Interstate 11

[brad2971]

Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway

https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg

4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.

I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit.  These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.

http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp

And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.

But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.

[Max Rockatansky]

Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway

https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg

4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.

I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit.  These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.

http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp

And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.

But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.

They should have called "Spruce Goose Ranch."  

[707]

Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway

https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg

4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.

I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit.  These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.

http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp

And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.

But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.

Honestly, they should have just kept it US 89 to US 93. I know about the I-40 concurrency, but still. If you're going to keep it the same number like that, it doesn't make much sense to downgrade it. They kept US 60 between  Brenda and Phoenix, after all.

[Max Rockatansky]

Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway

https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg

4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.

I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit.  These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.

http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp

And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.

But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.

Honestly, they should have just kept it US 89 to US 93. I know about the I-40 concurrency, but still. If you're going to keep it the same number like that, it doesn't make much sense to downgrade it. They kept US 60 between  Brenda and Phoenix, after all.

I seem to recall ADOT wanted to getting rid of the branching US 89 and US 89A south of Flagstaff.  I'm to understand that AASHTO had misgivings about having mainline US 89 go through Jerome and Arizona ended up asking for a total decommissioning instead.  I don't know if that is captured in the AASHTO notes but I heard said story numerous times when I lived in Arizona.

[707]

I seem to recall ADOT wanted to getting rid of the branching US 89 and US 89A south of Flagstaff.  I'm to understand that AASHTO had misgivings about having mainline US 89 go through Jerome and Arizona ended up asking for a total decommissioning instead.  I don't know if that is captured in the AASHTO notes but I heard said story numerous times when I lived in Arizona.

There were also a few times AASHTO denied requests from Arizona, even though California had done similar ones. Refusing to extend US 93 to Nogales being one and refusing time and time again to let Arizona have US 93 from Kingman to Wickenburg, while they had no issue with US 60 and US 70 being totally concurrent between Globe and LA for the benefit of California. I have to wonder if similar actions were at play here?

[Scott5114]

But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.

I believe they were responsible for the initial construction of Summerlin Parkway in the Las Vegas area as an expressway, which later got passed off to the City of Las Vegas and then NDOT as NV 613 (which got upgraded to freeway somewhere between the time Hughes handed it over and the present).

If they did something similar, where Hughes built an expressway in the preferred ROW and then let ADOT handle the bridge and interchange work, that wouldn't be too bad a deal for the state, I would think.

[kernals12]

You guys want a good laugh? The Center for Biological Diversity put out a "report" claiming that the building of I-11 will cause 2.8 million people along with suburban homes and SUVs to appear out of the aether in the middle of the Sonora Desert and their water consumption will dry the state out

Among the report's findings:

Population in growth areas would soar more than 10 times from roughly 220,500 people to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona's population by a third.
Water use would increase more than 10-fold, from 33,593 acre-feet of water per year to 396,400 acre-feet per year. That's 2,774,800 acre-feet every seven years, roughly Arizona's entire annual Colorado River allotment.
At least one area, metropolitan Phoenix's West Valley, lacks enough water to support the development Interstate 11 is proposing to serve.
The highway's environmental analysis doesn't consider how much water demand it could induce or whether there's enough water to support these growth areas.

This is ridiculous for 3 reasons
1. They have cause and effect confused; the highway is planned where it is to serve new development that would in all odds be built with or without the highway
2. They ignore that much of the land these homes will be built on already guzzles water; it's farmland
3. They assume that people won't change their behavior in response to water shortages. Arizona already requires developers have a 100 year supply of water guaranteed before they can build. Developers have already eschewed lawns for cacti and if things get bad enough, they'll start including greywater recycling systems and rainwater harvesting

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm still stuck on why I-11 west of the White Tanks is necessary to begin with.

[kkt]

You guys want a good laugh? The Center for Biological Diversity put out a "report" claiming that the building of I-11 will cause 2.8 million people along with suburban homes and SUVs to appear out of the aether in the middle of the Sonora Desert and their water consumption will dry the state out

Among the report's findings:

Population in growth areas would soar more than 10 times from roughly 220,500 people to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona's population by a third.
Water use would increase more than 10-fold, from 33,593 acre-feet of water per year to 396,400 acre-feet per year. That's 2,774,800 acre-feet every seven years, roughly Arizona's entire annual Colorado River allotment.
At least one area, metropolitan Phoenix's West Valley, lacks enough water to support the development Interstate 11 is proposing to serve.
The highway's environmental analysis doesn't consider how much water demand it could induce or whether there's enough water to support these growth areas.

This is ridiculous for 3 reasons
1. They have cause and effect confused; the highway is planned where it is to serve new development that would in all odds be built with or without the highway
2. They ignore that much of the land these homes will be built on already guzzles water; it's farmland
3. They assume that people won't change their behavior in response to water shortages. Arizona already requires developers have a 100 year supply of water guaranteed before they can build. Developers have already eschewed lawns for cacti and if things get bad enough, they'll start including greywater recycling systems and rainwater harvesting

1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built. 

2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either.  But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.

3.  People change their behavior if forced, for instance by denying new water hookups and not building freeways to serve new subdivisions that there isn't enough water to serve.  The 100 year water supply requirement has no effective enforcement - developers get away with picking the wettest years since weather records have been kept, and claiming that those wet years will continue forever in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  Getting rid of the lawns is a start, but all those people the developers want to sell houses to will still want baths every day, flush toilets, and laundry.  Things are already bad enough but greywater recycling has not and will not be accepted until it is mandatory.  I don't think there's enough rainwater to harvest.

[Bobby5280]

I'm still stuck on why I-11 west of the White Tanks is necessary to begin with.

I-11 way out West of the White Tanks is 100% about helping real estate developers sell proposed projects way out there. It serves zero other purpose.

If it was up to me I-11 would be routed along US-60 from Wickenburg to the AZ-303 interchange and routed on AZ-303 down to I-10. The primary purpose of I-11 is to directly connect Las Vegas to Phoenix. Not do a Las Vegas to some bum-f*** point way West of Phoenix. Either freaking way, US-60 needs to be brought up to Interstate standards between Wickenburg and Sun City. Such a thing is still do-able as long as space next to the existing 4-lane road remains somewhat clear. If the powers that be fart around too long eventually developers will hug a bunch of new buildings and other crap right up next to the road. Then it won't be any different than US-60 inside of AZ-303 or AZ-101. Except there would probably be more stop lights and none of those intersection overpasses.

[Max Rockatansky]

I fail to see the purpose of the real estate grab in general west of the White Tanks.  There is way better places to develop land still east of the White Tanks and it's largely bounded by US 60, AZ 74 and AZ 303.  But yes, let's placate the fantastical real estate speculation that Buckeye has promised for decades but yet has come to fruition.  So yeah, forcing I-11 into an undesirable corridor that Buckeye is pushing seems at best questionable.  The obvious corridor for I-11 ought to have been US 60 and AZ 303 to I-10.

[sprjus4]

1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built. 

Development is going to occur in suburban / exurban areas of a major city, whether or not a freeway or high quality roadway is built. The difference is that, in areas of poor planning, narrow 2 lane country roads will be serving the traffic load from tens of thousands of new homes, as opposed to a proper 4 lane widening or freeway.

No proper infrastructure will just lead to more dangerous roadways and traffic congestion.

[Max Rockatansky]

1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built. 

Development is going to occur in suburban / exurban areas of a major city, whether or not a freeway or high quality roadway is built. The difference is that, in areas of poor planning, narrow 2 lane country roads will be serving the traffic load from tens of thousands of new homes, as opposed to a proper 4 lane widening or freeway.

No proper infrastructure will just lead to more dangerous roadways and traffic congestion.

Buckeye annexed much of the land in the I-11 corridor long ago.  It has been pretty clear for awhile nothing was getting built unless the state threw them a bone and built a major highway out west of the White Tanks. 

Similarly you can observe large swaths of empty desert in the Peoria and Goodyear.  Likewise, nobody is building anything unless the state chips in with a new state highway corridor.

[Scott5114]

1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built. 

Developers say hold my beer and . . . There's every possibility that development will happen either way, just without a freeway. (Or possibly still with, just not as part of I-11–as mentioned upthread apparently the Howard Hughes Corporation is involved, and they've straight up built an expressway themselves as part of a development before.)

2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either.  But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.

My understanding is that the average acre of residential development uses less water than the average acre of farmland. It's not like anyone is proposing high-density NYC-style living out there.

(And in many cases, it's actually easier to restrict residential water usage than agricultural. Ag users often have senior water rights attached to the parcel that entitle them to a certain allocation of water ahead of other users. These users get their water directly from canals, rivers, or groundwater.  Residential users often do not have water rights at all, or at least don't exercise them, in favor of obtaining water from a water utility, where it's a lot easier to set restrictions.)

Things are already bad enough but greywater recycling has not and will not be accepted until it is mandatory.

Maybe it's not "greywater recycling" according to the exact definition of the term, but you can do some amazing stuff with a central sewage treatment plant. On average the same water goes through the Las Vegas municipal water system something like 16 times before it makes it past Hoover Dam. At that point, the only behavioral issues you need to correct are getting people to not do things like water lawns and wash cars in their driveways since those types of water usage cannot be recaptured. (Las Vegas has more or less banned both of these, and water inspectors drive around looking for violators.)

[kernals12]

You guys want a good laugh? The Center for Biological Diversity put out a "report" claiming that the building of I-11 will cause 2.8 million people along with suburban homes and SUVs to appear out of the aether in the middle of the Sonora Desert and their water consumption will dry the state out

Among the report's findings:

Population in growth areas would soar more than 10 times from roughly 220,500 people to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona's population by a third.
Water use would increase more than 10-fold, from 33,593 acre-feet of water per year to 396,400 acre-feet per year. That's 2,774,800 acre-feet every seven years, roughly Arizona's entire annual Colorado River allotment.
At least one area, metropolitan Phoenix's West Valley, lacks enough water to support the development Interstate 11 is proposing to serve.
The highway's environmental analysis doesn't consider how much water demand it could induce or whether there's enough water to support these growth areas.

This is ridiculous for 3 reasons
1. They have cause and effect confused; the highway is planned where it is to serve new development that would in all odds be built with or without the highway
2. They ignore that much of the land these homes will be built on already guzzles water; it's farmland
3. They assume that people won't change their behavior in response to water shortages. Arizona already requires developers have a 100 year supply of water guaranteed before they can build. Developers have already eschewed lawns for cacti and if things get bad enough, they'll start including greywater recycling systems and rainwater harvesting

1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built. 

2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either.  But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.

3.  People change their behavior if forced, for instance by denying new water hookups and not building freeways to serve new subdivisions that there isn't enough water to serve.  The 100 year water supply requirement has no effective enforcement - developers get away with picking the wettest years since weather records have been kept, and claiming that those wet years will continue forever in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  Getting rid of the lawns is a start, but all those people the developers want to sell houses to will still want baths every day, flush toilets, and laundry.  Things are already bad enough but greywater recycling has not and will not be accepted until it is mandatory.  I don't think there's enough rainwater to harvest.

In the 1970s, there was a city that said they could keep people out if they didn't build any freeways. By 1985, it became clear that development was happening anyways and so freeways were needed. That city was Phoenix.

[kernals12]

I'm still stuck on why I-11 west of the White Tanks is necessary to begin with.

I-11 way out West of the White Tanks is 100% about helping real estate developers sell proposed projects way out there. It serves zero other purpose.

If it was up to me I-11 would be routed along US-60 from Wickenburg to the AZ-303 interchange and routed on AZ-303 down to I-10. The primary purpose of I-11 is to directly connect Las Vegas to Phoenix. Not do a Las Vegas to some bum-f*** point way West of Phoenix. Either freaking way, US-60 needs to be brought up to Interstate standards between Wickenburg and Sun City. Such a thing is still do-able as long as space next to the existing 4-lane road remains somewhat clear. If the powers that be fart around too long eventually developers will hug a bunch of new buildings and other crap right up next to the road. Then it won't be any different than US-60 inside of AZ-303 or AZ-101. Except there would probably be more stop lights and none of those intersection overpasses.

That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.

[roadman65]

Florida is proof that you can develop without freeways.  That is why our two lane roads are overcapacity and years away before money can allocate to widening those roads.

Plus our interstates are crowded more than they can handle.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop.  That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be.  This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.

I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea.  Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles.  The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million.  By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley.  If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.

[kernals12]

I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop.  That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be.  This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.

I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea.  Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles.  The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million.  By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley.  If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.

As I recall, you said you moved *to* Florida to get *away from* the shady real estate tactics in Arizona.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop.  That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be.  This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.

I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea.  Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles.  The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million.  By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley.  If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.

As I recall, you said you moved *to* Florida to get *away from* the shady real estate tactics in Arizona.

Yes, certainly was a contributing factor.  I wasn't interested in living in Gilbert or moving to Southern California with my employer at during that time.  I did had a transfer lined up for the El Paso/Las Cruces area but that fell through. 

I ultimately ended up taking a Federal in job in Florida instead and transferred around with it on several paid relocations (which is how I ended up in Fresno).  Florida definitely had its merits, especially with inland home pricing.  Trouble was for me I found Florida incredibly dull and got bored with it.  Fortunately I got into the housing market in Fresno before it became a hot spot to relocate to.  Ideally I would like to eventually end up either in southern Oregon, western Nevada or the two places I mentioned already in Arizona come the retirement wind down. 

Fair chance I would have relocated to Washington State by now if I hadn't met my now wife.  Our financial, pension and mortgage situation is way too stable for the time being to consider changing much. 

[nexus73]

Klamath Falls is the best place to be in the post-quake environment after the Cascadia Subduction Zone breaks loose.  Kingsley AFB will be getting supplies and equipment flown in so you will have a chance to be saved.

Rick

[Sub-Urbanite]

Klamath Falls is the best place to be in the post-quake environment after the Cascadia Subduction Zone breaks loose.  Kingsley AFB will be getting supplies and equipment flown in so you will have a chance to be saved.

Rick

I believe most of the operational plans envision Redmond Airport as the hub for supply distribution because of its proximity to the Willamette Valley and adjacent rail line. Kingsley might play some role though.

[Bobby5280]

That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.

Are you referring to the Massachusetts Turnpike, the I-95 half loop or I-495 outer half loop? Either way I-90 and I-93 both reach and/or go thru Downtown Boston. And Boston has limited access highway links directly to the other major population centers in that region.

By contrast, I-11 can't even do the basic thing if directly linking the Las Vegas and Phoenix metros. I-11 does get into Las Vegas (and will likely consume I-515). But the proposed route for I-11 gets down to Wickenburg and takes a stupid detour.

[brad2971]

That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.

Are you referring to the Massachusetts Turnpike, the I-95 half loop or I-495 outer half loop? Either way I-90 and I-93 both reach and/or go thru Downtown Boston. And Boston has limited access highway links directly to the other major population centers in that region.

By contrast, I-11 can't even do the basic thing if directly linking the Las Vegas and Phoenix metros. I-11 does get into Las Vegas (and will likely consume I-515). But the proposed route for I-11 gets down to Wickenburg and takes a stupid detour.

1. What is so stupid about having I-11 go straight south from the current end of the four-lane US 93 between SR 71 and SR 89 down to I-10? (Bear in mind, ADOT is advertising right now for a DCR report that will show how this will work.) Part of this new-terrain I-11 is going to go through the western part of Teravalis, so there is a development justification (sort of) for it.

2. If one is so worried about "overloading" I-10 east of where I-11 will intersect it west of Buckeye, keep in mind all ADOT would have to do is 6-lane I-10 from that I-11 junction to SR 85. Especially since the section of I-10 from Verrado Way to SR 85 is just about finished with its own 6-laning project.

[J N Winkler]

2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either.  But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.

My understanding is that the average acre of residential development uses less water than the average acre of farmland. It's not like anyone is proposing high-density NYC-style living out there.

(And in many cases, it's actually easier to restrict residential water usage than agricultural. Ag users often have senior water rights attached to the parcel that entitle them to a certain allocation of water ahead of other users. These users get their water directly from canals, rivers, or groundwater.  Residential users often do not have water rights at all, or at least don't exercise them, in favor of obtaining water from a water utility, where it's a lot easier to set restrictions.)

The stylized fact is that, in areas subject to the prior appropriation doctrine, cities eventually buy up a large share of the senior water rights in order to guarantee their residents' water supply.  Pueblo has done this in the Arkansas River valley, for example, so the water allocation fights in that basin pit farmers in eastern Colorado with junior rights against counterparts in western Kansas with senior rights.

As agriculture typically operates at low margins and is an extensive rather than intensive land use, cities tend to have the capacity to buy out farmers, as Los Angeles (in)famously did in the Owens Valley.

AIUI, Arizona is a bit of a special case since Native tribes are among the biggest agricultural water users.