News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Arizona 3-dis. Will we ever see them?

Started by DrZoidberg, February 06, 2009, 05:56:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DrZoidberg

It seems that AZ is one of the few states without any 3-dis.  Last I drove the Loop 101, it seems to be Interstate standards, what's preventing an I-210, or I-217?  Does AZ not use 3-dis?  Seems like federal money, especially in these times, would help.

Technically, I-19 could be I-110, but I digress...
"By the way...I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar."


Voyager

That's a good question...especially since the funding would be greatly increased if it were given an interstate designation.
Back From The Dead | AARoads Forum Original

Revive 755

I think we will see a 3di in Arizona someday, but I'm guessing it will not be around Phoenix or Tuscon.  Maybe I-515 will be the first one with an extension into the state from Nevada.

Alex

Or perhaps the Arizona 85 corridor, once its upgrade to freeway standards is complete between Interstate 8 at Gila Bend and Interstate 10 near Buckeye.

John

Arizona does not have 3dis because they increased their sales tax by one cent a while ago, and that one cent goes only to roads. Therefore, AZ finds it is easier to just use their own money, and, by extension, not have to deal with the AASHTO or FHWA or the rest of the federal government.
They came, they went, they took my image...

geoking111

It is completely ridiculous that Arizona has no 3dis. The state definitely deserves to have some 3dis in the Phoenix area.

John

^See above. They could have 3dis, they just don't want one.
They came, they went, they took my image...

FreewayDan

My idea for a 3di in Arizona is to renumber I-17 south of I-10 to I-610
LEFT ON GREEN
ARROW ONLY

Tarkus

Quote from: John on February 08, 2009, 11:15:42 AM
Therefore, AZ finds it is easier to just use their own money, and, by extension, not have to deal with the AASHTO or FHWA or the rest of the federal government.

I actually kind of like that idea--it gives the state department of transportation more flexibility.  I wish Oregon's DOT would do that, honestly. 

That makes me wonder, though--I know at least here in Oregon, there are several roads that are signed as state routes but entirely under county or city control--would it be permissible for Arizona to sign non-FHWA-funded routes as Interstates?

-Alex (Tarkus)

corco

I'm sure they could post things with an interstate shield without the funding, but they'd have to adhere to all the rules and regulations that come with having an interstate highway anyway so they may as well just take the money

John

I don't think it is illegal, since the interstate shield, the word interstate, etc are all government owned and therefore public domain. AASHTO and the FHWA would probably jump all over them though.
They came, they went, they took my image...

akotchi

How, then, did some of the toll roads gain Interstate designations?  I don't think they get Federal funding, do they?
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

AZDude

Maybe one day Tucson will get I-210.  I mean there is an Arizona 210 that parallels I-10 after all  :wow:

AZDude

Also supposedly there are plans to upgrade U.S. 93 between I-40 and Wikiup to interstate standards because of the safety concerns along that stretch of highway.  Right now it is still under construction and has some 5 or so miles of expressway standards on that stretch.

I asked one of the contractors that was working on the highway if it was true that U.S. 93 will become a freeway in the future, and he said "Yes".  That was back in 2006 and now in 2009 its a expressway standards, so we will see. 

If it does indeed become a freeway, then maybe it could get the x40 designation.  Can you say Interstate Arizona 540 (or whatever number they choose)?

Scott5114

Hm. If Arizona has that much money to throw around, I wonder if they could get by with no federal money at all. Would be kinda interesting if they started doing all that stuff the Feds threaten to take away the road money for simply to tee them off (lowering drinking age below 21, seatbelt laws, etc etc)
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

Here is what I know and conjecture:

*  Arizona lost out on three-digit Interstates because its population was much lower when the 41,000-mile Interstate system was fixed in the mid-1950's.  In 1950 Tucson had a population of 45,000, as opposed to 1 million now.  Historical demography for Phoenix is more complicated because it is more suburbanized, but I am going to guess that the 1950 population which corresponds (roughly) to the current metro area was under 200,000.  45,000 population doesn't really justify an Interstate loop (which Tucson has desperately needed for decades and which was planned in the Tucson Area Transportation Study in 1965), and the 1950's planners may have thought the loop around downtown Phoenix would be adequate for its needs.

*  Freeway revolts in Phoenix and Tucson in the 1970's meant that the opportunity to fund new freeway mileage using Interstate Construction funds was lost.

*  There is currently no financial incentive to redesignate the Loops as Interstates because Interstate conversion now no longer confers eligibility for IM funding.  That particular window closed in the last few years (FHWA's Interstate route log and finder list will have the exact date).  Arizona DOT could get FHWA and AASHTO approval to re-sign the Loops as Interstates, but there would be no benefit in terms of navigation, and the Interstate designation by itself would not give access to additional sources of funding.

As others have noted, Arizona is still able to access the full amount of federal funding due to it without having to have loop Interstates eligible for IM funding.  The basic strategy in Arizona is to collect enough taxes at the state and local level to match all the federal funding that is available, and to depend largely on local resources to fund the necessary capital construction.

The Loops are part of the NHS, so they attract NH funding for capital improvements (widening, etc.) at an 80% federal, 20% state/local share.  Rehabilitation work also attracts Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding; indeed Loops 101 and 202 have had their first sign rehabilitations in the last five years, and both were STP projects.  It is, of course, completely up to Arizona DOT whether to use NH or STP money on the Loops.  Generally they have been built with state and local money alone (the funding category is RAM, whatever that means).

The fact that Arizona is able to fund its new capital construction using state and local resources does not mean that Arizona can afford to have its federal funding cut off by lowering the drinking age below 21, repealing seatbelt laws, etc.  Arizona can't say No to having the federal gas tax collected in Arizona.  If Washington cuts funding off, federal motor fuel taxes collected in Arizona are not recycled back to Arizona, and state motor fuel and sales taxes would have to go up steeply to compensate for the missing federal match.

If you think about it closely, Arizona's unusual financial position also explains why Jon Kyl, one of the state's two US senators, made a huge fuss about not accepting earmarks for Arizona on principle.  Earmarks are worth having only if they are completely outside the distributional cap, and Arizona has more than enough local revenue and projects to hoover up its federal match without needing to add queue-jumpers.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

vdeane

That makes Arizona pretty unusual.  Most states are dependant on federal money right now.

I-19 should probably be an I-x10.  AZ 101 should probably be a 3di too.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Terry Shea

Quote from: John on February 08, 2009, 11:15:42 AM
Arizona does not have 3dis because they increased their sales tax by one cent a while ago, and that one cent goes only to roads. Therefore, AZ finds it is easier to just use their own money, and, by extension, not have to deal with the AASHTO or FHWA or the rest of the federal government.
I wish we'd do something like that here in Michigan.  I don't recall the exact figures but from the federal highway dollars we send to Washington we only get about 85% back.

Alps

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2009, 06:24:56 AM
Hm. If Arizona has that much money to throw around, I wonder if they could get by with no federal money at all. Would be kinda interesting if they started doing all that stuff the Feds threaten to take away the road money for simply to tee them off (lowering drinking age below 21, seatbelt laws, etc etc)
The boost to their economy by lowering the drinking age would more than offset Federal dollar loss.  Raise alcohol tax when you do it for extra bonus money!

scottmac112

Hmm. Well, I think the Arizona loop shields looked better anyway. I just liked them better colored. I saw the old colored Loop 202 (or 303?) shields the other day on US-60/Grand Ave. in Peoria last week. It was a nice blast back to the past. Why did they remove it?

J N Winkler

The reason I have heard is that the colors were applied by silkscreening rather than using pigmented retroreflective sheeting, so they were susceptible to fading under the desert sun.  This does not explain, however, why Arizona DOT uses silkscreening on Interstate shields, which also fade under the sun.  I think the real reason is that ADOT wanted to eliminate the potential quality-control headaches associated with having a separate color for each route number.

I also liked the polychromic shields.  But the standard for Loop shields has been white on black for almost 10 years now and installed examples of the colored shields are fast disappearing.  I will just save the sign drawings and re-draw the shields in color at some future point.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

leifvanderwall

I like the loop 101 and loop 202 designations. I think Phoenix's big gain should be I-13 (US 93,60,95). AND I-32 (US 60 East). If you want to learn more about my I-13 and I-32, just go to Highways We Like to See section in General Highways. Leif Vanderwall

Revive 755

But what happens if there is an unlikely change and we start needed loops for Tucson?  I'd wonder about Yuma, Casa Grande, and Flagstaff, but the terrain looks like it would be difficult to build on around the Flagstaff.  Do they use Loop 102 and Loop 203 for Tucson; Loop 103, and Loop 204 for Yuma?

I'm disappointed with the loops losing their colored shields.

J N Winkler

At the rate Arizona has been going, I don't think there will be a shortage of palindromic Loop designations.  In principle Phoenix could handle a Loop 404 and Loop 505, with Tucson getting Loops 606 and 707, Nogales getting Loop 808, and somewhere in Pinal County (not necessarily Casa Grande) getting Loop 909.  But in actuality the trend has been away from Loop designations.  SR 74, the Williams Gateway Freeway, and the pipe-dream freeway in the Houghton Avenue corridor all have actual or notional SR designations which are not Loops.  Even in the heyday of the Loops, there were non-Loop designations like SR 210 (at one time thought of as a possible future I-210), SR 51, SR 143, and SR 153.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Rover_0

Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.