Interstate 11

[J N Winkler]

The valley that includes Mammoth?

That is one possibility.  The basic idea (described in very general terms in the one study I have seen) is for I-10 Alternate to leave current I-10 around Willcox and work its way around Pinnacle Ridge to the Phoenix area.

[andy3175]

More community meetings on the Arizona segment of I-11:

http://www.inmaricopa.com/Article/2014/12/18/city-studies-future-roadways

Every transportation discussion leads to the proposed Interstate 11. That is envisioned as running from Las Vegas to Wickenburg, replacing U.S. 93 and Interstate 515, to become the Hassayampa Freeway, loop west of the Phoenix metropolitan area, run south of Maricopa and east to a proposed Pinal North-South Freeway. ... Bob Hazlett, senior engineer for the Maricopa Association of Governments, presented information on parkway framework studies to the Maricopa City Council Tuesday. His focus was the Interstate 8/Interstate 10/Hidden Valley framework. He said studies done between 2007 and 2009 pointed to the future traffic flows. The Highway 238 corridor is seen as growing in the future as "a lot of traffic likes to go to the West Valley." ...

Arizona's lack of north-south freeways instigated talk of I-11. Hazlett said I-11 would give travelers a gateway and close the gap to U.S. 93. The concept also includes coordinating infrastructure plans for the Mexico Federal Highway 15. Still, it was the east-west travel options that centered the conversation in council chambers. Consultant Berwyn Wilbrink of Jacobs Engineering walked the council through the history of the East-West Corridor study during a work session preceding the regular meeting. Main interest was in the Val Vista and Anderson Parkway Planning Corridors. The plans are meant to "serve as key components of a master transportation planning network." A proposed Val Vista Freeway would link Casa Grande to I-11 using Farrell Road. An proposed Anderson parkway would link the East-West Corridor to I-8. The council approved recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Committee, but not before hearing and accommodating concerns from landowners.

[andy3175]

An Interstate 11 Arizona study has been approved...

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2014/12/arizona-transportation-board-approves-15m.html (12-15-2014)

The Arizona State Transportation Board approved $15 million for an environmental study along the part of the proposed route for the freeway that would run north-south in western Arizona to connect Nogales to Las Vegas. The environmental impact study will examine the portion of the I-11 route between Nogales and Wickenburg. The three-year study will begin next year.

[Laura]

The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!

http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook


iPhone

[jakeroot]

The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...

Why do states still pave with concrete?

[Zeffy]

The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...

Why do states still pave with concrete?

Supposedly concrete holds up better compared to asphalt, saving lots of cash in the long run.

[jakeroot]

The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...

Why do states still pave with concrete?

Supposedly concrete holds up better compared to asphalt, saving lots of cash in the long run.

Cheap bastards.

[SD Mapman]

The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...

Why do states still pave with concrete?

Supposedly concrete holds up better compared to asphalt, saving lots of cash in the long run.

Cheap bastards.

What's wrong with concrete? That's what I've always thought.

[dfwmapper]

Why do states still pave with asphalt? When laid on a properly prepared base, concrete lasts for 40+ years with little to no maintenance. Asphalt needs a new overlay every 5-10 years and constant maintenance to seal cracks and fix potholes. And if they don't get the mix right, the road can literally start to melt on hot days, leading to huge ruts on truck-heavy routes.

[jakeroot]

What's wrong with concrete? That's what I've always thought.

Why do states still pave with asphalt? When laid on a properly prepared base, concrete lasts for 40+ years with little to no maintenance. Asphalt needs a new overlay every 5-10 years and constant maintenance to seal cracks and fix potholes. And if they don't get the mix right, the road can literally start to melt on hot days, leading to huge ruts on truck-heavy routes.

My preference, from experience and reading, is for rubberized asphalt, similar to the type AZDOT uses. So far, I haven't heard of Phoenix's freeways melting, and we all know that Phoenix is incredibly hot. My main reason for liking it is because it's so much quieter.

If we built our freeways properly (in other words, thicker) we could pave with asphalt and have about the same maintenance schedule as concrete, but with all the benefits of asphalt.

[roadfro]

One other aspect on the asphalt vs concrete debate is the site conditions. Different soil conditions or minerals present could necessitate one pavement over the other, or even different admixtures in the concrete or asphalt.

If we built our freeways properly (in other words, thicker) we could pave with asphalt and have about the same maintenance schedule as concrete, but with all the benefits of asphalt.

Thicker doesn't necessarily mean better. Asphalt cannot be laid in a single thick layer like concrete can, as it needs to be compacted--since you have to lay it in 2" lifts, it doesn't get the same cohesion and strength. Asphalt is designed to be a flexible pavement and porous on the top (wearing course), whereas concrete is a rigid pavement.

Probably one of the best blends would be to have a concrete pavement with asphalt wearing course. However, that blend doesn't always work, depending on conditions.

[jakeroot]

Thicker doesn't necessarily mean better. Asphalt cannot be laid in a single thick layer like concrete can, as it needs to be compacted--since you have to lay it in 2" lifts, it doesn't get the same cohesion and strength. Asphalt is designed to be a flexible pavement and porous on the top (wearing course), whereas concrete is a rigid pavement.

So the problem is that it takes too long to lay? Lets say the Boulder City Bypass Road is approved for construction using asphalt. If the asphalt can only be built in 2" lifts, and we need about 28 or 30 inches of it, we're talking 14 or 15 separate lifts (right?). Certainly, that's a long time for paving, and the time-frame for construction could jump by a lot, but I want to drive on a road that's quiet and can stand the test of time.

Probably one of the best blends would be to have a concrete pavement with asphalt wearing course. However, that blend doesn't always work, depending on conditions.

Do you know of any examples?

[roadfro]

Thicker doesn't necessarily mean better. Asphalt cannot be laid in a single thick layer like concrete can, as it needs to be compacted--since you have to lay it in 2" lifts, it doesn't get the same cohesion and strength. Asphalt is designed to be a flexible pavement and porous on the top (wearing course), whereas concrete is a rigid pavement.

So the problem is that it takes too long to lay? Lets say the Boulder City Bypass Road is approved for construction using asphalt. If the asphalt can only be built in 2" lifts, and we need about 28 or 30 inches of it, we're talking 14 or 15 separate lifts (right?). Certainly, that's a long time for paving, and the time-frame for construction could jump by a lot, but I want to drive on a road that's quiet and can stand the test of time.

An initial asphalt roadway is designed to last for a certain amount of years (for a major highway, this might be on the order of 8-ish years, depending on mix designs and traffic load). Then, an overlay or mill-and-fill operation on the top layers extends the life for another period of time. This recurring maintenance would typically happen a few times over the expected life cycle (a rough target is 3 overlays before you'd need full reconstruction). All this is factored into the initial design. As long as the base layers are pretty solid, then only minor overlays should be needed until full reconstruction is necessary. Compare this to concrete roadway, which uses a thinner layer of pavement with rebar reinforcement that typically lasts much longer without significant work. Barring major issues, the life cycle of concrete can be roughly the same as the life cycle of asphalt (including planned overlays).

So the major question often comes down to a life-cycle cost analysis. Do you spend a lot of money up front for a concrete roadway, or spend less now and more for overlays down the road?


That's not the only consideration though. There are many other factors that go into it. Examples:

• The price of asphalt typically goes up with rising gas prices, since there is so much oil in asphalt mix. On the other hand, the price of concrete goes up during building booms, because steel needed for rebar is in higher demand.
  
• In certain soil conditions, one type of pavement may be more desirable. (E.g.: a soil filled with lots of clay may be better off having a more rigid concrete pavement to prevent flexing and water infiltration).
  
• Is potential for frost heave a factor working against concrete?
  
• Is potential extreme heat a factor against asphalt?
  
  
  There was a thread on the General Talk board some time ago where the merits of asphalt versus concrete was debated by our readership.
  
  

  
  

  
  Probably one of the best blends would be to have a concrete pavement with asphalt wearing course. However, that blend doesn't always work, depending on conditions.
  

  
  Do you know of any examples?
  

  
  I don't know of any specific examples for sure where this was done at the outset. I seem to recall reading somewhere (maybe in the Roadgeek forum on Yahoo) that using asphalt as an overlay on older concrete pavements is a somewhat common thing in certain states. NDOT may have done this on the southern section of I-515 in Las Vegas/Henderson not too long ago (possibly with rubberized asphalt).

[dfwmapper]

My preference, from experience and reading, is for rubberized asphalt, similar to the type AZDOT uses. So far, I haven't heard of Phoenix's freeways melting, and we all know that Phoenix is incredibly hot. My main reason for liking it is because it's so much quieter.

If we built our freeways properly (in other words, thicker) we could pave with asphalt and have about the same maintenance schedule as concrete, but with all the benefits of asphalt.

ADOT's rubberized asphalt is a thin overlay on top of a full concrete road, so it has most of the structural advantages of concrete, and the downside of being a good bit more expensive, and there's not really any data on how well the surface will stand up to freeway-level loads over longer timeframes because it's only been in use for a little over a decade.

[Henry]

Arizona DOT has also been considering an "I-10 alternate" that would bypass Tucson completely and run in an unpopulated valley one mountain range to the east of current I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.  However, there is no obvious place for it to tie into the Phoenix freeway network, though the study I have seen suggests that it could cross existing I-10 somewhat to the north of the present I-8/I-10 split and merge back into I-10 somewhere around the SR 85 interchange.

Surely they can't be serious about all that?

[Grzrd]

The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook

This public radio story reports on Nevada public health officials denying that they suppressed a study indicating that I-11 construction on the Boulder City Bypass in particular and between Las Vegas and Phoenix in general will create a health hazard by disturbing soils with concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.

[Rover_0]

The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook

This public radio story reports on Nevada public health officials denying that they suppressed a study indicating that I-11 construction on the Boulder City Bypass in particular and between Las Vegas and Phoenix in general will create a health hazard by disturbing soils with concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.

While it's certainly interesting, I think things are too far along for this to affect the Boulder City Bypass.

[andy3175]

The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!

http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook


iPhone

I noticed that the groundbreaking is in April 2015, and completion is expected in early 2018. I am glad to see that this project also addresses Railroad Pass by adding a full interchange at this location and adding the overhead steel truss bridge to carry the railroad over the freeway. I do wonder how they will make the "1,200-foot-long, 28-foot-tall cast-in-place concrete retaining wall with graphics illustrating scenes from the construction of Hoover Dam" appear somewhat legible/easy to see without being distracted when people are driving by at 65-70 mph.

[roadfro]

This public radio story reports on Nevada public health officials denying that they suppressed a study indicating that I-11 construction on the Boulder City Bypass in particular and between Las Vegas and Phoenix in general will create a health hazard by disturbing soils with concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.

While it's certainly interesting, I think things are too far along for this to affect the Boulder City Bypass.

I'm having trouble opening this on my phone right now so haven't read it... With that said:

Bid advertising for this project was delayed about 6 months or so, due to the discovery of the naturally occurring asbestos. It was widely mentioned in the media so there would be some scrutiny if they were to not disclose how they will deal with thi.this during construction. I gotta believe NDOT and RTC are doing their due diligence on this one.

[swbrotha100]

So the Las Vegas Review-Journal online has a map of proposed routes for future I-11 in the Phoenix area. Any opinions?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/interstate-11-phoenix-routes

[Thing 342]

I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.

I still don't see the need, unless Arizona wants to use it as an excuse to shove mileage-based numbers onto I-19.  As you can probably tell, I'm not interested in what the Canamex crowd wants.  I believe we already have transcontinental interstates and that we don't need to shove in more as a symbolic gesture to make it look like we're actually doing something for NAFTA.

I agree. I feel that I-11 could become a 69/73/74 type boondoggle, where a missing link in the IHS is blown up to a completely unnecessary transnational corridor in the name of some nebulous trade agreement, leading to the actual important segment never actually being built. The best routing for I-11, in my opinion, should involve it taking over all of I-515, then following US-93 and US-60 to Phoenix, and then use one of the beltways to terminate at I-10 west of downtown. If greater access to Mexico really is needed, then build the southern portion of Loop 202 around downtown and widen I-10 and I-19.

[swbrotha100]

I was wondering to what extent there were proposals to route future I-11 in the Phoenix area along existing routes. Other than routing along parts of I-10 and AZ 85, I have yet to see anything suggesting I-11 would actually be in the Phoenix city limits, or close enough to Phoenix to be routed on current portions of I-17, Loop 101, or US 60/Grand Ave east of Loop 303.

[dfwmapper]

I was wondering to what extent there were proposals to route future I-11 in the Phoenix area along existing routes. Other than routing along parts of I-10 and AZ 85, I have yet to see anything suggesting I-11 would actually be in the Phoenix city limits, or close enough to Phoenix to be routed on current portions of I-17, Loop 101, or US 60/Grand Ave east of Loop 303.

Nothing serious. Simply too much development around, the land acquisition costs would be astronomical.

[billtm]

So the Las Vegas Review-Journal online has a map of proposed routes for future I-11 in the Phoenix area. Any opinions?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/interstate-11-phoenix-routes

Of those routes, I would prefer the Sun Valley Parkway route. I like it because the land its going over is mostly desert so it would be cheap. And its not too far from Phoenix, considering how fast the city is growing. I don't know much about Arizona, but are they seriously proposing the Interstate to continue south past I-10? That seems dumb to me. I would just have it terminate near MM111. I would have it run to the east of the Sun Valley Pkwy. and then have it merge with US 60 southeast of Morristown where it crosses the railroad tracks.

[kkt]

Agree about the Sun Valley Parkway route. 

But continuing south to I-8 around Gila Bend would make a great bypass of the whole Phoenix metro area and avoid congestion for decades to come.  The justification for I-11 was supposed to be efficient movement of freight from Mexico to various places in the western U.S.  I-11 reaching I-8 would do more to accomplish that than a beltway around the current Phoenix urbanized area.