I read that it looks like I-11 is becoming more of a reality, and I was wondering do you think I-515 will be renumbered as I-11 soon? Also should I-11 have it's own exit numbers or keep the one's based on US 95?
Do you think this should have been posted in the fictional ghetto?
He's talking about a highway that currently exists. If he have been suggesting on his own to re-number it to I-11 or if someone was to say that VA 28 should be I-366, then it would be fictional.
When I-11 (not "if" but when) is signed along US 93 in Nevada, I suspect exit numbering will begin at the Nevada/Arizona stateline with the exit to the Boulder Dam being Exit 1. I guess that means exits along the current I-515 will have to be renumbered.
Quote from: NE2 on June 30, 2012, 03:33:41 PM
Do you think this should have been posted in the fictional ghetto?
No because as someone else pointed out this is based on something that actually is happening. If I were to say something about turning US 101 into I-3, that's fictional.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 30, 2012, 07:00:23 PM
When I-11 (not "if" but when) is signed along US 93 in Nevada, I suspect exit numbering will begin at the Nevada/Arizona stateline with the exit to the Boulder Dam being Exit 1. I guess that means exits along the current I-515 will have to be renumbered.
I just wonder if that will be confusing to Las Vegas residents, since at the I-15 jct the exit numbers for the same mainland freeway will jump up for US 95, and drop going Southbound. But I think it should be renumbered for I-11. I just hope they don't make it I-515/I-11/US 93/US 95.
I'd imagine that when I-11 does enter Nevada, the exit numbers will reset. I don't see it retaining the I-515 exit numbers.
On another note, I think I-11 should be extended to Portland via Reno, Susanville, Lakeview, and Bend. It can be a very good truck corridor. Have I-11 end at I-84 in Troutdale, OR.
But Interstate Trav does have an interesting point. Assuming I-11 ends at I-15, drivers continuing north would transition back to US 95 and exit numbers would jump from 33 (approx for I-15) to 77 (Rancho Drive).
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 07:30:39 PM
I just hope they don't make it I-515/I-11/US 93/US 95.
I think, for continuity, US 93 and US 95 will have to be cosigned just like it is now with I-515. I would think the I-515 designation would have to go away and be replaced with I-11.
Note: In theory, if I-11 were to completely replace US 93 in Arizona, US 93 could be decommissioned from Las Vegas to Wickenburg, AZ. US 93 would then begin at I-15 north of Las Vegas.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:28:04 PM
I read that it looks like I-11 is becoming more of a reality, and I was wondering do you think I-515 will be renumbered as I-11 soon?
No. Simply because there is no compelling reason to renumber I-515 in the near future. I-11 would not be connecting to anything substantial for several years that is not already part of I-515.
Certainly when I-11 does come to fruition, a quick swap of old I-515 shields for new I-11 shields will be in order. Las Vegas locals won't miss the 515 number too much...I-515 was first posted in late 1994/early 1995...it wasn't until the mid 2000s that people actually started referring to it as "the 515"--although it is still more frequently called "the 95".
Quote
Also should I-11 have it's own exit numbers or keep the one's based on US 95?
I touched on this in the I-11 over in the Mountain West board, but it bears repeating in this new thread.
Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. The part of the US 95 freeway north/west of I-15 actually came first before the part currently cosigned with I-515, so there lies that continuity as well. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.
When I-11 becomes a reality, I would guess that NDOT would continue to use US 95's exit numbering due to the continuity issue. This would avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the exit numbering in the middle of Vegas on a through route. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gaines any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 30, 2012, 07:00:23 PM
When I-11 (not "if" but when) is signed along US 93 in Nevada, I suspect exit numbering will begin at the Nevada/Arizona stateline with the exit to the Boulder Dam being Exit 1. I guess that means exits along the current I-515 will have to be renumbered.
The current exit to Hoover Dam along US 93 is Exit 2.
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2012, 03:21:49 AM
The current exit to Hoover Dam along US 93 is Exit 2.
My mistake. Thanks for catching that roadfro.
If what you said happens, that the exit numbers will be retained on the current I-515 freeway, won't that move the gap from the I-15 interchange to the US 95 interchange west of Boulder City? Exits along the future Boulder Bypass would get sub-30 exit numbers (exit numbers less than 30) and then would suddenly jump to the 50's when US 95 joins. I guess that would be better than having the gap in downtown Las Vegas (the lesser of two evils?).
I agree US 93 and US 95 would still have to be co signed, I meant I hope they don't keep I-515 too, that would be pretty redundant.
In responce to Roadfro and myosh_tino,
I think the gap in the exit numbers will be a problem at either location. i can see the argument for keeping to US 95, but at the same time if I-11 is a primary Interstate, which a 2 di is, then I think normally it should be the one controling the exit numbers, especially since the control poin along that freeway is Phoenix anyways, not sure if Needles is even mentioned anymore.
But having a giant gap at I-15 of 40 miles worth of exit numbering could be confusing too, but at the same time I think it will be changed in favor of I-11. But if I-11 gets extended further north, then it really is a no brainer.
Also if US 93 is completely taken over, then US 93 could end at it's jct with I-15 North of Las Vegas, or be re routed on side streets.
I'm sure as you guys can tell I don't know which way I go with the exit numbers for I-11 yet. But I almost want to lean towards I-11 taking over the exit numbers.
A possible scenario would be extending I-11 all the way to the future I-215 interchange northwest of downtown Las Vegas. A second option would be to extend I-11 northwest until it converts to a divided highway (similar to how I-26 ends in Tennessee). In these scenarios, it seems to me that the exit numbers can start at Hoover Dam and extend west and then north all the way along the now-US 95 freeway until the freeway ends, thus eliminating any errant exit numbers.
Besides, US 95 itself south of I-11/US 93 is now four lanes from Nevada 163 north to the US 93 interchange. I think (RoadFro might know better) there are plans to construct a bypass of US 95 around Searchlight. This will make most of the route expressway, with limited at-grade intersections. That could further impact the exit numbering situation down the line.
Of course, all of this is moot for the short term since I don't think FHWA and AASHTO are signing "completed" sections of Interstate 11 similar to Interstate 69, Interstate 73, Interstate 74 East, Interstate 99, and other Congressionally-approved Interstate routes with legislative numbers because (as far as I know) Interstate 11 was not legislatively defined the way those other routes were mandated. I think we'll see Interstate 11 signed once significant portions of the future route are brought up to standards (in this case, building the Boulder City bypass and constructing freeway to freeway connections to Interstate 40 at Kingman, eliminating at-grade intersections from the expressway segments in Arizona, and constructing the link from Wickenburg to Interstate 10). Those upgrades will come in time, but they are not happening today or tomorrow. All in good time.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:28:30 AM
But having a giant gap at I-15 of 40 miles worth of exit numbering could be confusing too, but at the same time I think it will be changed in favor of I-11. But if I-11 gets extended further north, then it really is a no brainer.
Also if US 93 is completely taken over, then US 93 could end at it's jct with I-15 North of Las Vegas,
I'm fine with US 93 being truncated at Exit 64 of I-15. Read my post (at the very bottom of the quote) from the I-11 topic in
'Mountain West'.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:14:02 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:28:30 AM
But having a giant gap at I-15 of 40 miles worth of exit numbering could be confusing too, but at the same time I think it will be changed in favor of I-11. But if I-11 gets extended further north, then it really is a no brainer.
Also if US 93 is completely taken over, then US 93 could end at it's jct with I-15 North of Las Vegas,
I'm fine with US 93 being truncated at Exit 64 of I-15. Read my post (at the very bottom of the quote) from the I-11 topic in 'Mountain West'.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.
I agree with US 93 being trunicated to North of Las Vegas. The short segment that might exist in Arizona could just be AZ 93, and in Nevada have it be NV 93. Basically the route through Boulder City
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:14:02 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:28:30 AM
But having a giant gap at I-15 of 40 miles worth of exit numbering could be confusing too, but at the same time I think it will be changed in favor of I-11. But if I-11 gets extended further north, then it really is a no brainer.
Also if US 93 is completely taken over, then US 93 could end at it's jct with I-15 North of Las Vegas,
I'm fine with US 93 being truncated at Exit 64 of I-15. Read my post (at the very bottom of the quote) from the I-11 topic in 'Mountain West'.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.
I agree with US 93 being trunicated to North of Las Vegas. The short segment that might exist in Arizona could just be AZ 93, and in Nevada have it be NV 93. Basically the route through Boulder City.
Nevada doesn't use two-digit routes anymore, the only two-digit routes are 28 and 88, which are continuations of CA Routes. NV 140 was meant to changed to NV 291 in the 1976 renumbering, but was retained as it was a continuation of OR 140. I'm sure the old US 93 alignment would be a 17x route, similar to NV 172, or it could be BL I-11.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2012, 04:47:14 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2012, 03:21:49 AM
The current exit to Hoover Dam along US 93 is Exit 2.
My mistake. Thanks for catching that roadfro.
If what you said happens, that the exit numbers will be retained on the current I-515 freeway, won't that move the gap from the I-15 interchange to the US 95 interchange west of Boulder City? Exits along the future Boulder Bypass would get sub-30 exit numbers (exit numbers less than 30) and then would suddenly jump to the 50's when US 95 joins. I guess that would be better than having the gap in downtown Las Vegas (the lesser of two evils?).
Note that there are no interchanges planned along the Boulder City Bypass between the new US 93/95 interchange and where the bypass would join the current US 93 mainline just north/west of the Hoover Dam interchange. So you'd have an exit 2 for Hoover Dam, an exit 3 or 4 for Boulder City access, then a 5-10 mile gap before the US 95 interchange.
Quote from: andy3175 on July 01, 2012, 09:56:46 PM
A possible scenario would be extending I-11 all the way to the future I-215 interchange northwest of downtown Las Vegas. A second option would be to extend I-11 northwest until it converts to a divided highway (similar to how I-26 ends in Tennessee). In these scenarios, it seems to me that the exit numbers can start at Hoover Dam and extend west and then north all the way along the now-US 95 freeway until the freeway ends, thus eliminating any errant exit numbers.
Besides, US 95 itself south of I-11/US 93 is now four lanes from Nevada 163 north to the US 93 interchange. I think (RoadFro might know better) there are plans to construct a bypass of US 95 around Searchlight. This will make most of the route expressway, with limited at-grade intersections. That could further impact the exit numbering situation down the line.
The only issue with short term idea to extend I-11 anywhere past the northern 215 interchange is that there is no logical point at which to terminate the route. Since any extension beyond I-15 is uncertain at this point--not having gained nearly the traction as the Vegas to Phoenix concept--it's almost a pointless exercise to speculate too much in that direction.
BTW: I know of no plans for a US 95 bypass of Searchlight. If that was under serious consideration, I think it would have happened when US 95 was being widened south of Boulder City. The main reason NDOT did that widening in the first place was the increase in traffic along the route due to it being part of the Hoover Dam truck detour.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 04:45:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
I agree with US 93 being trunicated to North of Las Vegas. <...> in Nevada have it be NV 93. Basically the route through Boulder City.
Nevada doesn't use two-digit routes anymore, <...> I'm sure the old US 93 alignment would be a 17x route, similar to NV 172, or it could be BL I-11.
When US 93 finally bypasses Boulder City, you can bet the old route through town will receive a "Business 93" designation--the business owners in Boulder City weren't very happy with the southern alternative alignment chosen... Should the route become I-11, A BL-11 might be in order.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the old route would still be a state highway, or would retain state highway status for very long. US 395 Business in Carson City (the old US 395 mainline) has been mostly turned back to the city.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 04:45:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:14:02 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:28:30 AM
But having a giant gap at I-15 of 40 miles worth of exit numbering could be confusing too, but at the same time I think it will be changed in favor of I-11. But if I-11 gets extended further north, then it really is a no brainer.
Also if US 93 is completely taken over, then US 93 could end at it's jct with I-15 North of Las Vegas,
I'm fine with US 93 being truncated at Exit 64 of I-15. Read my post (at the very bottom of the quote) from the I-11 topic in 'Mountain West'.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.
I agree with US 93 being trunicated to North of Las Vegas. The short segment that might exist in Arizona could just be AZ 93, and in Nevada have it be NV 93. Basically the route through Boulder City.
Nevada doesn't use two-digit routes anymore, the only two-digit routes are 28 and 88, which are continuations of CA Routes. NV 140 was meant to changed to NV 291 in the 1976 renumbering, but was retained as it was a continuation of OR 140. I'm sure the old US 93 alignment would be a 17x route, similar to NV 172, or it could be BL I-11.
I actually did not know that Nevada didn't use two digit State Routes anymore. Learn something new everytday. Thanks for the information.
I-11 is written into law now. What do you think of the Boulder City bypass being tolled? I read that as a possibility in a website for one of the Las Vegas papers.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 12:57:28 AM
I-11 is written into law now. What do you think of the Boulder City bypass being tolled? I read that as a possibility in a website for one of the Las Vegas papers.
That is a possibility. The main part of the proposed bypass, between the US 95 and Hoover Dam interchanges, is currently undergoing a feasibility study by the Southern Nevada RTC to see whether constructing and operating it as a toll facility would be a viable way to get it in place. During the last legislative session, a bill was passed that would allow NDOT & RTC to pursue this as a demonstration project--currently, Nevada law does not allow toll road facilities.
IMHO, they should have chosen a through-town alignment for the bypass. This would have been significantly cheaper to construct, and not have the problem of going through extremely mountainous terrain and going waaay south out of the way to bypass--thus resulting in higher costs. This could have kept traffic in town for businesses, but mostly off the city streets. Now, they're looking at a toll road to pay for this. The tolled route will be several miles longer than going through town, and it won't save any time on the drive after stopping to pay a toll--when you think about it, this kind of route would not be frequented by enough drivers to implement any kind of toll transponder program, and Nevada has no infrastructure set up for this anyway.
</rant>
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 12:57:28 AM
I-11 is written into law now. What do you think of the Boulder City bypass being tolled? I read that as a possibility in a website for one of the Las Vegas papers.
That is a possibility. The main part of the proposed bypass, between the US 95 and Hoover Dam interchanges, is currently undergoing a feasibility study by the Southern Nevada RTC to see whether constructing and operating it as a toll facility would be a viable way to get it in place. During the last legislative session, a bill was passed that would allow NDOT & RTC to pursue this as a demonstration project--currently, Nevada law does not allow toll road facilities.
IMHO, they should have chosen a through-town alignment for the bypass. This would have been significantly cheaper to construct, and not have the problem of going through extremely mountainous terrain and going waaay south out of the way to bypass--thus resulting in higher costs. This could have kept traffic in town for businesses, but mostly off the city streets. Now, they're looking at a toll road to pay for this. The tolled route will be several miles longer than going through town, and it won't save any time on the drive after stopping to pay a toll--when you think about it, this kind of route would not be frequented by enough drivers to implement any kind of toll transponder program, and Nevada has no infrastructure set up for this anyway.
</rant>
Such a toll route would be too easy to 'shunpike;' from Phoenix, you'd simply take I-40 to the US95 turnoff and head north. BTW, some cost estimates for that new terrain bypass were around $300 million. If that was the case, apparently someone in Harry Reid's office is too inexperienced to place an earmark for it.
Looks like I-11 would supersede I-515:
http://interstate11.org/exhibits/Interstate%2011%20Corridor%20Map%202-09.pdf
I'm far from Arizona, but looking at maps, it confuses me as to why I-11 is needed instead of a concurrent I-19/I-10, then I-19 splitting off to the north. Any ideas?
There's the possibility that one day I-11 gets extended north from Las Vegas to Reno.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 10:23:20 PM
There's the possibility that one day I-11 gets extended north from Las Vegas to Reno.
But, to be honest, that day is a ways away.
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 05, 2012, 03:06:55 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 10:23:20 PM
There's the possibility that one day I-11 gets extended north from Las Vegas to Reno.
But, to be honest, that day is a ways away.
Yes, that's true. But the chances of ADOT or the feds renumbering I-17 or I-19 are slim to none.
Quote from: brad2971 on July 04, 2012, 05:06:56 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 12:57:28 AM
I-11 is written into law now. What do you think of the Boulder City bypass being tolled? I read that as a possibility in a website for one of the Las Vegas papers.
That is a possibility. The main part of the proposed bypass, between the US 95 and Hoover Dam interchanges, is currently undergoing a feasibility study by the Southern Nevada RTC to see whether constructing and operating it as a toll facility would be a viable way to get it in place. During the last legislative session, a bill was passed that would allow NDOT & RTC to pursue this as a demonstration project--currently, Nevada law does not allow toll road facilities.
Such a toll route would be too easy to 'shunpike;' from Phoenix, you'd simply take I-40 to the US95 turnoff and head north. BTW, some cost estimates for that new terrain bypass were around $300 million. If that was the case, apparently someone in Harry Reid's office is too inexperienced to place an earmark for it.
Nobody's going to go all that way to avoid the toll. An easier "shunpike" would be to simply take the current US 93 route through Boulder City. While it may not retain the same highway/numbering status, the road's not going to go away as it's really the only major access in and out of the city--and it's much shorter than the bypass.
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 04, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
I'm far from Arizona, but looking at maps, it confuses me as to why I-11 is needed instead of a concurrent I-19/I-10, then I-19 splitting off to the north. Any ideas?
Extending I-19 as you suggest to cover the new highway would introduce an overlap with I-10 about 140 miles long. That is way too long of an overlap that is not necessary when there are available numbers in the grid.
EDIT: fixed quote
Then explain I-73/I-74, which even if fully completed would overlap nearly their entire lengths.
Quote from: deanej on July 05, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
Then explain I-73/I-74, which even if fully completed would overlap nearly their entire lengths.
don't ask me. I-74 is hideously out of place; it's almost as silly as I-99.
Quote from: deanej on July 05, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
Then explain I-73/I-74, which even if fully completed would overlap nearly their entire lengths.
Even worse is I-74 sharing a lot of its current/future eastern alignment with US 74 in North Carolina.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 05, 2012, 02:52:32 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 05, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
Then explain I-73/I-74, which even if fully completed would overlap nearly their entire lengths.
don't ask me. I-74 is hideously out of place; it's almost as silly as I-99.
Almost? It's more out of place than I-99, and unlike I-99, there are valid numbers for the corridor. I-99, unlike I-74, was the only number option for its corridor other than I-67 (which PA wants for US 219).
Quote from: Zonie on July 04, 2012, 09:06:00 PM
Looks like I-11 would supersede I-515:
http://interstate11.org/exhibits/Interstate%2011%20Corridor%20Map%202-09.pdf
Wow, that "Hassayampa Freeway" around remote outer Phoenix seems pointless. If the intent is to build a truck bypass, why not just drop it down to I-8 somewhere?
Most older planning maps of Maricopa County or the Buckeye area already had the Hassayampa Freeway planned as a link between I-10 and a future freeway bypass of Wickenburg. AZ 85 is currently being upgraded to combine with I-8 as a freeway bypass of I-10 in Phoenix.
Quote from: roadfro on July 05, 2012, 06:21:54 AM
Extending I-19 as you suggest to cover the new highway would introduce an overlap with I-10 about 140 miles long. That is way too long of an overlap that is not necessary when there are available numbers in the grid.
Is it? I-80 and I-90 are together for far longer than that through Indiana and Ohio. That's about 116 miles in Indiana and 142 miles in Ohio for a total of 258 miles. Then there's I-39 and I-90 for about 96 miles, and I-90 and I-94 for about 91 miles (not to mention that they come back together in Illinois).
I-19 going along I-10 for a mere 140 miles isn't all that much when compared to I-80 and I-90.
You can also bet your life that the I-80/I-90 multiplex would be a lot shorter if this thing called "Canada" didn't exist.
Quote from: Brandon on July 07, 2012, 06:42:37 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 05, 2012, 06:21:54 AM
Extending I-19 as you suggest to cover the new highway would introduce an overlap with I-10 about 140 miles long. That is way too long of an overlap that is not necessary when there are available numbers in the grid.
Is it? I-80 and I-90 are together for far longer than that through Indiana and Ohio. That's about 116 miles in Indiana and 142 miles in Ohio for a total of 258 miles. Then there's I-39 and I-90 for about 96 miles, and I-90 and I-94 for about 91 miles (not to mention that they come back together in Illinois).
I-19 going along I-10 for a mere 140 miles isn't all that much when compared to I-80 and I-90.
Different situation. I-80 and I-90 overlap for necessary continuity purposes of I-90, a major interstate corridor. That multiplex would indeed be far shorter if Canada and the Great Lakes weren't in the way.
If I-19 was a major cross-country route, and it was in two obvious disconnected sections, I'd be all for the long multiplex. (Actually, I'd rather have seen it continue up I-17 instead and use I-17 for what is proposed as I-11, but that's getting into fictional...)
Quote from: roadfro on July 08, 2012, 02:09:29 AM
Quote from: Brandon on July 07, 2012, 06:42:37 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 05, 2012, 06:21:54 AM
Extending I-19 as you suggest to cover the new highway would introduce an overlap with I-10 about 140 miles long. That is way too long of an overlap that is not necessary when there are available numbers in the grid.
Is it? I-80 and I-90 are together for far longer than that through Indiana and Ohio. That's about 116 miles in Indiana and 142 miles in Ohio for a total of 258 miles. Then there's I-39 and I-90 for about 96 miles, and I-90 and I-94 for about 91 miles (not to mention that they come back together in Illinois).
I-19 going along I-10 for a mere 140 miles isn't all that much when compared to I-80 and I-90.
Different situation. I-80 and I-90 overlap for necessary continuity purposes of I-90, a major interstate corridor. That multiplex would indeed be far shorter if Canada and the Great Lakes weren't in the way.
If I-19 was a major cross-country route, and it was in two obvious disconnected sections, I'd be all for the long multiplex. (Actually, I'd rather have seen it continue up I-17 instead and use I-17 for what is proposed as I-11, but that's getting into fictional...)
I was thinking the same thing about I-20/59 in MS/AL, and I-75/85 in Georgia, both 59 and 85 are continuing their diagonal trajectory.
Quote from: Zonie on July 04, 2012, 09:06:00 PM
Looks like I-11 would supersede I-515:
http://interstate11.org/exhibits/Interstate%2011%20Corridor%20Map%202-09.pdf
Getting off topic here, but is there really a need for all of those freeways around Phoenix? That seems like a way to encourage more sprawl than anything else, IMO.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 07, 2012, 03:03:06 AM
Wow, that "Hassayampa Freeway" around remote outer Phoenix seems pointless. If the intent is to build a truck bypass, why not just drop it down to I-8 somewhere?
That seems to make the most sense to me.
Quote from: roadfro on July 08, 2012, 02:09:29 AM
Quote from: Brandon on July 07, 2012, 06:42:37 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 05, 2012, 06:21:54 AM
Extending I-19 as you suggest to cover the new highway would introduce an overlap with I-10 about 140 miles long. That is way too long of an overlap that is not necessary when there are available numbers in the grid.
Is it? I-80 and I-90 are together for far longer than that through Indiana and Ohio. That's about 116 miles in Indiana and 142 miles in Ohio for a total of 258 miles. Then there's I-39 and I-90 for about 96 miles, and I-90 and I-94 for about 91 miles (not to mention that they come back together in Illinois).
I-19 going along I-10 for a mere 140 miles isn't all that much when compared to I-80 and I-90.
Different situation. I-80 and I-90 overlap for necessary continuity purposes of I-90, a major interstate corridor. That multiplex would indeed be far shorter if Canada and the Great Lakes weren't in the way.
If I-19 was a major cross-country route, and it was in two obvious disconnected sections, I'd be all for the long multiplex. (Actually, I'd rather have seen it continue up I-17 instead and use I-17 for what is proposed as I-11, but that's getting into fictional...)
No need to remove the great lakes unless you want to get rid of the multiplex entirely; I-90 could follow I-94 in MI, ON 402, 403, and the QEW, and part of I-190 in NY before joining its current route.
Quote from: deanej on July 08, 2012, 01:03:52 PM
No need to remove the great lakes unless you want to get rid of the multiplex entirely; I-90 could follow I-94 in MI, ON 402, 403, and the QEW, and part of I-190 in NY before joining its current route.
The first International Interstate? :)
It certainly would make GPS vendors happy, since so many of them want to route you through Ontario as if crossing the border is no big deal.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 07, 2012, 03:03:06 AM
Quote from: Zonie on July 04, 2012, 09:06:00 PM
Looks like I-11 would supersede I-515:
http://interstate11.org/exhibits/Interstate%2011%20Corridor%20Map%202-09.pdf
Wow, that "Hassayampa Freeway" around remote outer Phoenix seems pointless. If the intent is to build a truck bypass, why not just drop it down to I-8 somewhere?
Well we all know that I-8 in Arizona ha way to high of a traffic count. Arizona needs another alternate freeway for it. :P
actually, a connection from the eastern suburbs of Phoenix to I-8 would be very useful. 347-238 is just not cutting it right now. lots of traffic lights on 347, and an artificially low speed limit on 238.
This is an interesting map. I always thought I-11 was intended to reach the Mexican border down to Lukeville via AZ-85. I wonder if economy comes back again and spurs new home construction will the construction of I-11 west of Buckeye spur more development out that way? Will I-11 get federal funding? If so, maybe we can get some I-X11 routes from those other proposed freeways on the map. The only proposed freeway that seems odd is that West Prescott Loop. The mountains between Prescott and Wickenburg make it hard to build a freeway through there. But it would make sense to me why Pioneer Pkwy was built.
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 09, 2012, 04:26:39 PM
This is an interesting map. I always thought I-11 was intended to reach the Mexican border down to Lukeville via AZ-85.
hahahahahahahahahaha
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 09, 2012, 04:26:39 PM
This is an interesting map. I always thought I-11 was intended to reach the Mexican border down to Lukeville via AZ-85. I wonder if economy comes back again and spurs new home construction will the construction of I-11 west of Buckeye spur more development out that way? Will I-11 get federal funding? If so, maybe we can get some I-X11 routes from those other proposed freeways on the map. The only proposed freeway that seems odd is that West Prescott Loop. The mountains between Prescott and Wickenburg make it hard to build a freeway through there. But it would make sense to me why Pioneer Pkwy was built.
That would make sense if I-11 were really for freight connections from the Gulf of California ports in Mexico to U.S. and Canadian cities. It's looking more like a makework program and a number for a Phoenix beltway.
Quote from: kkt on July 09, 2012, 07:17:35 PM
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 09, 2012, 04:26:39 PM
This is an interesting map. I always thought I-11 was intended to reach the Mexican border down to Lukeville via AZ-85. I wonder if economy comes back again and spurs new home construction will the construction of I-11 west of Buckeye spur more development out that way? Will I-11 get federal funding? If so, maybe we can get some I-X11 routes from those other proposed freeways on the map. The only proposed freeway that seems odd is that West Prescott Loop. The mountains between Prescott and Wickenburg make it hard to build a freeway through there. But it would make sense to me why Pioneer Pkwy was built.
That would make sense if I-11 were really for freight connections from the Gulf of California ports in Mexico to U.S. and Canadian cities. It's looking more like a makework program and a number for a Phoenix beltway.
Some say that if I-11 were to be extended north to places like Reno and the Northwest, it could function as a major trucking corridor as the western equivalent of I-81.
Quote from: kkt on July 09, 2012, 07:17:35 PM
That would make sense if I-11 were really for freight connections from the Gulf of California ports in Mexico to U.S. and Canadian cities. It's looking more like a makework program and a number for a Phoenix beltway.
Yeah, I thought the one of the main reasons for the I-11 proposal and the Hoover Dam Bypass was not only for a Vegas to Phoenix interstate but, for some sort of NAFTA route to move goods from Mexican ports.
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 09, 2012, 10:00:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 09, 2012, 07:17:35 PM
That would make sense if I-11 were really for freight connections from the Gulf of California ports in Mexico to U.S. and Canadian cities. It's looking more like a makework program and a number for a Phoenix beltway.
Yeah, I thought the one of the main reasons for the I-11 proposal and the Hoover Dam Bypass was not only for a Vegas to Phoenix interstate but, for some sort of NAFTA route to move goods from Mexican ports.
As a CANAMEX corridor, it would be I-19 to I-10 to I-11 (bypassing Phoenix) to I-15 in Las Vegas, I-15 to Canadian border.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 09, 2012, 10:11:24 PM
As a CANAMEX corridor, it would be I-19 to I-10 to I-11 (bypassing Phoenix) to I-15 in Las Vegas, I-15 to Canadian border.
What would be wrong with I-19 to I-10 to I-8 (bypassing Phoenix) to near Gila Bend, then new I-11 to Las Vegas to I-15?
I'm just not sure why the third parallel E-W freeway in 15 miles needs to be an interstate.
Here's a link that briefly describes CANAMEX.
http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 10, 2012, 02:05:57 AM
Here's a link that briefly describes CANAMEX.
http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp
I've seen that. It's a puff piece that avoids obvious questions. It does not attempt to measure the need for any particular piece of I-11 as sketched out -- AADT? Truck traffic? It ignores existing parallel routes, as if I-11 was the only way a truck could possibly get from Nogales to Calgary.
I have no problem with Arizona building a third beltway for Phoenix if they think they need it, but I think interstate numbers should be for projects that are significant beyond one city.
Is it simply the E-W freeway north of Casa Grande/south of Phoenix that you object to having the I-11 number, or the whole route?
Quote from: kkt on July 10, 2012, 10:30:24 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 10, 2012, 02:05:57 AM
Here's a link that briefly describes CANAMEX.
http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp
It seems like I-11 is being used as a Truck route, but also in Phoenix there routing it to there advantage to make a bypass, and having the advantage of another through route in there state.
I've seen that. It's a puff piece that avoids obvious questions. It does not attempt to measure the need for any particular piece of I-11 as sketched out -- AADT? Truck traffic? It ignores existing parallel routes, as if I-11 was the only way a truck could possibly get from Nogales to Calgary.
I have no problem with Arizona building a third beltway for Phoenix if they think they need it, but I think interstate numbers should be for projects that are significant beyond one city.
I think that Arizona is building it a s through route, but there using the I-11 route through or around Phoenix to there advantage to make a bypass of town. Serves two purposes for them. Unless they just route I-11 down to Lukeville Arizona.
Quote from: english si on July 10, 2012, 12:15:15 PM
Is it simply the E-W freeway north of Casa Grande/south of Phoenix that you object to having the I-11 number, or the whole route?
Some of the common themes of discussion here among roadgeeks are topics such as "Why don't they build an Interstate connecting X and Y?" and "Why isn't there funding available for expanding route Z or bypassing Q?"
Then someone proposes a new & valuable intercity I route, and it turns out a big portion is an exurban beltway that will encourage vast amounts of sprawl, probably at the behest of politically well-connected real estate speculators. I think it really underlines how our road spending is being misallocated.
is there a way to build beltways but discourage sprawl?
if I recall correctly, I-80 (former I-880) around Sacramento isn't particularly ornery.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 10, 2012, 09:21:46 PM
is there a way to build beltways but discourage sprawl?
if I recall correctly, I-80 (former I-880) around Sacramento isn't particularly ornery.
Build them without exits?
I've noticed that beltways don't really produce sprawl so much as connect different parts of the sprawl that happens anyway without a beltway. Sprawl seems to come first, then the roads.
Quote from: kkt on July 10, 2012, 10:30:24 AM
I have no problem with Arizona building a third beltway for Phoenix if they think they need it, but I think interstate numbers should be for projects that are significant beyond one city.
Are you forgetting the part where I-11 goes to Las Vegas...?
The whole impetus behind the I-11 idea is to connect the Phoenix area to the Las Vegas area. Thus, this interstate is significant to two metropolitan areas.
Quote from: Brandon on July 10, 2012, 10:54:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 10, 2012, 09:21:46 PM
is there a way to build beltways but discourage sprawl?
Build them without exits?
I've noticed that beltways don't really produce sprawl so much as connect different parts of the sprawl that happens anyway without a beltway. Sprawl seems to come first, then the roads.
That's the plan for the Boulder City Bypass--no exits between Hoover Dam and US 95. Although I understand Boulder City has ordinances limiting the number of building permits issued each year...otherwise, I'm sure that town would be a lot bigger by now.
Sprawl and beltways can be a double edged sword. One tends to promote the other, and vice-versa.
Recent email correspondence with NDOT indicates that I-515 will not be renumbered anytime soon. First, I asked if NDOT has plans, in light of MAP-21, to renumber I-515 to I-11. The response:
Quote
It will take decades to create an I-11 in AZ. No doubt when that happens, there will be a re-designation one way or the other. No doubt, US 95 north of Las Vegas and leading north to the ID border will be improved to facilitate CMV movements, but today's traffic volumes do not warrant IR improvements.
Route designations are not made by individual state DOTs. This domain remains with the FHWA and AASHTO. They will do whatever they will do. Neither NV nor AZ is driving this determination.
MAP-21 does not call for construction of "I-11." It merely directs all concerned to start the NEPA process.
Hope this clarifies your understanding of the situation.
I then had the following Q & A:
Quote
Q Does NDOT know why I-11 was included with I-69 in the MAP-21 provision that allows interstate signage for disconnected segments of those two interstates?
A We do not. Most of I-11 will be in AZ. NV share is only 7 miles. FHWA and ADOT are driving this project.
Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?
Quote from: Grzrd on July 11, 2012, 02:33:50 PM
Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?
Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles." Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!
Quote from: TheStranger on July 11, 2012, 03:57:56 PM
Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles." Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!
I think what NDOT means is only 7 miles of new freeway are needed to complete Nevada's portion of I-11 (Boulder City Bypass). The rest of the route already exists as I-515.
Quote from: english si on July 10, 2012, 12:15:15 PM
Is it simply the E-W freeway north of Casa Grande/south of Phoenix that you object to having the I-11 number, or the whole route?
I object to both. I object to the whole route because it's not getting enough traffic to be an interstate, and it's short enough that even if it is interstate, it could stick with I-515 and be fine.
And I object to routing a primary interstate number in a fishhook shape in order make a beltway around Phoenix. If Arizona wants a beltway around Phoenix, let them give it an Arizona state route number.
Further, I object to assigning interstate numbers on the basis of "my congressman can beat up your congressman." An interstate route should mean something. It no longer means the Feds pay for it, but it should still mean it's a major route with long distance travelers' needs in mind, not just a beltway for one city. I-8 would be a better southern beltway from the point of view of traffic from Mexico to Las Vegas and I-15; the proposed route is only better from the point of view of Phoenix real estate developers.
Quote from: kkt on July 11, 2012, 11:10:05 PMit's short enough that even if it is interstate, it could stick with I-515 and be fine.
I'm sorry what? It's about 300 miles between LV and Phoenix - plenty of shorter 2dis that don't serve as many and twice as long as I-476 and it's not like they are short of spare 2di numbers in that part of the country. With the Phoenix Bypass it's nearly as long as I-8.
In your opinion, these should be 3dis as not long enough as under 350 miles (which, rounded up to the nearest 50, is how long I-11 will be) - I'd agree that some should be 3dis, but some of these would be absurd as 3dis:
I-4 (132.3),
I-8 (348.25), I-12 (85.6), I-16 (166.81), I-17 (145.76), I-19 (63.60), I-22 (213.0), I-24 (316.3),
I-26 (349), I-27 (124.13), I-37 (143.00),
I-39 (306.14), I-43 (191.5), I-45 (284.91), I-49 (208.25), I-66 (76.28), I-68 (112.9),
I-71 (343.78), I-72 (179.29), I-73 (33.5), I-76 West (187.34), I-78 (143.56),
I-79 (343.24), I-82 (143.58), I-83 (85.3), I-84 East (232.4), I-86 West (62.85), I-86 East (183.56), I-87 (333.49), I-88 West (140.6), I-88 East (117.75), I-89 (191.1), I-91 (290.37), I-93 (189.95), I-96 (192.06), I-97 (17.62), I-99 (85.0)
Also plenty of lower-trafficked interstates.
I can't see the automatic objection to a 2di on a Beltway, forming a hook shaped route. Even more absurd is that Beltways should be state routes and shouldn't be interstates.
But yes the numbering-into-law thing is annoying.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 11, 2012, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 11, 2012, 02:33:50 PM
Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?
Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles." Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!
I wonder if they're referring to the unbuilt portions -- where I-515 ends at US 95 to the NV 172 exit on US 93 is roughly seven miles.
Quote from: english si on July 12, 2012, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: kkt on July 11, 2012, 11:10:05 PMit's short enough that even if it is interstate, it could stick with I-515 and be fine.
I'm sorry what? It's about 300 miles between LV and Phoenix - plenty of shorter 2dis that don't serve as many and twice as long as I-476 and it's not like they are short of spare 2di numbers in that part of the country. With the Phoenix Bypass it's nearly as long as I-8.
In your opinion, these should be 3dis as not long enough as under 350 miles (which, rounded up to the nearest 50, is how long I-11 will be) - I'd agree that some should be 3dis, but some of these would be absurd as 3dis:
I-4 (132.3), I-8 (348.25), I-12 (85.6), I-16 (166.81), I-17 (145.76), I-19 (63.60), I-22 (213.0), I-24 (316.3), I-26 (349), I-27 (124.13), I-37 (143.00), I-39 (306.14), I-43 (191.5), I-45 (284.91), I-49 (208.25), I-66 (76.28), I-68 (112.9), I-71 (343.78), I-72 (179.29), I-73 (33.5), I-76 West (187.34), I-78 (143.56), I-79 (343.24), I-82 (143.58), I-83 (85.3), I-84 East (232.4), I-86 West (62.85), I-86 East (183.56), I-87 (333.49), I-88 West (140.6), I-88 East (117.75), I-89 (191.1), I-91 (290.37), I-93 (189.95), I-96 (192.06), I-97 (17.62), I-99 (85.0)
Also plenty of lower-trafficked interstates.
I can't see the automatic objection to a 2di on a Beltway, forming a hook shaped route. Even more absurd is that Beltways should be state routes and shouldn't be interstates.
But yes the numbering-into-law thing is annoying.
Um, what? Mapquest is telling me Phoenix to Las Vegas is 285 miles via US-60, US-93, I-40, US-93, and I-515. I guess in length that would be the longest 3di, but there's not very much along the way. I guess the ones that you italicized are the ones you think are indefensible as 3dis? Note that the italicized ones are all over 285 miles. Yes, I do think most of the short 2dis should have been 3dis (not that I advocate renumbering them now).
There is a shortage of 2dis in the southwest. If Arizona hadn't used I-17 and I-19 for short routes we'd have a number available for I-11 that would be in the grid. Between I-5 and I-15, there's proposals for interstates made from US-97, CA-99, US-395, and US-93; there's not enough odd-numbered interstates for all of them. And California is running out of 3dis off of I-5.
About the beltway: I don't mind interstates taking a beltway when they continue past the city and the beltway is the quickest way past. But the proposed I-11 wouldn't be going past Phoenix to another destination to the east. According to its selling points, it's supposed to be serving a destination to the south of Phoenix, and heading south to I-8 would be the most efficient way to accomplish that.
Quote from: kkt on July 12, 2012, 01:39:38 PMUm, what? Mapquest is telling me Phoenix to Las Vegas is 285 miles via US-60, US-93, I-40, US-93, and I-515.
Google saying 301 miles, alter it so that the freeway ploughs through the edge of the urban area and you get a 290 mile figure.
Total length of I-11 is looking to be about 360 miles.
QuoteI guess in length that would be the longest 3di, but there's not very much along the way.
You're right there's nothing much along the way - but there's a big city at either end.
QuoteI guess the ones that you italicized are the ones you think are indefensible as 3dis? Note that the italicized ones are all over 285 miles. Yes, I do think most of the short 2dis should have been 3dis (not that I advocate renumbering them now).
Nope, there's a very simple reason all the italicised ones were above 285 miles long - I italicised those between 300mi - 350mi and thus in the same ballpark as I-11, though I-24 and I-87 escaped me.
Though if it was routes that are absurd as 3dis, I'd only leave I-12, I-19, I-27, I-66, I-73, I-74, I-76(W), I-82, I-86(W), I-89/I-93 (probably extend I-93 over I-89 and renumber the rest as a 3di), I-97 and I-99 without italics. And many of those would make it onto my list of routes that should be 2dis.
QuoteThere is a shortage of 2dis in the southwest. If Arizona hadn't used I-17 and I-19 for short routes we'd have a number available for I-11 that would be in the grid.
While I agree I-17 and I-19 should have been one number, or I-19 a I-x10, there's still not a shortage of numbers - there's a problem if you want to be massively anal about the grid (same applies if the Flagstaff - Nogales interstate was numbered I-17 as would have been very likely), but that it's I-11, rather than I-17 or I-19 is not a good reason to deny it being a route worthy of being 2-digits.
And if they wanted a number that better fitted the grid, I-21 and I-23 were available, as were various even routes that would work geographically, except it's N-S traffic that they want, not E-W traffic from Eastern Mexico looking to bypass the greater LA area enroute to the Pacific NW and NoCal via an US93-I-40-CA58-CA99 route.
QuoteBetween I-5 and I-15, there's proposals for interstates made from US-97, CA-99, US-395, and US-93;
All of which are too lightly trafficked to be interstates, according to what you said about US93 in AZ. And I-7, I-9, I-13 and I-11 sequence there a problem?
Quotethere's not enough odd-numbered interstates for all of them.
4 routes, 4 numbers between I-5 and I-21, plus I-21 and I-23 if you really needed.
And as a reason from you to not have I-11 as a 2di, it's absurd - you've attacked the route on traffic levels, saying it doesn't warrant being an interstate, then give some other lightly-trafficked corridors with random proposals to justify it not giving a number. You then have 'short' corridors that pass by next-to-nothing as unworthy of 2di status and should be 3dis - that must be at least one, if
QuoteAnd California is running out of 3dis off of I-5.
Only because the eejits decided to use up a lot of the numbers in SoCal, where I-8, I-10 and I-15 could have taken over one or two (I-605 certainly could have been an I-x10). Also, between those 3 and I-9 (which can use 3dis to remove I-205 and unsigned I-305 if needed elsewhere), most future, completely long distance proposals for I-x05s can have I-x08, I-x09, I-x10 or I-x15 numbers instead.
And lots of states would have 2dis running out of auxiliary numbers if you had had your way and had lots of current 2dis as 3dis. If you are going to make arguments, make them consistent with each other.
QuoteAbout the beltway: I don't mind interstates taking a beltway when they continue past the city and the beltway is the quickest way past. But the proposed I-11 wouldn't be going past Phoenix to another destination to the east.
You mean south. And sure it is - Nogales, only there's no point in renumbering I-19 (though quite why they didn't just extend it - then again, they'd be moans about out-of-grid).
QuoteAccording to its selling points, it's supposed to be serving a destination to the south of Phoenix, and heading south to I-8 would be the most efficient way to accomplish that.
Yes it probably is, but I'd imagine that a Phoenix belt would get the same federal funding if it was I-11 or Loop 404 (or something).
OK, it makes I-11 about 310 miles to end at Gila Bend, rather than 360 if it ends at Casa Grande (though AZ would dual sign I-8 to Casa Grande to route traffic around Phoenix, giving a 370 mile route for I-11).
Quote from: Zonie on July 12, 2012, 10:27:56 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 11, 2012, 03:57:56 PM
Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles." Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!
I wonder if they're referring to the unbuilt portions -- where I-515 ends at US 95 to the NV 172 exit on US 93 is roughly seven miles.
Actually, it's a little bit longer than seven miles, but yeah it seems that was in reference to what has not been built to freeway standards.
The Boulder City Bypass full length is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 miles, with the approximately 12-mile phase 2 being the portion that is under examination for possible tolling.