http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/11/interstate-las-vegas-phoenix-works/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/11/interstate-las-vegas-phoenix-works/)
The article says it has "buy-in" on both side of the border. How much is there really?
Where is the money going to come from?
Is there the traffic density (current or future) to justify it?
^^ I'm not trying to shoot it down, just trying to find out if this is real or just a collective pipe dream?
On a diferent vein, it was interesting to read the comments, it sounds a lot like a discussion in Fictional Highways except I doubt that any of the respondents are RoadGeeks. :-D
Well, with the new US 93 bridge across the Colorado River, there's really nothing structurally standing in their way now. I guess AZ legislators could push more for it now, after expanding Phoenix's infrastructure with Loops 101 and 202.
Interesting. They should number it I-13 instead though (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbickenland.lonaf.com%2FphpBB2%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Ficon_twisted.gif&hash=732620f6e0148b4c151e96ecde1ce646ec146433)
or even I-17, and renumber current I-17 to I-19. Dunno how Arizona managed to get two two-digit interstates all to itself!
Your idea would work better in keeping to the numbering convention.
Interesting...
IMO, it doesn't need to be an Interstate. I see no problem with keeping it as US 93, as its already part of the CANAMEX high-priority corridor. If it were to be an Interstate, though, I-13 would certainly never be the number...
in this proposed I-11/13 I spotted this map of the proposed Hassayampa Freeway http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/2009/jul/10/36911/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/2009/jul/10/36911/) I'm surprised they plan to bring a freeway corridor west of Loop 303. I taught than the part of Loop 303 between US-60 and I-10 would had been part of the Canamex corridor.
The article says that "an act of congress will be required to even get the designation". Why? Is there some requirement that new interstate numbers must be signed into law?
yes - the Feds are strongly leaning towards extending current interstate numbers.
I think that there's a simple reason why they want I-11 and not I-13 or I-17 or whatever.
Remember as the original "gambling capital" of the United States, they'd like to have a "Lucky Number" (7 or 11) heading there! :sombrero:
so you take I-7 to get into town, but when you've been wiped clean, wouldn't I-13 be the way to get out?
This diagonal freeway would be about as east-west as it would north-south. Couldn't it get an even number, pretty much anything between 10 and 60? In fact, it could be I-60 and act as an extension of US 60 west. On the other hand, I could see that creating some confusion. But an even number could work, unless it's envisioned to be ultimately extended to Reno.
It's probably envisioned to continue to Reno. I-13 is definitely out as states. The gambling capital of America (and probably world) is not going to have one of the unluckiest numbers on its signs into town.
Secondly, if US-93 becomes an interstate, it might help with northbound traffic heading to SLC and points north & northwest. Instead of taking US-89 north of Flagstaff to I-15, a angle out and back route along I-11 to I-15 would make more sense.
Sykotyk
When AZDOT was considering upgrading US 89 to an interstate awhile back, it was pointed out the US 93/I-15 corridor was actually shorter (and of course much easier to build a freeway along).
Quote from: mightyace on July 14, 2009, 04:17:11 PM
I think that there's a simple reason why they want I-11 and not I-13 or I-17 or whatever.
Remember as the original "gambling capital" of the United States, they'd like to have a "Lucky Number" (7 or 11) heading there! :sombrero:
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 14, 2009, 05:46:37 PM
It's probably envisioned to continue to Reno. I-13 is definitely out as states. The gambling capital of America (and probably world) is not going to have one of the unluckiest numbers on its signs into town.
This is precisely why I suggested I-13 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbickenland.lonaf.com%2FphpBB2%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fbigass.gif&hash=a0537da6e42415524d22588bdea05b394507955c)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 14, 2009, 03:56:05 PM
yes - the Feds are strongly leaning towards extending current interstate numbers.
In a way, I see this having I-19 extend to Flagstaff and I-17 run on the US 93 corridor, preserving the interstate numbering conventions.
Wouldn't it make more sense if Arizona tied the proposed Vegas to Phoenix interstate with the proposed Phoenix to Tucson Interstate/Bypass which would parallel existing I-10?
This could make the entire interstate moreso a bypass around both Tucson and Phoenix, and if you had to, do a 3xx,5xx, or 7xx spur connecting this "rural interstate" with the larger cities.
I very much doubt a 3di would even be considered in AZ. :-/
My idea would be to extend I-19 from Tucson along the proposed bypass/alternative interstate which would parallel the already crowded I-10 towards Phoenix, keep the I-19 designation while (by)passing Phoenix to the west and then continuing the I-19 name along the proposed I-11 alignment to Vegas.
Only problem I would see is would they keep the "metrics" limited to just the current I-19 alignment, extend it all the way to the Nevada line, or just finally kill the metric debacle South of Tucson and make it an All-US measurement highway???
You can always renumber it as I-21 -- The Blackjack Highway :)
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 14, 2009, 05:46:37 PM
It's [I-11] probably envisioned to continue to Reno. I-13 is definitely out as states. The gambling capital of America (and probably world) is not going to have one of the unluckiest numbers on its signs into town.
Nobody is envisioning a Las Vegas to Reno interstate highway (other than roadgeeks, of course). US 95 forms most of the connection between Reno and Las Vegas, and it is two lanes pretty much after exiting Clark County. NDOT isn't envisioning widening any part of rural US 95 to divided highway (or even 4-lanes) anytime soon.
The gambling capital of the U.S. (not the world, as Las Vegas has recently lost that title to Macau) is indeed hesitant to put the number 13 on anything. For example, no hotel-casino in Vegas has a floor numbered 13.
Quote from: roadfro on July 16, 2009, 03:05:02 PM
NDOT isn't envisioning widening any part of rural US 95 to divided highway (or even 4-lanes) anytime soon.
I just checked, the AADT on US 95 in Nye, Esmeralda and Mineral counties is only around 2,000.... That's comparable to a normal residential street that connects to an arterial...
All I know is that the section on U.S. 93 between I-40 and Wikiup will eventually be built to a freeway. So I guess they might as well continue down through at least Wickenburg.
The two sides of the Hoover Dam Bypass arch will meet next month, closing an 80 foot gap between the two. Work on that bridge is scheduled for completion in late 2010, so there's one section of potential Interstate 11 coming to fruition.
Read more here (article by Arizona Republic) (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/17/20090717hoover0717.html)
^^ wrong topic? :pan:
[edit - not anymore!]
Quote from: Chris on July 22, 2009, 04:15:02 AM
^^ wrong topic? :pan:
Yeah, but it was more interesting! :-D
"The two sides of the Hoover Dam Bypass arch will meet next month, closing an 80 foot gap between the two. Work on that bridge is scheduled for completion in late 2010, so there's one section of potential Interstate 11 coming to fruition."
I saw that article, and frankly the 21K VPD estimate for 2017 seems rather low. After this economy improves, I could easily see 30K VPD on that stretch by 2017. Of course, that's going to come at the expense of both I-40 and the Nevada 163/Arizona 68 pairing. Which makes one wonder why Laughlin and Bullhead City are going ahead with plans to start construction on a second bridge next year.
I imagine the road ending up like this (at least for the long term) if a freeway from Phoenix to Las Vegas were to be built.
1. The current I-515 as it stands today...
2. From there the road contines as a freeway with an interchange at Rail Road pass and a new one at U.S. 95.
3. A gap in freeway through Boulder City.
4. Then U.S. 93 resumes as a freeway with the Hoover Dam Bypass.
5. Once crossing into Arizona the freeway would end and be a two lane highway (like it is now) till mile 17.
6. The freeway would resume from mile 17 to about mile 70 (the current divided expressway).
7. Gap in freeway for about one mile through Beale Street in Kingman before meeting I-40.
8. U.S. 93 merges with I-40 for about 23 miles...
9. Once braching off I-40, U.S. 93 resumes on it's own as a freeway till just northwest of Wikieup.
10. U.S. 93's freeway ends and contines as a surface street in Wikieup. (about 2-3 miles).
11. Freeway resumes outside Wikieup and continues along the current expressway section to where it ends at about mile 160ish.
12. Then a new (unbuilt) divided section would continue the freeway from there to AZ 89.
13. From there the freeway would end and the road would continue as a regular highway the rest of the way to Phoenix or what have you.
Quote from: AZDude on July 25, 2009, 01:48:54 AM
I imagine the road ending up like this (at least for the long term) if a freeway from Phoenix to Las Vegas were to be built.
1. The current I-515 as it stands today...
2. From there the road contines as a freeway with an interchange at Rail Road pass and a new one at U.S. 95.
3. A gap in freeway through Boulder City.
4. Then U.S. 93 resumes as a freeway with the Hoover Dam Bypass.
5. ...
Your imagination has not accounted for the Boulder City Bypass, which will be a freeway bypass circling Boulder City far to the south and east (in the mountains). It will connect directly to I-515 and the Hoover Dam Bypass, and will be constructed to Interstate standards. The bypass will have interchanges with existing US 93 (which would presumably become US 93 Business) on either end, as well a new interchange with US 95. This has cleared environmental studies, and the first phase is nearly ready for the bid phase. Phase 2 has yet to be designed or funded, though, and is currently on NDOT's long-range planning scope.
Quote from: AZDude on July 25, 2009, 01:48:54 AM
I imagine the road ending up like this (at least for the long term) if a freeway from Phoenix to Las Vegas were to be built.
1. The current I-515 as it stands today...
2. From there the road contines as a freeway with an interchange at Rail Road pass and a new one at U.S. 95.
3. A gap in freeway through Boulder City.
4. Then U.S. 93 resumes as a freeway with the Hoover Dam Bypass.
5. Once crossing into Arizona the freeway would end and be a two lane highway (like it is now) till mile 17.
6. The freeway would resume from mile 17 to about mile 70 (the current divided expressway).
7. Gap in freeway for about one mile through Beale Street in Kingman before meeting I-40.
8. U.S. 93 merges with I-40 for about 23 miles...
9. Once braching off I-40, U.S. 93 resumes on it's own as a freeway till just northwest of Wikieup.
10. U.S. 93's freeway ends and contines as a surface street in Wikieup. (about 2-3 miles).
11. Freeway resumes outside Wikieup and continues along the current expressway section to where it ends at about mile 160ish.
12. Then a new (unbuilt) divided section would continue the freeway from there to AZ 89.
13. From there the freeway would end and the road would continue as a regular highway the rest of the way to Phoenix or what have you.
No, that would only happen if both states somehow became part of Michigan! :-D
Lol, or California.
Any other ideas on where would this new Phoenix-Las Vegas corridor intersect with I-40? Maybe going through Kingman?
Quote from: jgb191 on August 02, 2009, 12:22:50 AM
Any other ideas on where would this new Phoenix-Las Vegas corridor intersect with I-40? Maybe going through Kingman?
That would make the most sense. Then multiplex with i-40 to where US-93 breaks off south again.
Sykotyk
[EDIT: Another article mistakenly posted to new thread]
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/15/20090915newinterstate0915.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/15/20090915newinterstate0915.html)
From the article:
The Arizona Department of Transportation broadened the region's studies and launched a statewide long-range plan. It shows that by 2050, without new freeways, it will take Phoenix residents five hours to get out of town.
Wow! I can't even imagine rush hour.
I-11 Sounds good to me! Let's do it.
I grabbed the smiley, shoved a bike pump in its mouth... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbickenland.lonaf.com%2FphpBB2%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fmeh.gif&hash=58d0af0aef4116895272fab1cd69aa28e2244793)
It's a smiley used at couple boards I frequent, so I swiped it for my own board (where I'm hosting it from).
Considering these two population centers are two of the most rapidly growing in the US (or were until the economy tanked), it only makes sense to have a direct Intersate link between them. It was mentioned upthread that extending I-11 north beyond Vegas would be pipe-dreamish, and perhaps it is, but hear me out.... :cool:
I could see a longer I-11 doing one of two things:
* Alleviating some I-5 traffic by offering a more direct link between the Southwest and the Pacific Northwest; it would travel along US 95 to Reno and then US 395 to OR and WA (possibly transitioning onto US 97 at home point to offer closer connections to Portland and Seattle). In short, it could serve as the western version of I-81; i.e., not passing through very many large population centers but still serving as an important corridor between two regions.
* Continue along US 93 to Boise (and possibly even Spokane).
Quote from: bookem on October 16, 2009, 04:44:56 PM
I could see a longer I-11 doing one of two things:
* Alleviating some I-5 traffic by offering a more direct link between the Southwest and the Pacific Northwest; it would travel along US 95 to Reno and then US 395 to OR and WA (possibly transitioning onto US 97 at home point to offer closer connections to Portland and Seattle). In short, it could serve as the western version of I-81; i.e., not passing through very many large population centers but still serving as an important corridor between two regions.
Do people put so much faith in interstates that they would travel them exclusively despite a shorter non-interstate option being available? Most people I know in Oregon wouldn't even consider taking I-5 to get to Las Vegas or Phoenix; they take US 95 to Vegas, then US 93 on to Phoenix. So if people are already aware of this option and take it, is it really necessary to upgrade it to interstate when current traffic volumes don't justify it?
Quote from: xonhulu on October 16, 2009, 05:07:02 PM
Do people put so much faith in interstates that they would travel them exclusively despite a shorter non-interstate option being available? Most people I know in Oregon wouldn't even consider taking I-5 to get to Las Vegas or Phoenix; they take US 95 to Vegas, then US 93 on to Phoenix. So if people are already aware of this option and take it, is it really necessary to upgrade it to interstate when current traffic volumes don't justify it?
how do they get to US-95? It is in the far southeastern part of the state. Do they take 140?
QuoteDo people put so much faith in interstates that they would travel them exclusively despite a shorter non-interstate option being available?
Experience suggests that for some travelers, the answer is yes.
You also have to consider that the Interstate shield is a brand name, if you will. A guarantee that (a few exceptions notwithstanding) you'll be on a 4+ lane freeway. You don't have that guarantee with U.S. or state routes.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2009, 05:08:46 PM
how do they get to US-95? It is in the far southeastern part of the state. Do they take 140?
Most Oregonians have no problem driving on non-interstates, as there are very few interstates here. Up here in the Willamette Valley, it's generally I-5, OR 58, US 97, OR 39/CA 139, CA 299, US 395, I-80, US 95A, US 95; or OR 22, US 20, US 97, OR 31, US 395, I-80, US 95A, US 95. I'd even rather take OR 22, US 20, OR 78, US 95 then head south. When I lived in southern Oregon, we took I-5, CA 89, CA 44, CA 36, US 395. This isn't just me; everyone I know takes one of these combinations of routes.
I'll admit, though, that was in our younger days. Nowadays, I'd fly down and rent a car. My point was, we never considered taking I-5 all the way through California to get to Vegas or Phoenix, except maybe in winter. Cutting through the LA region just isn't worth it. I-5 traffic from the NW is predominantly heading to California.
However, if the politicians bought the economic development aspect of an interstate here, I could conceive it possible to build this interstate. Remember, some Oregon politicians proposed the upgrade of US 97 for exactly that reason.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 16, 2009, 05:08:46 PMhow do they get to US-95? It is in the far southeastern part of the state. Do they take 140?
I suspect most Oregonians would not want to get to US 95 in the first place. That seems to be mainly a Boise-Reno route that only cuts through a corner (and a rather empty and boring one at that) of Oregon.
Quote from: oscar on October 16, 2009, 07:47:48 PM
a corner (and a rather empty and boring one at that) of Oregon.
I quite like US-95 in Oregon simply because it is so completely abandoned!
alas, when I drove it in Dec 2007, there were no old cutouts left. I'd thought that, of all the US routes in Oregon, 95 would be the one that the highway department would be least likely to visit regularly ... well, they visit it often enough, unfortunately.
Turning Nevada US 95 into an Interstate would be akin to I-5 in the middle of California...a long Interstate in the middle of nowhere. The only difference would be that the rural US 95 Interstate would probably carry one-fifth the traffic of I-5. An Interstate along US 93 in Nevada would carry even less traffic.
The pipe dream of any more rural Nevada Interstate highways isn't worth the amount of money it would take to build it nor the relatively small amount of traffic that would actually use it.
I got an email that said that this is, right now, a concept. It still may take years to become an Interstate.
I did get a letter from Peter Jager at UDOT, and he thinks that this should carry an even number, like I-12. (If that were the case, I'd go with I-46 (using its west end at Las Vegas). However, this route is going to be a major north-south connector, so I'd keep it odd.
Why 46? It's not like there's ever going to be a need for a route south of this route and north of 40, is there? I'd go ahead and number it I-42, freeing up the 46 number for any potential east-west route falling between Las Vegas and Cove Fort (or Oklahoma City and Kansas City, or Wilmington NC and Washington DC, or...) Plus that way we get to make Douglas Adams references.
^On that note, I used to work at a local fast food chain. My store was #42...
Yea, 42 would work, as well...
Quote from: xonhulu on October 16, 2009, 06:15:13 PM
I'll admit, though, that was in our younger days. Nowadays, I'd fly down and rent a car. My point was, we never considered taking I-5 all the way through California to get to Vegas or Phoenix, except maybe in winter. Cutting through the LA region just isn't worth it. I-5 traffic from the NW is predominantly heading to California.
You do realize that traffic on I-5 headed to Las Vegas won't ever reach the Los Angeles basin. When I drive to Vegas from the San Francisco Bay Area, I use I-5 to CA-46 to CA-99 to CA-58 to I-15. CA-46 is a 2-lane highway that is lightly travelled (cruising speed is 55-65 MPH) and CA-58 has 2 sections of 2-lane highway around Kramer's Junction (junction with US 395) and east of Barstow. Other than that, you're on 4-lane divided freeways or expressways. There are also plans to upgrade all of CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow to at least a 4-lane expressway with the new sections being 4-lane freeways.
I have relatives living in Seattle and if they want to go to Vegas, they fly.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 13, 2009, 09:31:21 PM
or even I-17, and renumber current I-17 to I-19. Dunno how Arizona managed to get two two-digit interstates all to itself!
I remember reading once a good idea: Turn I-17 and I-19 into one long intrastate and renumber it I-21, so that way you have I-17 and I-19 available for re-use.
A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.
Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73) :-D
However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.
Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73) :-D
However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.
That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.
But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.
Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73) :-D
However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.
That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.
But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.
I'd say 238 was more "California insists they don't want to renumber Route 180" (which I actually fully understand - 180 dates back to 1934!) than AASHTO simply happily giving CalTrans the designation. Having said that, there are enough examples of DOTs ignoring AASHTO directives in the present day (US 49W's realignment in Mississippi, much of US 377's existence in Oklahoma).
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.
Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73) :-D
However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.
That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.
But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.
I'd say 238 was more "California insists they don't want to renumber Route 180" (which I actually fully understand - 180 dates back to 1934!) than AASHTO simply happily giving CalTrans the designation. Having said that, there are enough examples of DOTs ignoring AASHTO directives in the present day (US 49W's realignment in Mississippi, much of US 377's existence in Oklahoma).
In other words, CalTrans was merely being lazy. What's wrong with having C-180 and I-180? They're two entirely different routes. One's on a green spade, and one's on a red/white/blue interstate shield.
Quote from: Brandon on August 31, 2010, 04:04:02 PM
In other words, CalTrans was merely being lazy. What's wrong with having C-180 and I-180? They're two entirely different routes. One's on a green spade, and one's on a red/white/blue interstate shield.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but since 1964, route duplication has not been allowed in California - this is what forced US 40 and US 80 on opposite sides of the state to be decomissioned, and caused the renumberings of pre-1964 state routes 5, 8, 10, and 15.
Quote from: Brandon on August 31, 2010, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
A freeway from Las Vegas to Phoenix can't be I-11 or I-13 because it's a numbering violation.
Well, numbering violations clearly are irrelevant to today's highway planners... (99, 73) :-D
However, while probably not warranted by traffic counts, if the corridor was extended to Reno via 95/Alt 95, it'd have at least one section that compiles with the grid.
That'd be true. In that case, I-11 or I-13 could work.
But I-99 wasn't assigned by AASHTO, whereas the infamous Interstate 238 was. I'm not sure if AASHTO approved i-73 or so. The point is, AASHTO would probably not allow for the I-11 designation to be east of I-15. They'd probably recommend a long series of 3di or just keep the US route signage altogether.
I'd say 238 was more "California insists they don't want to renumber Route 180" (which I actually fully understand - 180 dates back to 1934!) than AASHTO simply happily giving CalTrans the designation. Having said that, there are enough examples of DOTs ignoring AASHTO directives in the present day (US 49W's realignment in Mississippi, much of US 377's existence in Oklahoma).
In other words, CalTrans was merely being lazy. What's wrong with having C-180 and I-180? They're two entirely different routes. One's on a green spade, and one's on a red/white/blue interstate shield.
California is perhaps more anal than other states about not having duplicate routes in any part of the state, even if they were separated by 800+ miles and one was tiny while one was long.
Article today from the Las Vegas paper has I-11 being planned to run from Phoenix to Seattle:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/08/transportation-expert-says-las-vegas-could-become-/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/08/transportation-expert-says-las-vegas-could-become-/)
(~10th paragraph)
QuoteArticle today from the Las Vegas paper has I-11 being planned to run from Phoenix to Seattle:
That....I can't see that happening
Quote from: corco on September 09, 2010, 11:37:37 PM
QuoteArticle today from the Las Vegas paper has I-11 being planned to run from Phoenix to Seattle:
That....I can't see that happening
Here's an interesting Sept. 9 editorial comparing I-11 connecting Punta Colonet in Mexico to Canada (through Phoenix, Las Vegas and Seattle) to ongoing I-69 battles: (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/highway-project-102517649.html) Bottom line: if anything does happen, it will take a loooooong time.....
Well, that's an understatement.
But I'm with corco on this -- I doubt ODOT's heard about this at all, and for the route described, either has I-11 going north along US 395 from Reno to Hermiston then taking over I-82, or following US 95 all the way toward Boise and doubling on I-84 then I-82. Um.
Ending I-11 at Seattle, a good idea on paper but the NIMBYs will prevail. I would instead re-alignate I-11 in Washington along US-97 to link with the Okanagan valley area in BC. Kelowna's population growed a lot recently.
It would be tough to feasibly upgrade BC 97 through the Okanagan Valley, but I see where you're driving at. I'm going to mull this over -- an upgraded BC 97 from the border to BC 97C would vastly improve on travel times to Kamloops and say Prince George... if the BC 5/97C interchange ever gets built.
I read elsewhere a potential idea of merging I-17 and I-19 together as one longer Interstate that could follow US-89 to at least Salt Lake City, where it would meet I-15. It could potentially be numbered I-21, or they could keep either 17 or 19. The idea was that there would be a long concurrency with I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.
Quote from: Quillz on October 18, 2010, 03:58:00 AM
I read elsewhere a potential idea of merging I-17 and I-19 together as one longer Interstate that could follow US-89 to at least Salt Lake City, where it would meet I-15. It could potentially be numbered I-21, or they could keep either 17 or 19. The idea was that there would be a long concurrency with I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.
When I was in Tucson in '09, there was a group or government entity pushing for a parallel freeway west of I-10 between Tucson & Phoenix which would bypass the latter. If that ever came to fruition, I-19 could parallel I-10 North of Tucson until it meets I-10 &/or I-11 west of Phoenix.
The best scenario would be to bypass Tucson halfway between US70/US60 and I-10 to end near I-8. Follow I-8 and build up the Phoenix Bypass around Gila Bend and AZ 85 (which is almost a full freeway from I-10 to Gila Bend).
Avoid both cities. And build the road in such a fashion that extra capacity for more lanes will not be overtly costly.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on October 19, 2010, 11:56:30 AM
The best scenario would be to bypass Tucson
the word you are looking for is not "bypass". It is "delete". Few cities in the US are a greater blight upon the landscape. (Most said blights are in Arizona - Chandler, anyone?)
Quote from: Sykotyk on October 19, 2010, 11:56:30 AM
The best scenario would be to bypass Tucson halfway between US70/US60 and I-10 to end near I-8. Follow I-8 and build up the Phoenix Bypass around Gila Bend and AZ 85 (which is almost a full freeway from I-10 to Gila Bend).
Avoid both cities. And build the road in such a fashion that extra capacity for more lanes will not be overtly costly.
Sykotyk
Only if built in Metric.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2010, 11:51:46 PM
But I'm with corco on this -- I doubt ODOT's heard about this at all, and for the route described, either has I-11 going north along US 395 from Reno to Hermiston then taking over I-82, or following US 95 all the way toward Boise and doubling on I-84 then I-82. Um.
I read somewhere that that is the idea. Basically that means upgrading US-95 between NW Las Vegas and I-84 near Boise. If I-11 terminates at I-84, it later could be used north to Coeur d'Alene, if that ever is upgraded to interstate standards.