New push for I-11 (LV to Phoenix)

[TheStranger]

A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.

Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73)

However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.

[Quillz]

A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.

Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73)

However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.

That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.

But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.

[TheStranger]

A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.

Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73)

However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.

That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.

But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.

I'd say 238 was more "California insists they don't want to renumber Route 180" (which I actually fully understand - 180 dates back to 1934!) than AASHTO simply happily giving CalTrans the designation.  Having said that, there are enough examples of DOTs ignoring AASHTO directives in the present day (US 49W's realignment in Mississippi, much of US 377's existence in Oklahoma).

[Brandon]

A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.

Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73)

However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.

That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.

But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.

I'd say 238 was more "California insists they don't want to renumber Route 180" (which I actually fully understand - 180 dates back to 1934!) than AASHTO simply happily giving CalTrans the designation.  Having said that, there are enough examples of DOTs ignoring AASHTO directives in the present day (US 49W's realignment in Mississippi, much of US 377's existence in Oklahoma).

In other words, CalTrans was merely being lazy.  What's wrong with having C-180 and I-180?  They're two entirely different routes.  One's on a green spade, and one's on a red/white/blue interstate shield.

[TheStranger]

In other words, CalTrans was merely being lazy.  What's wrong with having C-180 and I-180?  They're two entirely different routes.  One's on a green spade, and one's on a red/white/blue interstate shield.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but since 1964, route duplication has not been allowed in California - this is what forced US 40 and US 80 on opposite sides of the state to be decomissioned, and caused the renumberings of pre-1964 state routes 5, 8, 10, and 15.

[Quillz]

A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.

Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73)

However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.

That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.

But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.

I'd say 238 was more "California insists they don't want to renumber Route 180" (which I actually fully understand - 180 dates back to 1934!) than AASHTO simply happily giving CalTrans the designation.  Having said that, there are enough examples of DOTs ignoring AASHTO directives in the present day (US 49W's realignment in Mississippi, much of US 377's existence in Oklahoma).

In other words, CalTrans was merely being lazy.  What's wrong with having C-180 and I-180?  They're two entirely different routes.  One's on a green spade, and one's on a red/white/blue interstate shield.

California is perhaps more anal than other states about not having duplicate routes in any part of the state, even if they were separated by 800+ miles and one was tiny while one was long.

[Revive 755]

Article today from the Las Vegas paper has I-11 being planned to run from Phoenix to Seattle:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/08/transportation-expert-says-las-vegas-could-become-/

(~10th paragraph)

[corco]

Article today from the Las Vegas paper has I-11 being planned to run from Phoenix to Seattle:

That....I can't see that happening

[Grzrd]

Article today from the Las Vegas paper has I-11 being planned to run from Phoenix to Seattle:

That....I can't see that happening

Here's an interesting Sept. 9 editorial comparing I-11 connecting Punta Colonet in Mexico to Canada (through Phoenix, Las Vegas and Seattle) to ongoing I-69 battles: (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/highway-project-102517649.html)  Bottom line: if anything does happen, it will take a loooooong time.....

[Bickendan]

Well, that's an understatement.

But I'm with corco on this -- I doubt ODOT's heard about this at all, and for the route described, either has I-11 going north along US 395 from Reno to Hermiston then taking over I-82, or following US 95 all the way toward Boise and doubling on I-84 then I-82. Um.

[Stephane Dumas]

Ending I-11 at Seattle, a good idea on paper but the NIMBYs will prevail. I would instead re-alignate I-11 in Washington along US-97 to link with the Okanagan valley area in BC. Kelowna's population growed a lot recently.

[Bickendan]

It would be tough to feasibly upgrade BC 97 through the Okanagan Valley, but I see where you're driving at. I'm going to mull this over -- an upgraded BC 97 from the border to BC 97C would vastly improve on travel times to Kamloops and say Prince George... if the BC 5/97C interchange ever gets built.

[Quillz]

I read elsewhere a potential idea of merging I-17 and I-19 together as one longer Interstate that could follow US-89 to at least Salt Lake City, where it would meet I-15. It could potentially be numbered I-21, or they could keep either 17 or 19. The idea was that there would be a long concurrency with I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.

[thenetwork]

I read elsewhere a potential idea of merging I-17 and I-19 together as one longer Interstate that could follow US-89 to at least Salt Lake City, where it would meet I-15. It could potentially be numbered I-21, or they could keep either 17 or 19. The idea was that there would be a long concurrency with I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.

When I was in Tucson in '09, there was a group or government entity pushing for a parallel freeway west of I-10 between Tucson & Phoenix which would bypass the latter.  If that ever came to fruition, I-19 could parallel I-10 North of Tucson until it meets I-10 &/or I-11 west of Phoenix.

[Sykotyk]

The best scenario would be to bypass Tucson halfway between US70/US60 and I-10 to end near I-8. Follow I-8 and build up the Phoenix Bypass around Gila Bend and AZ 85 (which is almost a full freeway from I-10 to Gila Bend).

Avoid both cities. And build the road in such a fashion that extra capacity for more lanes will not be overtly costly.

Sykotyk

[agentsteel53]

The best scenario would be to bypass Tucson

the word you are looking for is not "bypass".  It is "delete".  Few cities in the US are a greater blight upon the landscape.  (Most said blights are in Arizona - Chandler, anyone?)

[Bickendan]

The best scenario would be to bypass Tucson halfway between US70/US60 and I-10 to end near I-8. Follow I-8 and build up the Phoenix Bypass around Gila Bend and AZ 85 (which is almost a full freeway from I-10 to Gila Bend).

Avoid both cities. And build the road in such a fashion that extra capacity for more lanes will not be overtly costly.

Sykotyk

Only if built in Metric.

[Landshark]

But I'm with corco on this -- I doubt ODOT's heard about this at all, and for the route described, either has I-11 going north along US 395 from Reno to Hermiston then taking over I-82, or following US 95 all the way toward Boise and doubling on I-84 then I-82. Um.

I read somewhere that that is the idea.   Basically that means upgrading US-95 between NW Las Vegas and I-84 near Boise.  If I-11 terminates at I-84, it later could be used north to Coeur d'Alene, if that ever is upgraded to interstate standards.