Interstate 11

[The Ghostbuster]

The comment about extending Interstate 70 westward belongs in Fictional Highways, not here. Let's get back to discussing Interstate 11.

[ethanhopkin14]

Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.

Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well.  Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.

10,000 daily vehicles and 650 daily trucks on US 93 would disagree with you. By the way, the AADT on I-22 in Alabama is 12,400; I-5 over Siskyou Pass is 13,800; I-84 at Ontario is 8,400; I-49 south of Kansas City is 10,100; I-35 north of Kansas City around 12,000; I could go on but I don't think I need to: The difference between this desolate highway that you don't think needs investment, and several of our country's core interstates is about 1 car, in each direction, every 90 seconds.

As for the rural economies along the route, I think it's hard to say they're at peril. Kingman has survived quite well despite being bypassed by I-40. Wickenburg is an exurb of Phoenix. Boulder City is a suburb of Las Vegas. That leaves literally one other community – Wikieup – as a place that would be bypassed by I-11. Given its spacing about halfway between Kingman and Wickenburg, and given that Seligman and Ash Fork are communities about the same size that have survived, it's hard to believe it would be in peril by a freeway bypass.

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country…

It is always funny to me the "Interstates kill small economies" angle.  People have been crying this for almost 60 years now.  The truth to it is the same people will stop in those towns that used to be along US 66 as they do when they drive I-40, just now for every 1 car in 1955 there are about 4 in 2015.  It breaks down simple:

When you drove into Ash Fork, AZ in 1955 on US 66, you stopped because you were hungry, you needed a restroom, your car needed gas or you needed lodging.
Right now if you are driving Interstate 40 through Ash Fork, AZ, you stop because you are hungry, you need a restroom, your car needs gas or you need lodging.

There is nothing overly exciting in any of the small towns along the whole US 66 that warrants a MUST STOP reaction (sorry Ash Fork, but I am talking small towns on any route bypassed by an interstate).  Sure there were dinosaur parks and kiddie slides, but how many people really stopped at the roadside attractions?  The old couple running the downtown sewing shop didn't see massive business in the US 66 days then no business when I-40 opened.  Basically I am saying most of those small businesses on the old route were local businesses for local people.  The main through traffic patronage was the same as it as always been: for gas, bathroom, food or sleep.  Sure the vendors that provide those services have all changed, but that happens anyway, it's called economics.  The only difference is the Interstate highway system actually brought more people to obtain those four things.

So bottom line, what's better for those little towns?  10,000 vehicles a day, most being 18 wheelers going through it's main streets, or a bypass that will bring 3 times the business they once had?  Not to mention the road in rural areas having an upgrade so there aren't so many fatal accidents.

The Interstate Highway System has created so many more jobs and brought so much money to places that needed it.  It has so helped this economy because truck routes that took weeks in the 1950s take only days now, and towns that had no economy are very thriving now because they were once small towns, but are now bedroom communities because the interstate shortens the distance making it viable to move to them.

I do love the common theme on this forum of people from other areas telling people in those areas you don't need a freeway because there isn't enough traffic, and complain that it's a waste of money that their state isn't even spending. 

Once again people: A hastily divided highway with no standards is not "just as good" as an interstate highway that has standards built into the design to ensure safety.

[pumpkineater2]

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...

Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.

I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.

[noelbotevera]

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...

Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.

I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.

True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.

[pumpkineater2]

True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.

What???

[Sonic99]

I love all the comments from people in other parts of the country telling those of us who actually live and travel here regularly what roads we do and do not need...

[kkt]

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...

Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.

I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.

True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.

One of us clearly needs to look at a map, and I don't think it's me.

[noelbotevera]

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...

Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.

I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.

True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.

One of us clearly needs to look at a map, and I don't think it's me.

Sorry I-17, I forgot you exist (nor do I care). 

[US 41]

I actually said earlier in this thread that I would be in favor of Arizona making US 93 a 4 lane highway from I-40 to Wickenburg and building interstate quality bypasses around any small towns it may pass through. I just think it a waste of money to build overpasses, frontage roads, and interchanges in the middle of no where.

[Sub-Urbanite]

I actually said earlier in this thread that I would be in favor of Arizona making US 93 a 4 lane highway from I-40 to Wickenburg and building interstate quality bypasses around any small towns it may pass through. I just think it a waste of money to build overpasses, frontage roads, and interchanges in the middle of no where.

Then you will thoroughly enjoy Exit 106 - Nothing.

[US 41]

I actually said earlier in this thread that I would be in favor of Arizona making US 93 a 4 lane highway from I-40 to Wickenburg and building interstate quality bypasses around any small towns it may pass through. I just think it a waste of money to build overpasses, frontage roads, and interchanges in the middle of no where.

Then you will thoroughly enjoy Exit 106 - Nothing.

Haha. No kidding. The road going into Nothing is a dirt road. Nothing describes the area very well. Nothing is the only something on a road that has nothing on it for hundreds of miles. I'm pretty sure that interchange will make that intersection so much safer for the five cars that will use it a day. We need more interchanges for dirt roads, NOT!!!

[pumpkineater2]

What is wrong with having interchanges at dirt roads?
I-17 has 6 interchanges at dirt roads whose surrounding areas can also be described as nothing.

[tmthyvs]

What is wrong with having interchanges at dirt roads?
I-17 has 6 interchanges at dirt roads whose surrounding areas can also be described as nothing.

Interchanges are rather expensive to build. For dirt roads whose surrounding areas can be described as nothing, the cost per car using the interchange becomes insanely high. Usually these areas have low enough traffic on the highway that the traffic on the dirt road could easily be accommodated by a simple intersection with virtually no impact on safety and with much lower cost.

[hm insulators]

Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...

Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.

Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.

I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.

Not to mention, pumpkineater2, that the two of us live in a metropolitan area of some 4 million people that has been described as a "baby Los Angeles."

Seems there are some people back east that think Phoenix still has trouble with bandits robbing the stagecoaches.

[dfwmapper]

Once again people: A hastily divided highway with no standards is not "just as good" as an interstate highway that has standards built into the design to ensure safety.

But we've already seen Arizona doing divided highways on US 93, AZ 85, AZ 87, and AZ 347, and they do a good job of engineering them with proper turn lanes, limited crossovers, good sightlines, etc.. Those upgrades have made huge differences in the safety records of those roads, as well as improving the levels of service. If they were doing full freeway conversions, some of those projects would never have been done due to a lack of funding, and many more people would be dying. It's not like they do a half-assed Missouri-style conversion where a new roadbed is built and the old one is left unchanged except for new striping. Once the new roadbed is built, ADOT shifts both directions of traffic to it, then rebuilds the old one to current standards before fully opening it as a divided highway.

[iBallasticwolf2]

It's not like they do a half-assed Missouri-style conversion where a new roadbed is built and the old one is left unchanged except for new striping.

Example please.

[dfwmapper]

Look at US 36 west of Stewartsville. Eastbound lanes are straight, flat, and have a proper right shoulder. Westbound lanes have some random curves for no reason, go up and down the hills a bit, and have no right shoulder.

[pumpkineater2]

Seems there are some people back east that think Phoenix still has trouble with bandits robbing the stagecoaches.

Nah, the only thing we have to worry about in Phoenix is getting shot on the freeway. 

[Interstate Trav]

It's funny to hear the "no freeways are needed in the Southwest" and how rural it is.  Yet You have very large cities like Phoenix, Los Angeles Las Vegas San Diego ect.

I agree I-11 is needed between Phoenix and Las Vegas, North to Reno, doesn't seem to be necessary, but if that much growth is expected, it could be a long term thing.

[Rothman]

It's funny to hear the "no freeways are needed in the Southwest" and how rural it is.  Yet You have very large cities like Phoenix, Los Angeles Las Vegas San Diego ect.

Although I agree the Southwest needs interstates, the mere existence of the cities you listed made me smile:  They're quite far apart from each other and the only missing connection is Phoenix - Las Vegas.

[KamKam]

Interstate 11 will be much beneficial for me going to Las Vegas from Dallas, TX

[US 41]

California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.

Look at Australia. They have freeways in the eastern part (where most of their urban areas are) of their country and 2 lane highways in the western part (the middle of no where), except around Perth where there are freeways. They're the same as us, only we think spending billions of dollars on something that was already perfectly fine is okay. There's a reason our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt. It's called spending money on stupid stuff that isn't needed.

BTW They wouldn't be posting 70 mph (75 in Texas) speed limits on 2 lane roads in the southwest if they didn't think it was safe to do so. Most of the time the speed limits are lower than what they really should be anyways. There's also a reason speed limits are faster in the southwestern US (really the west in general minus CA, OR, and WA). It's because there aren't as many people out there.

[jwolfer]

California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.

Look at Australia. They have freeways in the eastern part (where most of their urban areas are) of their country and 2 lane highways in the western part (the middle of no where), except around Perth where there are freeways. They're the same as us, only we think spending billions of dollars on something that was already perfectly fine is okay. There's a reason our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt. It's called spending money on stupid stuff that isn't needed.

BTW They wouldn't be posting 70 mph (75 in Texas) speed limits on 2 lane roads in the southwest if they didn't think it was safe to do so. Most of the time the speed limits are lower than what they really should be anyways. There's also a reason speed limits are faster in the southwestern US (really the west in general minus CA, OR, and WA). It's because there aren't as many people out there.

The size of Australia is similar the lower 48.. But 1/10 of the population, and concentrated on the coasts. I agree that many areas would be fine with divided highways.

But look at FL. Many of the US higways were dualized in the 1950s and 60s and the roads were like interstates. Through tree farms, swamps and orange groves. But now many are clogged suburban roads with a myriad of traffic lights ( eg us 27 near Clermont ) Some are still like that today ( eg US 27 south of Lake Okeechobee). Florida's population was 4 million in 1940, now nearly 20 million.

[pumpkineater2]

California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.

So you're saying that I-10 between Phoenix and Tuscson, which is 6 lanes in some places, should have only been constructed as four lanes, with at-grade intersections at all crossings, with the amount of traffic it sees?

Look at Australia. They have freeways in the eastern part (where most of their urban areas are) of their country and 2 lane highways in the western part (the middle of no where), except around Perth where there are freeways. They're the same as us, only we think spending billions of dollars on something that was already perfectly fine is okay. There's a reason our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt. It's called spending money on stupid stuff that isn't needed.

But unlike Australia, the middle of the US has many large cities, and with lots of population spread out in rural areas around them. Also, I doubt that the construction of any of the interstates in the southwestern United states contributed significantly/at all to our atrocious national debt.

There's also a reason speed limits are faster in the southwestern US (really the west in general minus CA, OR, and WA). It's because there aren't as many people out there.

Are you sure it isn't just because the contours of the landscape allow for road designs that support higher speeds?

[jakeroot]

California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.

I'm going to go ahead and take a page out of the Autobahn's book, and say that high speed limits should be the primary goal here (besides the movement of cargo). You can't achieve high speeds and be guaranteed some degree of safety without grade-separated junctions. Freeways allow fast, efficient and safe movement of cargo, something that isn't necessarily achievable with at-grade highways.

Also, California is hardly the only western state that needs Interstates. I-5 between BC and Tijuana is arguably more important than the 95 back east, given how few alternatives there are for traversing between the two locations (not to mention locations in between -- outside of California, Seattle and Portland are very large cities which would be inoperable without their interstates).