terrain maps of that corner, it's pretty obvious where they're putting it. The terrain is really rough around there, so there aren't many alternatives.
However, there's no money to build it. I think they're waiting for federal funds.
It's a pretty big bottleneck. It has been for years. And we certainly don't want to decimate West Beale and its historic TA w/ Popeye's.

[Max Rockatansky]

The desired alternative for the interchange involves a directional T, and it using new ROW just north of Beale to make a more east-west approach (as opposed to dropping southeast, as Beale does). If you look at the terrain maps of that corner, it's pretty obvious where they're putting it. The terrain is really rough around there, so there aren't many alternatives.
However, there's no money to build it. I think they're waiting for federal funds.
It's a pretty big bottleneck. It has been for years. And we certainly don't want to decimate West Beale and its historic TA w/ Popeye's.

That's just it you got a huge ridge between Stockton Hill Road and Beale.  I've heard the argument that Beale is a historic street, to what end though I find dubious since the downtown district wouldn't be touched.  It's not like any historic sections of 66 would be wiped out if Beale west of I40 got razed.  And you're forgetting that Mobil that sells the novelty US 66 shields as far as historic structures. 

[The Ghostbuster]

Future Interstate 11 should go no further south than its future junction with Interstate 10, and no further north than its future junction with Interstate 15.

[Max Rockatansky]

Future Interstate 11 should go no further south than its future junction with Interstate 10, and no further north than its future junction with Interstate 15.

Which one with I-10?  The one around Phoenix or Casa Grande? 

[CobaltYoshi27]

Future Interstate 11 should go no further south than its future junction with Interstate 10, and no further north than its future junction with Interstate 15.

I honestly think bringing it up to I-80 near Reno, NV isn't a terrible idea.

[coatimundi]

And you're forgetting that Mobil that sells the novelty US 66 shields as far as historic structures.

I remember that Mobil being like a $1 more per gallon than everyone else on that corner, and I wondered how they could possibly still sell gas.
When they reroute traffic, Beale will not lose any real importance. Most people know that they need to stop in Kingman to avoid the always-higher Nevada gas prices, and taking the extra thru traffic thru of there will, I think, actually encourage more consumer traffic. Personally, I avoid that area on the way up or down because I would rather just not deal with the traffic, and will go for gas on Stockton Hill instead.
Beale will still provide access to Kingman's Downtown, and the Route 66 fans will still have their corridor in tact (at least, as much as it is now).

What I don't understand about the interchange is that it's shown in designs to be full. My question: why would you need a ramp to go from 40E to 93/11N when you could either take Beale Street as a cut off, or take US 95 from Vegas or SR 95 from Bullhead? It just seems like an unnecessary expenditure. Seems like it would be better to have a "To I-11 North - Las Vegas" sign at Beale Street.
And this will likely be the first Business I-11. Maybe they'll even multiplex it along Beale with Business I-40.

[Max Rockatansky]

And you're forgetting that Mobil that sells the novelty US 66 shields as far as historic structures.

I remember that Mobil being like a $1 more per gallon than everyone else on that corner, and I wondered how they could possibly still sell gas.
When they reroute traffic, Beale will not lose any real importance. Most people know that they need to stop in Kingman to avoid the always-higher Nevada gas prices, and taking the extra thru traffic thru of there will, I think, actually encourage more consumer traffic. Personally, I avoid that area on the way up or down because I would rather just not deal with the traffic, and will go for gas on Stockton Hill instead.
Beale will still provide access to Kingman's Downtown, and the Route 66 fans will still have their corridor in tact (at least, as much as it is now).

What I don't understand about the interchange is that it's shown in designs to be full. My question: why would you need a ramp to go from 40E to 93/11N when you could either take Beale Street as a cut off, or take US 95 from Vegas or SR 95 from Bullhead? It just seems like an unnecessary expenditure. Seems like it would be better to have a "To I-11 North - Las Vegas" sign at Beale Street.
And this will likely be the first Business I-11. Maybe they'll even multiplex it along Beale with Business I-40.

Yeah that's probably what is going to ultimately doom that segment of Beale west of I-40, it will need room for a full interchange...if in fact that is what happens.  I just can't see all that money being spent on either a full interchange design or blowing all that rock out of the way for something between Beale and Stockton Hill.  I'm honestly not sure how much benefit the current BL has when there is probably enough attraction having Historic US 66 signs all down the same stretch... 

I always preferred the no-name brand station just directly south of that Mobil since it had a Subway in it.  I always had a hard time with getting looped back around on Stockton Hill but the Safeway was usually my go-to if I was in the mood for some chicken strips and it had a gas station in the parking lot.     Andy Devine was kind of dicey and seemed to pull a lot of the traffic off of I-40 that really made it worth it go west to Stockton Hill or Beale.  The one to avoid on Beale is that Shell Station...I've seen seals tampered with on the pumps several times and the staff was pretty indifferent when I pointed it out.

[coatimundi]

Yeah that's probably what is going to ultimately doom that segment of Beale west of I-40, it will need room for a full interchange

Well, my point (which I failed to properly deliver, in rereading my post) was that the EB-NB and the SB-WB directional traffic flows are likely not going to be very high because they don't make sense. Even if there weren't a ramp, and traffic had to use Beale Street, I don't think it would ever warrant a direct connection ramp and, even if it did, they would probably just put it up at the actual I-11 interchange instead. I think it would likely save a tremendous amount of money if they just left it SB-EB & WB-NB only.
ADOT has the analysis of traffic counts in the same assessment where they have the alternatives and final recommendations, so I may look at that and send out my thoughts on it. Because everyone loves unsolicited advice...

But because Beale is the first gas you see since, I believe, Boulder City, I don't think it will cause issues beyond the businesses who are solely reliant on the "impulse stop" traffic (I'm sure there's a term for it, but I'm adopting the supermarket term to it), since most of that traffic would be able to skip Beale. However, things like gas stations, hotels and restaurants can easily place signs at the new Beale Street exit on I-11, in addition to the I-40 exit that already features them, and all be within sight distance of the new interstate due to the terrain (it comes downhill toward 40).
If anything, the increased traffic will actually improve Beale, I think. It will be an easier and more logical place to pop in more roadside businesses; maybe getting rid of those skeezy low-end motels there and putting up a nice, new chain.

Kingman is so, so poorly planned. They just let anything and everything pop up, with no traffic controls, and Stockton Hill north of I-40 is a mess right now. You can turn left into and out of pretty much anything. I think it's just the typical small town that grew a little too much, but still wants to think it's a small town.