Phoenix Area Highways

[Plutonic Panda]

The intersection of US-60, Grand Ave, and Indian School Road Will be completely reworked with a new grade separation. Construction starts in 2026.



https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/grand-35-study?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3HCLMHaw8IQZfBDjpVacC7kgb9b3YVmHYLpaaSWKSAsJFGfQHs-lUWR_U_aem_cSA97Nj30GICXGPX-mIu0A

[74/171FAN]

^Yeah, that is an incorrect link.

[Plutonic Panda]

^Yeah, that is an incorrect link.

Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it.

[kernals12]

Does anyone think the original Interstate 10 alignment would have worked better than the present-day Interstate 10 alignment? The relocation of Interstate 10 between the two Interstate 17 interchanges spelled the end of the proposed Interstates 410 and 510.

I've thought about it. The I-10 alignment is fine. The issue is where the 90 degree turns are located.

I'd argue it would've been better to have the 90 degree turns be located at the Broadway Curve, the Durango Curve and the Stack as opposed to the current setup of the Broadway Curve, the I-10 / I-17 split, and the Mini Stack. I-17 should end at the Stack and the portion of I-17 between the two I-10 interchanges should have simply remained I-10 with AZ 510 heading N/S from the "Split" and I-410 or Loop 202 heading E/W from the current "Stack" location with the "Mini Stack" being more of a traditional stack interchange.

This would've accomplished routing the long distance truck traffic south of downtown and allowing the heaviest volume movements through the "Mini Stack" from having the correct number of lanes allocated to them as opposed to being forced to exit.

Does anyone think the original Interstate 10 alignment would have worked better than the present-day Interstate 10 alignment? The relocation of Interstate 10 between the two Interstate 17 interchanges spelled the end of the proposed Interstates 410 and 510.

I've thought about it. The I-10 alignment is fine. The issue is where the 90 degree turns are located.

I'd argue it would've been better to have the 90 degree turns be located at the Broadway Curve, the Durango Curve and the Stack as opposed to the current setup of the Broadway Curve, the I-10 / I-17 split, and the Mini Stack. I-17 should end at the Stack and the portion of I-17 between the two I-10 interchanges should have simply remained I-10 with AZ 510 heading N/S from the "Split" and I-410 or Loop 202 heading E/W from the current "Stack" location with the "Mini Stack" being more of a traditional stack interchange.

This would've accomplished routing the long distance truck traffic south of downtown and allowing the heaviest volume movements through the "Mini Stack" from having the correct number of lanes allocated to them as opposed to being forced to exit.

Everybody on this board has a better chance of winning PowerBall at the same time than ADOT does of resurrecting 3DIs.  That horse left the corral over 50 years ago, and ain't coming back.

How come North Carolina gets to slap interstate shields on all its roads while for Arizona it's like winning the lottery?

[Max Rockatansky]

ADOT didn't want to seek the designations.  When you think about what is the point of going through hoops with AASHTO and the FHWA for non-chargeable corridors?

Arizona was snubbed numerous times for additional chargeable mileage during the early Interstate era.  AZ 51 probably is a vestige of the proposed I-510 corridor.

[kernals12]

ADOT didn't want to seek the designations.  When you think about what is the point of going through hoops with AASHTO and the FHWA for non-chargeable corridors?

Arizona was snubbed numerous times for additional chargeable mileage during the early Interstate era.  AZ 51 probably is a vestige of the proposed I-510 corridor.

Phoenix has a lot of transplants and having 3 digit interstates would help build familiarity.

[Max Rockatansky]

ADOT didn't want to seek the designations.  When you think about what is the point of going through hoops with AASHTO and the FHWA for non-chargeable corridors?

Arizona was snubbed numerous times for additional chargeable mileage during the early Interstate era.  AZ 51 probably is a vestige of the proposed I-510 corridor.

Phoenix has a lot of transplants and having 3 digit interstates would help build familiarity.

Pretty sparse system (in terms of Route numbers) to begin with and I don't recall anyone having much issue negotiating which Loop Freeway was which.  The name designations of the freeways are way less intuitive to memorize.

[Rothman]

Makes me wonder why AZ was snubbed and NC wasn't.  Getting 90% instead of 80% reimbursed NHPP funding should be an incentive.

I'd be surprised if any of the AZ freeways aren't up to Interstate standards anyway.

[Max Rockatansky]

To my knowledge only 143, 24, the north end of 303 maybe still a small portion of 51 in downtown aren't.

[Plutonic Panda]

I like uniqueness and not seeing 3DI's everywhere in Pheonix. I wanted a 3DI in OKC for an I-35 bypass and I-235 extended but I did not expect them to go crazy and number every freeway there a 3DI.

[Bobby5280]

In the case of OKC, I'm surprised they didn't extend the I-235 designation farther North up to the Kilpatrick Turnpike (and what is now "I-344").

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 235 will probably never be extended to Interstate 344/JKT, just like the eastern Interstate 76 will never be extended to Atlantic City via NJ 42 and the ACE, logical as both may seem. As for why there are no 3dis in Arizona, the Roads and freeways in Metropolitan Phoenix Wikipedia page sheds some light on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_and_freeways_in_metropolitan_Phoenix.

[machias]

ADOT didn't want to seek the designations.  When you think about what is the point of going through hoops with AASHTO and the FHWA for non-chargeable corridors?

Arizona was snubbed numerous times for additional chargeable mileage during the early Interstate era.  AZ 51 probably is a vestige of the proposed I-510 corridor.

Phoenix has a lot of transplants and having 3 digit interstates would help build familiarity.

I doubt folks would feel familiarity if Loop 101 was called I-210 or whatever. Most folks aren't that engaged with route numbers.

[Max Rockatansky]

ADOT didn't want to seek the designations.  When you think about what is the point of going through hoops with AASHTO and the FHWA for non-chargeable corridors?

Arizona was snubbed numerous times for additional chargeable mileage during the early Interstate era.  AZ 51 probably is a vestige of the proposed I-510 corridor.

Phoenix has a lot of transplants and having 3 digit interstates would help build familiarity.

I doubt folks would feel familiarity if Loop 101 was called I-210 or whatever. Most folks aren't that engaged with route numbers.

People feel familiarity to an exit number, at best. 

[Roadwarriors79]

Phoenix could have used more SR x10 and SR x17 numbers. Tucson has AZ 210 and the future Sonoran corridor is using SR 410.

[Max Rockatansky]

Could have, but didn't.  No point changing now what isn't broken.

[KeithE4Phx]

Phoenix could have used more SR x10 and SR x17 numbers. Tucson has AZ 210 and the future Sonoran corridor is using SR 410.

That was the original plan, at least according to the following map:  https://roads.aznate.tech/assets/highways/az101/1986-proposed-phx-expressways.png

Loop 101:  AZ 117 (Price & Pima Fwys), AZ 417 (Agua Fria Fwy)
Loop 202:  AZ 216 (Red Mounain Fwy east of the 117 (101), AZ 217 (RM Fwy west of the 117/101), AZ 218 (South Mountain Fwy), AZ 220 (Santan Fwy)
Loop 303: AZ 517  (Bob Stump Fwy, entire length)
AZ 50:    AZ 317 (Paradise Fwy, never built)
AZ 51:    AZ 510 (Piestwea Fwy, entire length)
AZ 143:  Current number
AZ 153:  Dropped in 2008, now 44th St.
AZ 360:  US 60 (Superstition Fwy, changed in 1992)

[Max Rockatansky]

One big Loop 202 in particular seems way easier to understand than four Sign Route designations.

[The Ghostbuster]

There is nothing wrong with the existing state highway designations in the Phoenix area. Having multiple state highway designations on Loop 101, and especially Loop 202 would have been confusing. Although they were not on the list at the time, since they were first proposed in the 2000s, AZ 24 was originally proposed as AZ 802; and future AZ 30 was originally proposed as AZ 801. I think numbering the routes as 24 and 30 makes more sense than numbering them 801 and 802, just like the numbers on the existing freeways make more sense than the originally proposed freeway numbers.

[Max Rockatansky]

All of them feel like random number designations.  Probably doesn't matter much but stuff like 404 and 505 would have probably made more sense.

[Rothman]

Getting 90% reimbursed instead of 80% would be legit incentive for Interstate designation.

[KeithE4Phx]

There is nothing wrong with the existing state highway designations in the Phoenix area. Having multiple state highway designations on Loop 101, and especially Loop 202 would have been confusing.

As it is now, Loop 101 has two interchanges each with McDowell, Thomas, Indian School, Thunderbird, and Bell Rds.  One on each side of town.  The 202 has two each with McDowell, McKellips, Power, Higley, Val Vista, Gilbert, McClintock, and Rural Rds, plus 32nd St. One of those is McDowell and Gilbert together, but still...

When Detour Dan and the other traffic reporters mention those interchanges, they have to specify which named freeway they're on.  Sometimes they forget to do that, resulting in confusion.  Might as well just have separate numbers for each named freeway.

[kernals12]

Here's some news that's personal as I live only a few miles away, ADOT will start widening the San Tan freeway on August 9. They will add 4 lanes from Loop 101 to Gilbert Road and 2 lanes from Gilbert to Val Vista. ADOT is obviously trying to get ahead of the massive growth expected in the far Southeast Valley. I'll try and attend the groundbreaking ceremony if there is one.

[KeithE4Phx]

Here's some news that's personal as I live only a few miles away, ADOT will start widening the San Tan freeway on August 9. They will add 4 lanes from Loop 101 to Gilbert Road and 2 lanes from Gilbert to Val Vista. ADOT is obviously trying to get ahead of the massive growth expected in the far Southeast Valley. I'll try and attend the groundbreaking ceremony if there is one.

Are they ever going to add HOV lanes between Gilbert and Broadway?  That's at least a decade overdue.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is nothing wrong with the existing state highway designations in the Phoenix area. Having multiple state highway designations on Loop 101, and especially Loop 202 would have been confusing.

As it is now, Loop 101 has two interchanges each with McDowell, Thomas, Indian School, Thunderbird, and Bell Rds.  One on each side of town.  The 202 has two each with McDowell, McKellips, Power, Higley, Val Vista, Gilbert, McClintock, and Rural Rds, plus 32nd St. One of those is McDowell and Gilbert together, but still...

When Detour Dan and the other traffic reporters mention those interchanges, they have to specify which named freeway they're on.  Sometimes they forget to do that, resulting in confusion.  Might as well just have separate numbers for each named freeway.

Stuff like exit 3 and exit 48 (for Thomas) always seemed pretty clear to me over citing the freeway name.