Interstate 11

[US 41]

Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.

That's a pretty lame excuse for spending millions of dollars to upgrade something that was perfectly fine to start with. First off drunk driving is illegal. Second if you are too tired to watch for traffic then you need to go to bed, not drive down the highway.

There are only 3 towns in Arizona between the NV state line and US 60 (201 miles) along US 93 that show up on my map: Kingman (28,393), Wikieup (305), Wickenburg (6,604). At this point I can't even justify widening US 93 in the places it's still only 2 lanes. I honestly hope after reading the info I gave everyone on AARoads that everyone can realize how dumb I-11 really is.

The following link is what US 93 looks like about 10 miles north of Wickenburg. Now tell me that an interstate is needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HxZg3

Sure, not looking as you pull into traffic is stupid, but greater safety does come from reducing people's opportunity to do stupid things.  A freeway could also justify a higher speed limit.

It looks like Nevada is for it in the hopes that it'll bring a little more tourism to Las Vegas, and Arizona is for it mostly because they want to make a loop freeway around Phoenix and parallel to I-10 and for some reason don't want to use a state route number or I-x10 number for it.  Kingman-Boulder Dam is just along for the ride.  It's how sausage is made.

True. I don't think Las Vegas is lacking in the tourism department. AZ 83 makes a decent bypass for Phoenix, but I suppose a southeast bypass that is closer to Phoenix would be beneficial to the area. My experience is that western US driving is very easy. I live in a medium sized city with a population of 60,000. It's not really that big of a deal to me. Out west however a city of 60,000 is like a booming metropolis. I feel like if you get in an accident in rural areas out west it's your fault for not paying attention, not the DOT's. The western US is the only place I've ever been that you can see what's coming 5 or more miles ahead. I hope to one day move to the northeastern part of New Mexico. Based on my travels out west the only places interstates are actually needed is through the mountains and in decent sized cities. Anywhere else 4 lane highways with at-grade intersections are perfectly fine. I guess I should also get this straight too; when I talk about west I'm mostly talking about Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (desert regions). Maybe southwest would be the better word.

[roadman65]

Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.

That's a pretty lame excuse for spending millions of dollars to upgrade something that was perfectly fine to start with. First off drunk driving is illegal. Second if you are too tired to watch for traffic then you need to go to bed, not drive down the highway.

There are only 3 towns in Arizona between the NV state line and US 60 (201 miles) along US 93 that show up on my map: Kingman (28,393), Wikieup (305), Wickenburg (6,604). At this point I can't even justify widening US 93 in the places it's still only 2 lanes. I honestly hope after reading the info I gave everyone on AARoads that everyone can realize how dumb I-11 really is.

The following link is what US 93 looks like about 10 miles north of Wickenburg. Now tell me that an interstate is needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HxZg3

Sure, not looking as you pull into traffic is stupid, but greater safety does come from reducing people's opportunity to do stupid things.  A freeway could also justify a higher speed limit.

It looks like Nevada is for it in the hopes that it'll bring a little more tourism to Las Vegas, and Arizona is for it mostly because they want to make a loop freeway around Phoenix and parallel to I-10 and for some reason don't want to use a state route number or I-x10 number for it.  Kingman-Boulder Dam is just along for the ride.  It's how sausage is made.

True. I don't think Las Vegas is lacking in the tourism department. AZ 83 makes a decent bypass for Phoenix, but I suppose a southeast bypass that is closer to Phoenix would be beneficial to the area. My experience is that western US driving is very easy. I live in a medium sized city with a population of 60,000. It's not really that big of a deal to me. Out west however a city of 60,000 is like a booming metropolis. I feel like if you get in an accident in rural areas out west it's your fault for not paying attention, not the DOT's. The western US is the only place I've ever been that you can see what's coming 5 or more miles ahead. I hope to one day move to the northeastern part of New Mexico. Based on my travels out west the only places interstates are actually needed is through the mountains and in decent sized cities. Anywhere else 4 lane highways with at-grade intersections are perfectly fine. I guess I should also get this straight too; when I talk about west I'm mostly talking about Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (desert regions). Maybe southwest would be the better word.

You said it right, which is why I do not wish to see my tax money go to upgrading US 77 in Kenedy County, TX just to get an interstate route number.  Yes, that is not the west you refer to but its the same concept.  Four lane divided highways are just as good in rural areas in the west as interstates are.   Heck even in Texas the state does not discriminate against speed limits as their freeways and off freeways have the same speed limits.

[rickmastfan67]

I feel like if you get in an accident in rural areas out west it's your fault for not paying attention, not the DOT's.

What about drivers hitting big enough pot holes that force them to lose control and hit an oncoming car?

[roadfro]

I honestly feel like I-11 is totally unnecessary. It seems like someone is trying to play connect the dots (cities) with interstate highways. An interestate from Phoenix to Las Vegas is unnecessary and one from Las Vegas to Reno is just totally rediculous. There is not enough traffic out in the middle of the desert to justify building interstates. If they want to make all of US 93 4 lanes from Wickenburg to I-40 that's one thing, but to build overpasses and interchanges for roads that barely have any traffic is another. US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality, but it is good enough and should be left alone. ...

Isn't "connecting the dots" pretty much what they did with the Interstates to begin with though? What's the purpose of the Interstate system if not to connect population centers by high-quality roads? Phoenix and Las Vegas are the two largest metropolitan areas not already connected by Interstate highways. This routing is also part of the CANAMEX corridor established by NAFTA. (That agreement stipulated that this corridor would be minimum 4 lanes, and the Arizona/US 93 part is the vast majority of the corridor not meeting those minimums.) 

I will concur though that connection further north beyond Las Vegas does seem incredibly unnecessary at this time. But with Tesla and other developments pending in Northern Nevada, it is difficult to say whether or not the need may develop for a higher-quality north/south route. (Right now, making US 95 a divided highway, perhaps with bypasses of small towns and selected interchanges, would be sufficient.)

US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality

I believe the segment of US 93 from I-15 to I-215 is interstate quality as it is signed as I-515.

I also believe the Hoover Dam bypass and the currently under construction Boulder City Bypass are both being built to Interstate standards too.

US 93 is Interstate quality from I-15 south beyond I-215 to the southern urban limits of the Las Vegas area–the freeway downgrades at the end of the I-515 overlap, which is just north of the railroad crossing that is north of Railroad Pass. (**Note that the I-11 alignment in Las Vegas has not yet been selected, and may not follow I-515.)

The Hoover Dam Bypass and Boulder City Bypass were both designed to Interstate standards.

I-11 will likely be signed not long after the Boulder City bypass opens (and I-11 South in NV is complete).

Regarding first signing of I-11, it would take a change order to do that for the part of the Boulder City Bypass that is currently under construction.  However, I think a later phase (currently in design) could very well have I-11 signed on milemarkers at least.

I don't see I-11 signing happening any time soon, given the NDOT precedence of not signing I-515 and I-580 until they were mostly complete and made a logical connection in the system. I-515 was approved by AASHTO in 1976 and not signed until 1994. I-580 was approved in 1978 and not signed until 2012 (despite that a decent length of the spur to south Reno was completed by the late 1990s and had a logical terminus at SR 431, NDOT waited until the freeway was completed to US 50 in Carson City to sign it).

That said, NDOT has known for several years that the Boulder City Bypass would be part of I-11. However, NDOT's highway logs do not currently mention I-11 or count the future alignment of the bypass as I-11 or US 93. It's also possible that NDOT could milepost it as US 93, as they've done with I-515 using US 95's mileposts (although US 95 was preexisting).

[kkt]

Isn't "connecting the dots" pretty much what they did with the Interstates to begin with though?

They looked at what US highways were overcrowded and/or had inadequate clearances for large trucks or safety concerns.  Not just connect the dots.

What's the purpose of the Interstate system if not to connect population centers by high-quality roads? Phoenix and Las Vegas are the two largest metropolitan areas not already connected by Interstate highways. This routing is also part of the CANAMEX corridor established by NAFTA. (That agreement stipulated that this corridor would be minimum 4 lanes, and the Arizona/US 93 part is the vast majority of the corridor not meeting those minimums.) 

So 4-lane US 93.  Eliminating every right on-right off ranch road is pure pork.

[DJStephens]

FTFY, though your sentiment is echoed. Both highways are fully capable of handling the traffic they currently carry.

I-10 really isn't sufficient for current traffic volumes, let alone whatever it will be in 30 years. It needs 6 lanes the whole way between Phoenix and Tucson. That ought to hold it for a while, though, at least if Arizona is smart enough to ban trucks from the left lane.

There has been ongoing work to six lane the Interstate 10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix, although it has been progressing in fits and starts.  There are sections that are not done, such as just east of the Casa Grande area, that should have been done by now.  Would think that acquiring some additional ROW along the highway should be pursued, in some areas that are not yet highly developed, in order to perhaps have even an eight lane cross section with adequate rural median.  This would make a parallel Interstate 11 unneccesary. 

[andy3175]

Isn't "connecting the dots" pretty much what they did with the Interstates to begin with though? What's the purpose of the Interstate system if not to connect population centers by high-quality roads? Phoenix and Las Vegas are the two largest metropolitan areas not already connected by Interstate highways. This routing is also part of the CANAMEX corridor established by NAFTA. (That agreement stipulated that this corridor would be minimum 4 lanes, and the Arizona/US 93 part is the vast majority of the corridor not meeting those minimums.) 

I concur with this statement ... Interstate 11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas is overdue. It was needed when I first drove the corridor in 2003, and I believe it is needed today. The driveways and ranch roads along this route that require connection can be connected through a frontage road system. Each time I drove the route, I found ample trucks between US 60 and I-40, but there weren't as many between I-40 and Hoover Dam (in 2003, for example, trucks were detoured onto AZ 68, NV 163, and US 95). I-11 will still take years if not decades to complete between these two cities, and I don't think the conversion to Interstate standards will happen in a hurry. But it is nice to have a plan that gets to a goal of improving this highway corridor.

As for I-11 north of Las Vegas and south of Phoenix, I think there are two factors at play. North of Las Vegas is a function of long-distance haul traffic: Is there a plan to redirect north-south traffic off of I-5 and onto I-11? Will rail factor into this? South of Phoenix is connected to development plans of Pinal County and whether Pinal County will develop as Phoenix and Tucson have developed. I don't see why I-11 would have to make its way to Nogales since I-19 is already there, but I could see I-11 finding its way to another border crossing with Mexico if it must continue south ... perhaps via AZ 85?

Keep in mind any development of I-11 north of LV and south of Phoenix will take decades, and right now all of it is wishful thinking. But it is nice that someone at least has a partial plan given the explosive growth of the Desert Southwest over the past 50 years. Although water resources are a huge concern, there's also no evidence that people will stop moving there on that basis.

Finally, as for US 93 vs. I-11, I have a theory/opinion that is somewhat unpopular on this forum: As a US route reaches Interstate standards and logically connects to the Interstate system, the US route should be replaced with an Interstate route designation. US 93 can go away south of Apex, NV, once I-11 is fully developed and signed. This would clarify signage in downtown Las Vegas, for example.

Criteria for such a conversion (US route to Interstate route) could include: required connections to an Interstate at one or more endpoints, full Interstate design standards are met, and the former US route (or state route) can be eliminated without overlapping signage for miles. This is why I favored US 41 becoming I-41 (although I wanted US 41 to be unsigned under I-41), hope someday CA 99 becomes I-7 or I-9, and am glad to see NY 17 become I-86. Changes like these take years if not decades, but these routes provide logical access to various cities along their respective routes and offer alternatives to existing routes. I like US routes as much as the next guy, but I am not interested in keeping them once they make more sense as an Interstate highway.

[swbrotha100]

I-11 or not, ADOT has been planning to widen US 93 for years. It would be nice if the process got sped up a little, even if it's not interstate standard right away.

[noelbotevera]

Why aren't they using US 95 instead of US 93? Put I-11 through Kingman, but then shift it into California into Needles, back into Arizona via AZ 95, and last but not least - put it onto a southeast direction once it reaches Lake Havasu City. Either make a new alignment, or just give in and use US 93. It's gonna be a while.

[roadfro]

Why aren't they using US 95 instead of US 93? Put I-11 through Kingman, but then shift it into California into Needles, back into Arizona via AZ 95, and last but not least - put it onto a southeast direction once it reaches Lake Havasu City. Either make a new alignment, or just give in and use US 93. It's gonna be a while.

Because, relatively speaking, that is not where the traffic and need is. One of the major purposes for proposing I-11 in the first place was to connect the Phoenix and Las Vegas metro areas, and this would be a circuitous way to do that.

The plan is to use US 93 for the bulk of the initial alignment. It's in the urban areas where the alignment is in question.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Not to get too far off topic, but this points out two issues that would be too expensive to undo, but would have been great if someone had had a crystal ball:

• Routing US 93 WNW from Wickenburg, up the Bill Williams Valley and then going north from Lake Havasu City. Alternately, routing US 93 WNW from Nothing and connecting it to US 66/I-40 south of Yucca.
• Routing I-40 northwest from Kingman, crossing the Colorado River near Cottonwood Cove, then multiplexing with/ending at I-15 near Mountain Pass.

Not saying anyone could have possibly predicted the growth patterns that would have made either of these make sense, but in retrospect, it would have shaved some distance off of the projects the states are trying to tackle now.

Why aren't they using US 95 instead of US 93? Put I-11 through Kingman, but then shift it into California into Needles, back into Arizona via AZ 95, and last but not least - put it onto a southeast direction once it reaches Lake Havasu City. Either make a new alignment, or just give in and use US 93. It's gonna be a while.

Because, relatively speaking, that is not where the traffic and need is. One of the major purposes for proposing I-11 in the first place was to connect the Phoenix and Las Vegas metro areas, and this would be a circuitous way to do that.

The plan is to use US 93 for the bulk of the initial alignment. It's in the urban areas where the alignment is in question.

[Billy F 1988]

Interstate 11 just doesn't seem effective. I highly doubt of its significance on commerce and travel.

[ztonyg]

I drove from Phoenix - Las Vegas and back in May. 

US 93 in its current state is more than adequate for the amount of traffic it sees.

[dfwmapper]

I drove from Phoenix - Las Vegas and back in May. 

US 93 in its current state is more than adequate for the amount of traffic it sees.

It really isn't, which is why ADOT has done so much work upgrading it. The remaining 2 lane portions need to be 4 lanes, and Kingman and Wickenburg will eventually be in dire need of bypasses. I agree that going beyond that to a full on freeway is a waste of money though.

[Sub-Urbanite]

No. Clearly, the at-grade, still 2-lane-in-parts road between Phoenix and Las Vegas is adequate.

[US 41]

I think I-70 should be extended to Reno, NV too. US 50 just isn't good enough. There are just too many at grade intersections. 

[iBallasticwolf2]

I think I-70 should be extended to Reno, NV too. US 50 just isn't good enough. There are just too many at grade intersections. 

I hope that was sarcasm.

[US 41]

Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.

Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well.  Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.

[silverback1065]

Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.

Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well.  Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.

I hate toll roads, but completely agree that all interstates should be toll roads, we have to pay for them somehow, and since the powers in control of the money are incompetent, this seems to be the only way to fix the problem. 

[Rothman]

I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well.

I don't follow the logic of toll roads keeping small towns on less efficient routes "thriving" or how railroads would be doing fairly well (I take it you're talking about passenger service?  Freight rail is doing fairly well as is.). If I-40 was tolled, it's not like all that much traffic would divert to AZ 66.

[US 41]

I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well.

I don't follow the logic of toll roads keeping small towns on less efficient routes "thriving" or how railroads would be doing fairly well (I take it you're talking about passenger service?  Freight rail is doing fairly well as is.). If I-40 was tolled, it's not like all that much traffic would divert to AZ 66.

I-40 is 72.5 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
I-40 Toll (at 10 cents per mile)= $7.25
I-40 gas (30 mpg @ $2.50 per gal)= $6.05
I-40 Total= $13.30

AZ 66 is 87.3 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
AZ 66 Gas / Total= $7.28

Drivers in cars would save $6.02 on average by taking AZ 66 instead of I-40. I can guarantee that AZ 66 would see an increase in traffic. Semis would save even more money.

[Anthony_JK]

I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well.

I don't follow the logic of toll roads keeping small towns on less efficient routes "thriving" or how railroads would be doing fairly well (I take it you're talking about passenger service?  Freight rail is doing fairly well as is.). If I-40 was tolled, it's not like all that much traffic would divert to AZ 66.

I-40 is 72.5 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
I-40 Toll (at 10 cents per mile)= $7.25
I-40 gas (30 mpg @ $2.50 per gal)= $6.05
I-40 Total= $13.30

AZ 66 is 87.3 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
AZ 66 Gas / Total= $7.28

Drivers in cars would save $6.02 on average by taking AZ 66 instead of I-40. I can guarantee that AZ 66 would see an increase in traffic. Semis would save even more money.

Ummm....no. Any savings in gas would be burnt away by idling time from having more cars on an insufficient roadway. Unless you plan on spending money on widening AZ 66 to 4 lanes to handle the increased shunpiking, this would be a disaster.

Do you really want 53-inch semis going at 55 mph on two-lane highways with few passing lanes and increased chances for accidents??

Also...people are actually capable of getting off the Interstate and visiting these towns if they really want to, or if such a town provides an incentive.

Tolling existing Interstates just for the sake of privatization is a horrible idea, and flies in the face of equal representation. If you need additional revenue for expansion, there is already a decent solution: raise the gas tax. Especially now with gas prices plummeting below $2/gal in most places. 

Interstate 11 is more than justified between Las Vegas and Phoenix by the need to connect two major metropolitan cities. The rest of it may be subject to debate, but not that segment....at least, not in my view.

[myosh_tino]

I-40 is 72.5 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
I-40 Toll (at 10 cents per mile)= $7.25
I-40 gas (30 mpg @ $2.50 per gal)= $6.05
I-40 Total= $13.30

AZ 66 is 87.3 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
AZ 66 Gas / Total= $7.28

Drivers in cars would save $6.02 on average by taking AZ 66 instead of I-40. I can guarantee that AZ 66 would see an increase in traffic. Semis would save even more money.

Except that using AZ-66 takes longer...

I-40... 72.5 mi / 75 mph = 58 minutes
AZ-66... 87.3 mi / 55 mph = 1 hour 35 minutes

... so I guess the big question is, is saving about $6 worth the extra 37 minutes?  Since most long-haul truckers are paid by the load, I'd say your last statement about semis saving money is incorrect.

[kkt]

I think I-70 should be extended to Reno, NV too. US 50 just isn't good enough. There are just too many at grade intersections. 

 

[Sub-Urbanite]

Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.

Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well.  Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.

10,000 daily vehicles and 650 daily trucks on US 93 would disagree with you. By the way, the AADT on I-22 in Alabama is 12,400; I-5 over Siskyou Pass is 13,800; I-84 at Ontario is 8,400; I-49 south of Kansas City is 10,100; I-35 north of Kansas City around 12,000; I could go on but I don't think I need to: The difference between this desolate highway that you don't think needs investment, and several of our country's core interstates is about 1 car, in each direction, every 90 seconds.

As for the rural economies along the route, I think it's hard to say they're at peril. Kingman has survived quite well despite being bypassed by I-40. Wickenburg is an exurb of Phoenix. Boulder City is a suburb of Las Vegas. That leaves literally one other community — Wikieup — as a place that would be bypassed by I-11. Given its spacing about halfway between Kingman and Wickenburg, and given that Seligman and Ash Fork are communities about the same size that have survived, it's hard to believe it would be in peril by a freeway bypass.

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...