Interstate 11

[KeithE4Phx]

Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.

Novel concept:

   
• Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
• Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
• Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
• Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it

Even noveller concept:

   
• Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
• Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
• Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.

Cheaper, and no tolls needed.

I really like the idea of a high-speed rail line between Phoenix and Tucson.

The chances of a passenger rail service of any kind between Phoenix and Tucson are several orders of magnitude less than zero.  Phoenix is about to kill all future Light Rail expansion inside the city if the voters approve in August.  Mesa is now complaining about its portion of the line, where it was in favor earlier.  It loses money, ridership is down, and some say it brought more crime into the areas where the tracks are.  If the Light Rail fails, don't even think about anything being built from here to Tucson, LA, or anywhere else on the planet.

We just don't do trains here.  The original "light rail" (trolley) lines were shut down in 1948.  What makes anyone think that HSR is viable in a state that lives in and for its cars?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/12/ligh-rail-opponents-win-court-august-election-continue/3446767002/

[Sub-Urbanite]

It's probably likely something, regardless of number, will eventually connect the Treasure Valley/Boise region with I-80 to expedite travel to CA and other southwest points.  But the most efficient path to do so remains US 95 -- with the reality that OR will have to be brought into the process on a route that really doesn't provide much benefits to them -- more of a "pass-through", so to speak.  They'll likely expect -- and strongly suggest if not outright demand -- considerable contribution from outside to even consider upgrading their portion of such a corridor.  That in itself might be a principal factor in any decision as to where a continuation of I-11 will go. 

And I doubt that they'll take that contribution in potatoes! 

I just can't see Oregon biting barring a massive sea change in politics. Even if Idaho and Nevada were to decide to pay in full for an Oregon portion of I-11, you'd get a chorus of "Idaho shouldn't be paying for new freeways, they should be building safe bike lanes" and "the planet can't handle any more freeways."

As much as I'd like to see it happen — not to Boise but to Bend and Portland — I'm confident that there will never be an I-11 shield in the state of Oregon.

[MantyMadTown]

Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.

Novel concept:

   
• Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
• Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
• Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
• Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it

Even noveller concept:

   
• Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
• Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
• Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.

Cheaper, and no tolls needed.

I really like the idea of a high-speed rail line between Phoenix and Tucson.

The chances of a passenger rail service of any kind between Phoenix and Tucson are several orders of magnitude less than zero.  Phoenix is about to kill all future Light Rail expansion inside the city if the voters approve in August.  Mesa is now complaining about its portion of the line, where it was in favor earlier.  It loses money, ridership is down, and some say it brought more crime into the areas where the tracks are.  If the Light Rail fails, don't even think about anything being built from here to Tucson, LA, or anywhere else on the planet.

We just don't do trains here.  The original "light rail" (trolley) lines were shut down in 1948.  What makes anyone think that HSR is viable in a state that lives in and for its cars?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/12/ligh-rail-opponents-win-court-august-election-continue/3446767002/

I'd like to post another article to respond to this:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/04/12/phoenix-stop-light-rail-expansion-initiative-unnecessary/3448531002/

[The Ghostbuster]

I think Interstate 11 should be constructed with a southern terminus at Interstate 8, and a northern terminus at Interstate 80. Any portion of Interstate 11 being built beyond those two Interstates seems unnecessary to me.

[DJStephens]

Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.

Novel concept:

   
• Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
• Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
• Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
• Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it

Even noveller concept:

   
• Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
• Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
• Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.

Cheaper, and no tolls needed.

What about a rubber tired Bus?  Yes it uses existing Roads.   No need for any additional infrastructure.   

[sparker]

Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.

Novel concept:

   
• Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
• Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
• Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
• Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it

Even noveller concept:

   
• Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
• Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
• Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.

Cheaper, and no tolls needed.

What about a rubber tired Bus?  Yes it uses existing Roads.   No need for any additional infrastructure.   

Rail service wouldn't be that difficult; there's existing UP lines connecting PHX with the main UP E-W main at Pichaco; those lines were used for Amtrak service before the line heading west from PHX to Yuma was taken out of service in the late '90's after a derailment near Hyder.  However, the section from downtown Phoenix to Pichaco is still in use for freight service -- and it would also serve Tempe, Mesa, and Chandler -- providing potential ridership if regional Amtrak service (a la the various CA Amtrak state-supported lines) were instituted between Phoenix and Tucson.  The rails are in place; some signaling would require upgrades, including the addition of PTC.  No need to screw around with new trackage along or in the median of I-10; what's currently on the ground reasonably parallels the roadway.

[Sonic99]

UP would shit a brick if ADOT proposed adding HSR to their tracks. Plus i can almost promise that any HSR would require extensive upgrades to make it able to handle high speeds like would be necessary for HSR to be appealing. The existing 70mph limits are slower than the interstate running right next to it.

[sparker]

UP would shit a brick if ADOT proposed adding HSR to their tracks. Plus i can almost promise that any HSR would require extensive upgrades to make it able to handle high speeds like would be necessary for HSR to be appealing. The existing 70mph limits are slower than the interstate running right next to it.

Who said anything about HSR?  I was thinking more of a "regional" conventional Amtrak service similar to the "Capitol" service between San Jose and Sacramento in CA.   That might make UP shit a pebble or two, but hardly a brick; this is something with which they've had considerable experience (although UP will certainly piss & moan about the provision of such service more than BNSF, which seems to take a bit more stoic attitude). 

[mgk920]

Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!

I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!

And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!



Mike

[sparker]

Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!

I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!

And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!



Mike

Seems more folks are migrating to Idaho these days; the influx more or less split between the Boise/Treasure Valley area (where housing is supplanting agriculture) and the far north (Post Falls/Coeur d'Alene and up US 95 from there).  While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.   The Boise/Treasure area is expected to pass the 1M population mark about 2022-23; we'll see how the 2024 electoral cycle pans out in the state and whether the newer arrivals shift the overall picture.   And not coincidentally, that 1M figure may well prompt heightened interest in improved access from the south/southwest -- possibly foreshadowing development of the I-11 (or I-13?) corridor down to I-80.

[MantyMadTown]

It's pretty sad Boise doesn't have any north-south interstate access. You have US 93 and I-84 from the southeast, and US 95 from the southwest. But neither of those are interstates. There ought to be some sort of connection to fill that gap, but maybe there's not enough traffic from California, Nevada, and Arizona to justify making either US 93 or US 95 an interstate.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's pretty sad Boise doesn't have any north-south interstate access. You have US 93 and I-84 from the southeast, and US 95 from the southwest. But neither of those are interstates. There ought to be some sort of connection to fill that gap, but maybe there's not enough traffic from California, Nevada, and Arizona to justify making either US 93 or US 95 an interstate.

There definitely isn't enough traffic on either route, especially in Nevada.  It isn't uncommon to see trailer trucks and being able to pass them with ease. 

[Bobby5280]

The main focus should be on Las Vegas to Phoenix and then slowly building out from there. As far as the Phoenix metro goes, ADOT needs to just work on the basics: getting I-11 built to Loop 303 on the NW side of the metro. Anything else from there is something of an extravagance, like all these conceptual routes going around the West and South side of Phoenix and even on down to Tucson and freaking Nogales. That's quite a pork orgy there.

Who said anything about HSR?  I was thinking more of a "regional" conventional Amtrak service similar to the "Capitol" service between San Jose and Sacramento in CA.   That might make UP shit a pebble or two, but hardly a brick; this is something with which they've had considerable experience (although UP will certainly piss & moan about the provision of such service more than BNSF, which seems to take a bit more stoic attitude).

I don't think there would be very much appeal for a slow speed regional rail line between the Phoenix metro and Las Vegas, at least not enough for it to be profitable. There would be little, if any, time savings versus driving.

As for any notion of high speed rail being added to an existing freight line, that doesn't really work. True high speed rail systems in other countries run separate from the freight and slow speed commuter rail networks. Part of what keeps the Acela Express from DC to Boston being regarded as a true high speed line is the fact it has to share the line with freight rail traffic. Only a short portion of the line allows trains to run at the max 150mph speed.

[Sub-Urbanite]

It's pretty sad Boise doesn't have any north-south interstate access. You have US 93 and I-84 from the southeast, and US 95 from the southwest. But neither of those are interstates. There ought to be some sort of connection to fill that gap, but maybe there's not enough traffic from California, Nevada, and Arizona to justify making either US 93 or US 95 an interstate.

There definitely isn't enough traffic on either route, especially in Nevada.  It isn't uncommon to see trailer trucks and being able to pass them with ease.

To put some numbers to the statement:

ODOT AADT numbers 2017

US 95 at NV/OR: 1600 total, 450 trucks
US 95 north of Jordan Valley: 1800 total, 550 trucks
US 95 at OR/ID: 1800 total, 560 trucks

US 97 at Chiloquin: 4700 total, 400 trucks
US 26 at Warm Springs: 8200 total, 850 trucks
OR 39 at Malin: 4500 total, 490 trucks
I 84 at Huntington: 10700 total, 4400 trucks
I 82 at OR/WA: 21600 total, 4700 trucks
I 5 at Grants Pass: 23300 total, 6700 trucks

[nexus73]

Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!

I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!

And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!



Mike

Boise will always be blue.  Just look at the football field of the Broncos...LOL!

Rick

[Zonie]

The main focus should be on Las Vegas to Phoenix and then slowly building out from there. As far as the Phoenix metro goes, ADOT needs to just work on the basics: getting I-11 built to Loop 303 on the NW side of the metro. Anything else from there is something of an extravagance, like all these conceptual routes going around the West and South side of Phoenix and even on down to Tucson and freaknig Nogales. That's quite a pork orgy there.

Who said anything about HSR?  I was thinking more of a "regional" conventional Amtrak service similar to the "Capitol" service between San Jose and Sacramento in CA.   That might make UP shit a pebble or two, but hardly a brick; this is something with which they've had considerable experience (although UP will certainly piss & moan about the provision of such service more than BNSF, which seems to take a bit more stoic attitude).

I don't think there would be very much appeal for a slow speed regional rail line between the Phoenix metro and Las Vegas, at least not enough for it to be profitable. There would be little, if any, time savings versus driving.

As for any notion of high speed rail being added to an existing freight line, that doesn't really work. True high speed rail systems in other countries run separate from the freight and slow speed commuter rail networks. Part of what keeps the Acela Express from DC to Boston being regarded as a true high speed line is the fact it has to share the line with freight rail traffic. Only a short portion of the line allows trains to run at the max 150mph speed.

UPRR is expecting to increase freight operations, up to 100 freight trains daily (this was the impetus for putting an overpass at SR 347 in Maricopa).  I don't see how you slot passenger service on that corridor to Tucson with any reliability.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Unless I-80 and/or 680 are at a virtual standstill, the Capitol service between the Bay area and Sacramento is often quite a bit slower than a road trip between those points; the service is sold on the convenience of not having to self-schlep between the cities.  Now -- when extreme congestion occurs, watching Amtrak scoot on by (this happens regularly on 680 in the Benicia area and 80 between Davis and Sacramento) is the service's own best advertisement.

However -- I'm going to play devil's advocate for my own suggestion here -- property values in PHX, unlike the Bay Area, haven't yet reached critical point where locating 100 or so miles away to avail one's self of relatively affordable housing may not be S.O.P. there -- thus Tucson as a "safety valve" for PHX may not be a viable concept presently.  There would need to be some regular commute activity to warrant any type of rail service; sporadic trips for recreational or non-work reasons just won't cut it as far as the aggregate demand required for even rudimentary rail service over existing trackage is concerned.   But if such demand crops up in the next decade or two, the basic rail structure is there that can be "tweaked" to accommodate such service. 

[Kniwt]

While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.

However, in St. George UT, which is also experiencing meteoric growth (on a percentage basis, even more than Boise), data from the 2018 elections showed that, despite the influx of Californians and others, the electorate was almost as exactly heavily Republican as it was before. Whether or not that's considered a good thing is a matter of personal preference (which we will not discuss here), but it's a sign that mushrooming populations in the Intermountain West will not necessarily bring wholesale political realignment.

[MantyMadTown]

While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.

However, in St. George UT, which is also experiencing meteoric growth (on a percentage basis, even more than Boise), data from the 2018 elections showed that, despite the influx of Californians and others, the electorate was almost as exactly heavily Republican as it was before. Whether or not that's considered a good thing is a matter of personal preference (which we will not discuss here), but it's a sign that mushrooming populations in the Intermountain West will not necessarily bring wholesale political realignment.

My guess is that those people were already Republican before they moved there. Certain places attract certain types of people based on their political reputation. Utah (aside from maybe SLC) is pretty prominently conservative so it's maybe a magnet for conservative Californians to move there.

[Verlanka]

Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!

I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!

And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!



Mike

Boise will always be blue.  Just look at the football field of the Broncos...LOL!

Rick

Other college football stadiums have different colored fields - red for Eastern Washington, purple and gray for Central Arkansas.

[sparker]

While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.

However, in St. George UT, which is also experiencing meteoric growth (on a percentage basis, even more than Boise), data from the 2018 elections showed that, despite the influx of Californians and others, the electorate was almost as exactly heavily Republican as it was before. Whether or not that's considered a good thing is a matter of personal preference (which we will not discuss here), but it's a sign that mushrooming populations in the Intermountain West will not necessarily bring wholesale political realignment.

My guess is that those people were already Republican before they moved there. Certain places attract certain types of people based on their political reputation. Utah (aside from maybe SLC) is pretty prominently conservative so it's maybe a magnet for conservative Californians to move there.

Since St. George tends to attract retirees at about the same rate as those of working or school age moving into the area, it would follow that a more conservative cross-section would persist in the "target" metro area.  And while the benign climate of the region (quite a difference from summertime Vegas!) is certainly an attractant, the relative isolation of the area would make it a less than optimal location for large-scale manufacturing and/or distribution (besides the fact that it isn't located on a rail line).  Business influx into the area will probably be dominated by small manufacturing (products that can be shipped out by truck rather than bulk-loaded), retail, and possibly the service and/or information firms -- anything that can take advantage of electronic connection rather than sheer physical volume.  The presence of I-11 in the Las Vegas area -- and the potential for multidirectional connection (coupled with NV's historic business-friendly policies) may well enhance that city's role as a warehousing/distribution hub.   

[DJStephens]

Viewed on Fox 10 News the other day (Phoenix).  They (ADOT) extended their deadline to accept public feedback on the proposed I-11 alignment in central Arizona.   To apparently July 1st.  Maps on the newscast, of the proposed alignment - paralleling and duplicating I-10 south of Phoenix will likely kill the southerly extension.  It really does seem ridiculous.   

[sparker]

Viewed on Fox 10 News the other day (Phoenix).  They (ADOT) extended their deadline to accept public feedback on the proposed I-11 alignment in central Arizona.   To apparently July 1st.  Maps on the newscast, of the proposed alignment - paralleling and duplicating I-10 south of Phoenix will likely kill the southerly extension.  It really does seem ridiculous.   

Haven't had a chance to peruse the documents in detail as of yet, but apparently parts of the original EIS regarding I-11 from Wickenburg south to Nogales are undergoing some scrutiny (info gleaned from the 5/1/19 edition of the AASHTO DTU).  Whether this is part of a re-thinking of that corridor concept in general or just dotting I's and crossing T's -- or somehow connected to this ADOT deadline extension -- is yet TBD. 

[Bobby5280]

Anything that doesn't include upgrading US-60 to Interstate standards from Loop 303 up to Wickenburg will be absolutely stupid. That probably needs to happen regardless of what develops regarding I-11 around the Phoenix area and points farther South and Southeast.

Last week I was personally able to ride on parts of I-11 for the first time (via a bus tour down to Hoover Dam last Friday morning). My girlfriend and I were in Las Vegas for a major sign industry convention. I-11 is signed from the I-215/I-515 interchange down to the Pat Tillman Bridge. Most of the post-mounted reassurance signs have big I-11 shields over smaller US-93/US-95 shields.

Our bus went through Boulder City; we didn't get to drive on the new bypass unfortunately. We drove over the the dam itself. The view from the road winding down to the dam was pretty spectacular. The dam is one thing, but the bridge towering over the canyon is another. I couldn't believe how tall that bridge looked seeing it in person. The vertical concrete pylons on that thing are scary tall. We made a couple stops on the NV and AZ sides of the dam and then spent 30 minutes checking out the walking path on the Pat Tillman Bridge. I held onto my phone pretty tight taking photos over the edge. The tour guide said lots of people have lost phones, hats and sunglasses over that bridge. The winds are one thing. The bridge vibrates a bit as heavy trucks blow by on the other side of the tall Jersey barrier. Can't let that rattle an expensive smart phone loose from the hands!

I-11 traffic over the Colorado River seemed busy enough to me. I hope the road can be upgraded at least down to Kingman and I-40 sometime soon.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
From the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303.  Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy.  So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).