Interstate 11

[sparker]

Whatever happened to the option of simply upgrading AZ 85 to Interstate freeway standards and adding a freeway/freeway connection to I-8 at Gila Bend? Wouldn't that be cheaper than an I-11 extension along AZ 303 to Casa Grande?

Now that would be the most logical and certainly least costly way to go -- and much of AZ 85 has got the "Texas Frontage Road" treatment with reserved space for an eventual freeway; it's pretty much good to go!  The problem with that route is that it sits down in the Gila River valley, which is used for agricultural purposes -- one of AZ's big "cash cows", given the all-year growing season down in irrigation country -- not a lot of room nor desire for extensive development there.  In the greater Phoenix area, it's all about where the next growth spurt is going to occur; and the diagonal I-11 corridor from Buckeye to Casa Grande via or near Maricopa seems to have piqued the interest of the developers who "run the show" down there (through the usual means -- political donations).  It's seen as a viable "stem" around which to place housing and the amenities attached to such.  Couple this with the interest in development along the Hassayampa corridor portion north of I-10 and west of Buckeye, and you've got the perfect recipe for the next "big thing" in regional growth.  And although, IMO, the steam will run out before plans are made to run I-11 parallel to I-10 & I-19 through Tucson and Nogales, it looks like what is ultimately envisioned is a developmental corridor rivaling San Diego to L.A. via Orange County.   It's an archetypal "Sun Belt" mindset -- actually welcoming sprawl as the accepted means of economic growth -- but in this case making general plans regarding the preferences as to where the tenets of such sprawl will go.  The AZ 85 corridor will likely be developed as a separate concept (possibly an upgrade of the Phoenix-Yuma-San Diego corridor); but unless the development "fever" can be reined in -- and that hasn't happened to date -- its being an integral part of I-11 isn't likely in the cards.

Just an observation:  I don't think I-40/I-17 would work even as a temporary I-11 routing between Phoenix and Kingman, because the length difference is almost 100 miles (169 miles from I-40/US 93 east of Kingman to just south of the Stack in Phoenix via US 93/US 60, versus 262 miles via I-40 and I-17).  This is about a third of the shortest Phoenix-Las Vegas distance.

Although NYC cabbies might disagree, most commercial drivers would never consider the roundabout path between Phoenix and LV posed by a I-17/40/Flagstaff routing; they'd stick to US 60 and 93, the region's functional "hypotenuse" (sorry to stir bad memories -- but in this case, the option is and existing route!).  I still think that taking I-11 down to Loop 303 and then down to I-10 (and further if desired) is the best option for general Phoenix access -- but apparently the powers that be in the region, for reasons elucidated earlier, disagree.  But considering the time, money, and regional rivalries at play here, nothing appears to be written in stone at this time -- the intrigue is probably just beginning! 

[kkt]

Regarding AZ 85 as a route for I-11, I don't think the agricultural uses of the Gila Valley are a factor.  On the aerial view, it looks like the AZ 85 right of way west of Buckey passes through irrigated area, but the right of way is already wide enough for an interstate.  Farther south, AZ 85 passes through hills east of the irrigated land.  Very, very little land would be lost if an interchange was needed.

However, once real estate development interests get lined up, it's very hard to do it another way just because it would fulfill the stated purpose of access from Mexico to the intermountain west just as well for less money and less construction time.

[Zonie]

Regarding AZ 85 as a route for I-11, I don't think the agricultural uses of the Gila Valley are a factor.  On the aerial view, it looks like the AZ 85 right of way west of Buckey passes through irrigated area, but the right of way is already wide enough for an interstate.  Farther south, AZ 85 passes through hills east of the irrigated land.  Very, very little land would be lost if an interchange was needed.

However, once real estate development interests get lined up, it's very hard to do it another way just because it would fulfill the stated purpose of access from Mexico to the intermountain west just as well for less money and less construction time.

Right.  From about Broadway Road to Hazen Road, there's between 200 and 300 feet between NB and SB SR 85.  One could easily place a mainline freeway in between that, and use the existing road(s) as frontage roads.

[silverback1065]

any chance this will follow us 60 all the way to i-17 in the phoenix area?

[sparker]

any chance this will follow us 60 all the way to i-17 in the phoenix area?

Probably not, for the reasons (developer preference) given previously.  But if the Hassayampa option, for some reason, is rejected, it's possible that something down US 60 as far as Loop 303 might be a possibility; given the density of the area inside the loop, there's not much place to put an Interstate-grade facility without serious use of eminent domain (and that doesn't go over too well in the region given the reaction to property taking for the South Mountain freeway -- best not to poke that hornets' nest too often!).  At least once on Loop 303, I-10's just a few miles south. 

[Bobby5280]

Between AZ-303 and AZ-101:
I don't think there's enough space unless one of two options is used.
1. Relocate the rail line elsewhere, freeing up space for an at-grade freeway
2. Build a new elevated freeway over the existing rail line and at-grade US-60.

Inside the AZ-101 loop space gets really tight. An elevated freeway is probably the only workable solution to upgrade US-60 to freeway standards all the way to I-17 near downtown. Urban elevated freeways are very unpopular politically speaking. The current divided street with some hybrid intersections featuring main line overpasses or underpasses is about as good at that street will get for the foreseeable future.

[silverback1065]

they should at least fix that stupid zig-zag 60 does at 17. 

[Roadwarriors79]

they should at least fix that stupid zig-zag 60 does at 17.

That zig-zag is the "fix". A long time ago, it was a six-way at-grade intersection between Thomas Rd, Grand Ave and 27th Ave.

[KeithE4Phx]

they should at least fix that stupid zig-zag 60 does at 17.

That zig-zag is the "fix". A long time ago, it was a six-way at-grade intersection between Thomas Rd, Grand Ave and 27th Ave.

A long time ago, all Grand Ave. intersections on the one-mile grids between 7th Ave/Van Buren and 75th Ave./Olive were six-way intersections.  So were some of the intersections on 1/2-mile grids.  If a train was on the adjacent Santa Fe track, things could really get screwed up. 

Also, US 60 left Grand Ave. and went south on 19th Ave. to I-17, where it was routed back on the freeway and then merged into I-10.  IIRC, the change to Thomas Rd. between I-17 and Grand happened about 15 years ago.

[kdk]

How much of US 93/Future I-11 between Kingman and the Colorado River is at Interstate standards?

Excluding the Kingman area, how much actually needs major work, and how much could be given an I-10 exemption for ranches and the like?

I just drove the route last week.  ADOT has been doing some work along this area to repave but also widen the shoulders along this route, they look to be up to interstate standards now, so from the state line down to around mile marker 30 the road is up to interstate standards.  There are two intersection still in this area- one is more/less a turnaround and the other is a road that says it goes to nowhere.  The old 93 route over the dam on the AZ side has an interchange as well as a scenic point on the west side.  Where the work stops though there are several truck stop/gas stations all with direct access to 93 which will need to be figured out.  South of that there is a lot of shoulder widening work and I think maybe 4 intersections that are actually used.  Not a lot of private access points surprisingly along this part.  The intersection at AZ 68 just north of Kingman was rebuilt as an interchange about 15 years ago.  So other than the actual Beale St bypass in Kingman at I-40 this portion there isn't a whole lot to do overall that I can see by driving the route.

Regarding AZ 85 as a route for I-11, I don't think the agricultural uses of the Gila Valley are a factor.  On the aerial view, it looks like the AZ 85 right of way west of Buckey passes through irrigated area, but the right of way is already wide enough for an interstate.  Farther south, AZ 85 passes through hills east of the irrigated land.  Very, very little land would be lost if an interchange was needed.

However, once real estate development interests get lined up, it's very hard to do it another way just because it would fulfill the stated purpose of access from Mexico to the intermountain west just as well for less money and less construction time.

Right.  From about Broadway Road to Hazen Road, there's between 200 and 300 feet between NB and SB SR 85.  One could easily place a mainline freeway in between that, and use the existing road(s) as frontage roads.

Actually a lot of planning of 85 has been done as far back as the mid 1980's into making it into a freeway.  One interesting thing is about 4 years ago just immediately north of Gila Bend, there was the old T intersection with Maricopa Road.  That was all redone and it seems odd that if you are traveling on 85 northbound this new configuration essentially takes you directly onto Maricopa Road now and you have to make a left turn to get back onto 85 north.  It didn't make any sense until I saw that this was to accomodate an elevated overpass of 85 and these new roads will become the ramps to get either into Gila Bend or to exit onto Maricopa Road.  You can kind of see it now on an aerial but when I saw the future plan it made sense all of the sudden.

[kdk]

Inside the AZ-101 loop space gets really tight. An elevated freeway is probably the only workable solution to upgrade US-60 to freeway standards all the way to I-17 near downtown. Urban elevated freeways are very unpopular politically speaking. The current divided street with some hybrid intersections featuring main line overpasses or underpasses is about as good at that street will get for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, this Grand Ave freeway idea was tried back in the late 80's early 90's, and it was too expensive and unpopular back then  I can't see it ever being resurrected.  The hybrid idea you mention was the compromise they settled on, and even that isn't even completely done, with Bell Road finally just getting finished.

[sparker]

Inside the AZ-101 loop space gets really tight. An elevated freeway is probably the only workable solution to upgrade US-60 to freeway standards all the way to I-17 near downtown. Urban elevated freeways are very unpopular politically speaking. The current divided street with some hybrid intersections featuring main line overpasses or underpasses is about as good at that street will get for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, this Grand Ave freeway idea was tried back in the late 80's early 90's, and it was too expensive and unpopular back then  I can't see it ever being resurrected.  The hybrid idea you mention was the compromise they settled on, and even that isn't even completely done, with Bell Road finally just getting finished.

For these very reasons it is unlikely, in the event that I-11 is routed along US 60 SE of Wickenburg, that it will reach beyond Loop 303; south via 303 is the most effectual way to access I-10 -- and it's planned to go considerably farther south than that -- it could readily be extended to the diagonal alignment proposed for I-11 via the Hassayampa routing.  Now whether such a route would get a fair hearing with all the noise from planners & developers in the outlying area remains to be seen.     

[mrsman]

Agreed with many of the responses here.  I-11 probably should not go any further than AZ 303.  The qn remains as to whether a signing of I-11 all the way from AZ 303 to at least Las Vegas should have the efffect of truncating US 93 in Las Vegas, truncating US 60 to Tempe, and renumbering the orphaned sections of US 60 (AZ 303-I-17 and Wickenburg to Quartzsite) as two separate state highways.  If there is no reason to designate the Grand Ave corridor (between I-17 and AZ 303) as a section of I-11, there is really no reason to direct interregional traffic down that corridor either.  All interregional traffic heading to Pheonix and further east should use 303 to I-10, and the signage should indicate as such.  Grand Ave, even with its improvements should be left for locals.

[sparker]

Agreed with many of the responses here.  I-11 probably should not go any further than AZ 303.  The qn remains as to whether a signing of I-11 all the way from AZ 303 to at least Las Vegas should have the efffect of truncating US 93 in Las Vegas, truncating US 60 to Tempe, and renumbering the orphaned sections of US 60 (AZ 303-I-17 and Wickenburg to Quartzsite) as two separate state highways.  If there is no reason to designate the Grand Ave corridor (between I-17 and AZ 303) as a section of I-11, there is really no reason to direct interregional traffic down that corridor either.  All interregional traffic heading to Pheonix and further east should use 303 to I-10, and the signage should indicate as such.  Grand Ave, even with its improvements should be left for locals.

Actually the concept evoked in several posts including my own, was that the optimal path for I-11 was following US 60 down to Loop 303, then actually replacing 303 south of that junction to I-10.  At that point, it would be up to AZDOT and its political handlers whether it should extend south and eventually southeast to Casa Grande as an effective Phoenix bypass.  But I do agree that if this should happen, US 60 should be truncated to its junction with I-10 near Tempe and AZ 74 should replace the portion of US 60 west of Wickenburg.  US 93 would be truncated back to its junction with I-15 northeast of Las Vegas (the Garnet interchange that's the subject of another thread).  As far as Grand Avenue inside the 303 loop is concerned, that could be relinquished to the local jurisdictions -- or revert back to its pre-1970's designation as part of a revived AZ 93 if for some reason AZDOT elects to retain control and maintenance.  But all that is speculation until the final I-11 routing in the metro area -- and whether it is defined as an interregional connector, a vehicle for regional development, or both -- is resolved. 

[The Ghostbuster]

Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.

[sparker]

Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.

It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop.  While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.

[roadfro]

Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.

It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop.  While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.

Probably better if this were posted in the BC Bypass thread in Pacific Southwest, but anyway...  There are no plans to make alterations to this interchange. My question is: What does NDOT plan to do numbering wise with the existing segment of US 95 between this diamond interchange and the new interchange with I-11 (since US 95 will be rerouted off this segment onto the bypass)?

[sparker]

Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.

It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop.  While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.

Probably better if this were posted in the BC Bypass thread in Pacific Southwest, but anyway...  There are no plans to make alterations to this interchange. My question is: What does NDOT plan to do numbering wise with the existing segment of US 95 between this diamond interchange and the new interchange with I-11 (since US 95 will be rerouted off this segment onto the bypass)?

Unless NDOT allows "spur" designations (i.e., "95 SPUR"), it might just become its own 3ds number, batched with others in the area.  Question: is the US 93 business loop retained within the state highway system, and has it been assigned a "silent" number for the purposes of maintenance and ID?

[roadfro]

Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.

It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop.  While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.

Probably better if this were posted in the BC Bypass thread in Pacific Southwest, but anyway...  There are no plans to make alterations to this interchange. My question is: What does NDOT plan to do numbering wise with the existing segment of US 95 between this diamond interchange and the new interchange with I-11 (since US 95 will be rerouted off this segment onto the bypass)?

Unless NDOT allows "spur" designations (i.e., "95 SPUR"), it might just become its own 3ds number, batched with others in the area.  Question: is the US 93 business loop retained within the state highway system, and has it been assigned a "silent" number for the purposes of maintenance and ID?

NDOT a does not currently have a spur (only US Alt, Bus, and one Truck route not recognized by AASHTO), but maps indicate there was an ALT US 95 SPUR in Fernley once upon a time.

The 2018 NDOT route log hasn't been made available yet. I imagine the Boulder City business route will likely retained as a hidden state highway, at least for now.

[Strider]

Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.

[sparker]

Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.

I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined.  I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95.  Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas.  The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected.  In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.

[Hurricane Rex]

Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.

I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined.  I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95.  Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas.  The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected.  In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.

Couldn't they just sign it as "Temporary I-11?" I don't know if that is possible.

[roadfro]

Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.

I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined.  I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95.  Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas.  The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected.  In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.

This is covered more in the similar thread on the Pacific Southwest board, but to summarize: Nevada DOT has launched a study of the three corridors Sparker listed above, which were identified as part of the overall I-11 study (I'm not aware of a timetable for study completion). NDOT has received AASHTO approval to sign I-11 over I-515 south of the I-215 interchange (even though, if the east route is taken, most of that stretch will not ultimately become I-11), but they won't be changing signs until the whole Boulder City Bypass project is completed later this year.

[Strider]

Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.

I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined.  I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95.  Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas.  The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected.  In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.

Oh I see.. Okay. Appreciate you telling me that. *thumbs up*

[The Ghostbuster]

I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!