AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 11  (Read 227272 times)

Interstate Trav

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 385
  • Age: 31
  • Last Login: December 05, 2018, 09:28:02 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #875 on: March 12, 2018, 02:55:22 PM »

On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both.  South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4762
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:48:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #876 on: March 12, 2018, 05:59:00 PM »

On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both.  South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites

One thing to remember is that the western/Hassayampa routing option in greater PHX is intended to function more as (a) a spur for growth and development in that area, and (b) the northern portion of a west/southwest metro bypass which, when it gets over the hills into the Maricopa area will (c) see (a)!  Greater PHX is still operating on a "boom town" basis, and is intending to do so for some time to come.  For better or worse, enhancing this concept seems to have been prioritized more than the role of I-11 as a direct PHX-LV connector.  Right now, the purported intersect point of I-10 and the I-11 corridor largely matches the description "out in the middle of nowhere".  That can't even begin to compare with the I-10/I-15 Ontario (CA) meeting point; by the time that interchange was opened circa '79 or so, the area was already rife with development in both housing and commercial activity.  It's not a stretch to think that PHX developers have something like that in mind as their long-range goal -- obviously, they haven't internalized the downside -- 10/15 is functionally "congestion central" for 8-10 hours per weekday; to utilize either of those routes for long-distance travel requires limiting ones traversal of that area to off-peak periods (or to simply hang around in L.A. until the weekend then hope for the best!). 

Let's just hope (maybe against hope) that PHX interests (public & private sectors -- if not merely colluding) can and will look at examples such as the area east of L.A. and think twice about deploying development to the point where any route, such as I-10, extending out from the core becomes a continuous series of congestive nodes that render interregional travel (and commerce) inefficient and even onerous.         
Logged

kdk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 86
  • Location: Scottsdale AZ
  • Last Login: December 06, 2018, 04:24:06 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #877 on: March 13, 2018, 03:22:42 PM »

On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both.  South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites

One thing to remember is that the western/Hassayampa routing option in greater PHX is intended to function more as (a) a spur for growth and development in that area, and (b) the northern portion of a west/southwest metro bypass which, when it gets over the hills into the Maricopa area will (c) see (a)!  Greater PHX is still operating on a "boom town" basis, and is intending to do so for some time to come.  For better or worse, enhancing this concept seems to have been prioritized more than the role of I-11 as a direct PHX-LV connector.  Right now, the purported intersect point of I-10 and the I-11 corridor largely matches the description "out in the middle of nowhere".  That can't even begin to compare with the I-10/I-15 Ontario (CA) meeting point; by the time that interchange was opened circa '79 or so, the area was already rife with development in both housing and commercial activity.  It's not a stretch to think that PHX developers have something like that in mind as their long-range goal -- obviously, they haven't internalized the downside -- 10/15 is functionally "congestion central" for 8-10 hours per weekday; to utilize either of those routes for long-distance travel requires limiting ones traversal of that area to off-peak periods (or to simply hang around in L.A. until the weekend then hope for the best!). 
   

Good point- going back 10-12 years ago before the I-11 concept began to really take off, there was the Loop 404 concept at the time.  I-11 essentially replaced that as a future route, although Loop 404 was intended to loop north and east, eventually connecting to I-17 vs the I-11 plan of connecting to points north and west.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4762
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:48:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #878 on: March 13, 2018, 04:34:14 PM »

On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both.  South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites

One thing to remember is that the western/Hassayampa routing option in greater PHX is intended to function more as (a) a spur for growth and development in that area, and (b) the northern portion of a west/southwest metro bypass which, when it gets over the hills into the Maricopa area will (c) see (a)!  Greater PHX is still operating on a "boom town" basis, and is intending to do so for some time to come.  For better or worse, enhancing this concept seems to have been prioritized more than the role of I-11 as a direct PHX-LV connector.  Right now, the purported intersect point of I-10 and the I-11 corridor largely matches the description "out in the middle of nowhere".  That can't even begin to compare with the I-10/I-15 Ontario (CA) meeting point; by the time that interchange was opened circa '79 or so, the area was already rife with development in both housing and commercial activity.  It's not a stretch to think that PHX developers have something like that in mind as their long-range goal -- obviously, they haven't internalized the downside -- 10/15 is functionally "congestion central" for 8-10 hours per weekday; to utilize either of those routes for long-distance travel requires limiting ones traversal of that area to off-peak periods (or to simply hang around in L.A. until the weekend then hope for the best!). 
   

Good point- going back 10-12 years ago before the I-11 concept began to really take off, there was the Loop 404 concept at the time.  I-11 essentially replaced that as a future route, although Loop 404 was intended to loop north and east, eventually connecting to I-17 vs the I-11 plan of connecting to points north and west.

IIRC, the E-W portion of the proposed Loop 404 was essentially adjacent to the present AZ 74 alignment from US 60 to I-17.  Regardless of the final I-11 alignment, I would guess that original 404 alignment segment would still be in play, since the area near the 17/74 junction is the site of substantial development (but being as this is greater PHX; if it's relatively flat and utilities can be brought in, it's probably targeted for such).     
Logged

kdk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 86
  • Location: Scottsdale AZ
  • Last Login: December 06, 2018, 04:24:06 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #879 on: March 28, 2018, 06:25:15 PM »

you got me thinking, I remember the 404 connecting east, but there was a plan to also upgrade AZ 74 into more of a freeway as well.  Turns out they are/were two different highways, only the 404 alignment was to cut further south of AZ 74.

I found the old future freeway map showing the 404, then the one showing the I-11 overlay of most of it, but not all.  Forgot about the idea of the 174 which essentially also folded into I-11.



« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 06:29:25 PM by kdk »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4762
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:48:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #880 on: March 28, 2018, 07:40:22 PM »

From those plans pictured above, except for a short portion of the "White Tanks" (presumably part of Loop 404) freeway, a NW/SE alignment down or paralleling Grand Avenue was never an integral part of the plans, particularly from Wickenburg down to the Surprise area.  It looks as if the plan was to shunt as much through traffic away from the Grand corridor onto AZ 74, 174, and Loop 404 and leave Grand Avenue (likely by that time relinquished as a state facility) as a local server and probably commercial attractant -- a plan designed to gain support of developers, who would be free to reconfigure not only the street itself but the adjoining area -- limited only by the parallel BNSF rail line.

Since developers seem to have the upper hand when dealing with public planning and transportation agencies in the PHX area, considerations such as these will probably prevail when it comes to the I-11 alignment; despite the logic of getting interregional traffic as close as possible to the city itself, that concept will likely take a back seat to the wishes of the regional developers (e.g., the push for the Hassayampa alignment), making a I-11 SE extension down to at least Loop 303 unlikely (although such a route could conceivably piggyback onto part of the White Tanks/404 route).  IMO, ideally I-11 would simply subsume Loop 303 south from the Grand area and use it all the way down to where it multiplexes with the present projected I-11 route near Goodyear, where it would resume its trek over to I-10 north of Casa Grande.  But such a scenario is a long shot; the plans, historic and present, never included a "pink line" straight down US 60 to 303; I-11 is simply routed over the existing planned corridor pathway south of Wickenburg -- one that just happens to bisect an area slated for large-scale commercial/housing development.  No surprises here -- the local powers that be get what they want -- unabated/uninterrupted growth, and folks heading off to Vegas for the weekend just have to put a few more miles on their cars.  Welcome to the PHX version of Econ 101!       
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1397
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 10:44:06 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #881 on: March 28, 2018, 09:39:35 PM »

Considering it will take at least several years, a decade or multiple decades for I-11 to get funding and be completed a whole lot can happen, both good and bad, in the Greater Phoenix real estate market between now and then. These developers are betting on uninterrupted growth to just keep going on without any economic hiccups, changes in politics, changes in customer demographics, etc. There's a few things I think are in the cards that will catch a bunch of these guys flat-footed several years from now (or sooner than that).
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4762
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:48:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #882 on: April 03, 2018, 04:41:30 PM »

Considering it will take at least several years, a decade or multiple decades for I-11 to get funding and be completed a whole lot can happen, both good and bad, in the Greater Phoenix real estate market between now and then. These developers are betting on uninterrupted growth to just keep going on without any economic hiccups, changes in politics, changes in customer demographics, etc. There's a few things I think are in the cards that will catch a bunch of these guys flat-footed several years from now (or sooner than that).

For better or worse, housing developers -- particularly the larger players (Broad, Pulte, etc.) have shown a tendency to milk the market as long as possible before pulling back.  They did that out in the high desert in CA (Hesperia, Victorville, Adelanto) back in 2007-2008, continuing to build housing until the 2009 market nadir, at which time they simply stopped construction (regardless of state of completion of individual housing units) for several years, boarded things up, and sat back to see what transpired.  When signs of the market coming back became apparent around late 2011 and early 2012, they quietly resumed the building process, starting with uncompleted homes and moving on to full new tracts.  When I left the area in November 2012, there was a sizeable number of full-scale housing projects underway.  The PHX dynamic seems much the same; if developers were able to absorb the 2007-2011 downturn and remain basically solvent, they may have internalized the notion that the market will continue to grow -- if not by a constant series of leaps and bounds, then by incremental stages.  Now -- whether that is something that can be anticipated to continue on a longer-term basis (they've basically had a period of 5-6 fiscal years to compile their data) is probably more of a crapshoot than some of the players would care to believe -- but as the survivors of the last recession might surmise, the variegated ups & downs are merely part of the long-term process.  I would expect PHX developers to be nailing up 2x4's until it becomes unprofitable for them to do so -- and then they'll just lay back and wait it out.  And, of course, the public sector is just as embedded in that process as the developers themselves; the development of I-11 and other connecting routes will proceed, but likely in concert with the remaining development.  The sole advantage of the Interstate 11 designation (as opposed to the remainder of Loop 404, AZ 30, and other lines on the various planning maps) is that while developers have certainly engaged in "massaging" the corridor to its benefit, its status as an interregional connector means that once the initial project has started, it'll probably be the first one off the blocks if and when any cyclical or other downturns run their course.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9569
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 08:12:39 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #883 on: April 03, 2018, 08:32:37 PM »

continuing to build housing until the 2009 market nadir, at which time they simply stopped construction (regardless of state of completion of individual housing units) for several years, boarded things up, and sat back to see what transpired.  When signs of the market coming back became apparent around late 2011 and early 2012, they quietly resumed the building process, starting with uncompleted homes and moving on to full new tracts.
That sounds like a good way to build defective, rotting homes.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4762
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:48:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #884 on: April 03, 2018, 09:45:04 PM »

continuing to build housing until the 2009 market nadir, at which time they simply stopped construction (regardless of state of completion of individual housing units) for several years, boarded things up, and sat back to see what transpired.  When signs of the market coming back became apparent around late 2011 and early 2012, they quietly resumed the building process, starting with uncompleted homes and moving on to full new tracts.
That sounds like a good way to build defective, rotting homes.

True -- if it wasn't a desert environment with very low average humidity.  One thing I noticed (circa 2010) was that there were very few "skeleton" structures with interrupted construction (i.e., just the framework); the contractor(s) had secured the usual particle-board side panels to the structures to avoid any oddball water-bearing events (the occasional monsoon rainstorms coming up from the Gulf of California that occur a couple of times in winter and early spring in that area).  If the panels (which are really inexpensive and thus widely used for walls with external siding or heavy stucco attached) became waterlogged, they were simply replaced when construction re-commenced.  Not too many instances of defective houses out in that particular region; almost all construction was based on concrete slabs -- so underpinning rot didn't occur -- and the period between construction phases was short enough to avoid dry rot. 
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2228
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 04:41:00 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #885 on: May 19, 2018, 09:56:19 PM »

An Update Intunegames goes a segment on US-93 or soon to be I-11

Logged

KeithE4Phx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Mesa, AZ
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 11:04:34 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #886 on: May 19, 2018, 11:00:56 PM »

An Update Intunegames goes a segment on US-93 or soon to be I-11

I'm stating the following based on what I've seen personally, and read.  Feel free to correct anything I say, but I'm standing by it until I hear better info.

"Soon to be I-11?"  Try "might eventually become I-11.  If not in this life, then in the next."

I'll be absolutely shocked if US 93 south of I-40 becomes I-11 in my lifetime (I'm 62), if ever.  First of all, many parts of the road are, and will likely remain for the foreseeable future, two lanes.  The longest being the Joshua Tree Parkway, where the 4-lane segment NW of Wickenburg abruptly ends, and it doesn't resume until just south of The Cellsite Formerly Known As Nothing.  This is a politically protected stretch of road, and I've never heard one peep about adding another pair of lanes on 93 through here, let alone bringing it up to Interstate standards.  I'll be driving it next month; we'll see if any new segments are open.

Second, there are a lot of ranches -- close to 3 dozen, based on my informal count -- that will need turnoffs, regardless of the status of the road.  No way will they all get interchanges.  I-11 may have to be like I-40 in Texas and keep the at-grade intersections.

Third, there is Wickieup.  Small town with a lot of fight.  I stop there whenever I go to and from Las Vegas or Laughlin, and they insist that I-11 will not be built without a fight.  I happen to agree with them.  No more destroying towns for highways that are barely needed.  There's enough traffic to justify four-laning the entire Wickenburg-to-I-40 segment, but a full Interstate is overkill.

And finally, there is ADOT, and what seems to be their insistence that no construction begins at all in Arizona until the portion between Wickenburg and Nogales is finalized.  It cannot be justified south of I-8, and the segment between I-10 and I-8 can be only if the current AZ 85 between the two is part of the route.  Beyond that, we have I-10 and I-19 to get to Nogales.
Logged
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4762
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 12:48:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #887 on: May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM »

The I-11 corridor itself has at least as many politically connected backers as detractors; as long as AZ maintains a "developmental" mode, the backers have the edge.  As far as "politically protected" segments of US 93 are concerned, except for the usual suspects taking a "BANANA" position regarding any new freeway/Interstate deployment, there's nothing special about the segment between AZ 71 and Nothing; expressway development just hasn't been let as of yet.  Even absent the I-11 prospects, US 93 was eventually going to be fully 4-lanes divided in any case.  Ranches can still be accessed via RIRO's separated from the main carriageway -- similar to the TX King Ranch segment of I-69E.
 
And the Wickieup situation doesn't really need a bypass arcing away from the relatively compact business area; there's enough ROW easement along the current route to place a 4-lane freeway with parallel frontage roads to serve the local businesses, with 2 or 3 grade separation structures required to effect this.  A quixotic "status quo or nothing" stance on the part of the town would be rendered unnecessary.  It's likely any contrarian stance from this town is simply an initial establishment of bargaining rules regarding just how a freeway there would be configured.  I'll agree with the previous post that completely ignoring towns such as this is inappropriate; steps need to be taken to make sure that any new freeway facility preserves as much as possible traveler access to the town's roadside businesses.  Travelers need services in remote locations such as this; Wickieup is the logical place along this stretch of highway to locate such facilities -- but a Arizona version of Breezewood is hardly necessary!

ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande.  I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things:  provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land.  This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property. 

As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande.  Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.       
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1601
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:56 AM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #888 on: May 20, 2018, 09:44:41 AM »

ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande.  I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things:  provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land.  This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property. 

Why is this? Does ADOT need to get approval from the Gilas to do something with the road? Is there a reason the Gilas wouldn’t want I-10 to be expanded to three lanes each direction?

As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande.  Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.       

Why would Tucson press for a parallel facility to I-19? That would result in Nogales-bound traffic bypassing Tucson.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr

KeithE4Phx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Mesa, AZ
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 11:04:34 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #889 on: May 20, 2018, 11:28:36 AM »

ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande.  I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things:  provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land.  This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property. 

Why is this? Does ADOT need to get approval from the Gilas to do something with the road? Is there a reason the Gilas wouldn’t want I-10 to be expanded to three lanes each direction?

They don't, unless the road runs on Reservation land.  The GRIC, like the other Native American governments, controls its own land, and has been in a pissing contest for years over the Loop 202 alignment through Ahwatukee (a Phoenix city councilman who was trying to line his pockets at their expense didn't help matters any).  The highway is being built, and they're still angry about it.

Quote
As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande.  Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.       

Why would Tucson press for a parallel facility to I-19? That would result in Nogales-bound traffic bypassing Tucson.

They wouldn't.  Tucson hates freeways as much as Phoenix did in the 1960s and '70s.
Logged
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

SSR_317

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 168
  • Why does FHWA hate "Exit 0"?

  • Age: 62
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 05:12:59 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #890 on: May 21, 2018, 11:45:39 AM »

ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande.  I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things:  provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land.  This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property. 

Why is this? Does ADOT need to get approval from the Gilas to do something with the road? Is there a reason the Gilas wouldn’t want I-10 to be expanded to three lanes each direction?

They don't, unless the road runs on Reservation land.  The GRIC, like the other Native American governments, controls its own land, and has been in a pissing contest for years over the Loop 202 alignment through Ahwatukee (a Phoenix city councilman who was trying to line his pockets at their expense didn't help matters any).  The highway is being built, and they're still angry about it.

Quote
As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande.  Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.       

Why would Tucson press for a parallel facility to I-19? That would result in Nogales-bound traffic bypassing Tucson.

They wouldn't.  Tucson hates freeways as much as Phoenix did in the 1960s and '70s.
On the issue of widening I-10 to 6 lanes thru the GRIC - Is there a reason ADOT couldn't add the 2 new lanes in the existing median, wholly within the existing ROW? Would the GRIC still have veto power over that?
Logged

KeithE4Phx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Mesa, AZ
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 11:04:34 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #891 on: May 21, 2018, 02:46:52 PM »

On the issue of widening I-10 to 6 lanes thru the GRIC - Is there a reason ADOT couldn't add the 2 new lanes in the existing median, wholly within the existing ROW? Would the GRIC still have veto power over that?

I believe they would, yes.
Logged
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2839
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 05:45:22 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #892 on: May 21, 2018, 03:25:36 PM »

i feel like this proposed location for i-11 will just spur more urban sprawl where its not needed (the desert)
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 11:16:59 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #893 on: May 21, 2018, 04:00:06 PM »

i feel like this proposed location for i-11 will just spur more urban sprawl where its not needed (the desert)

I think so too.  Arizona still has serious water problems that they're in denial about.  Their water is not replacing itself fast enough for the people Arizona has now, without trying to build more empty sand subdivisions.  They're likely to be calling Uncle Sugar to bail them out somehow within 10-20 years.  The least we can do now is not make the problem worse by encouraging sprawl.
Logged

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 57
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: October 03, 2018, 02:06:49 AM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #894 on: May 21, 2018, 04:36:16 PM »

Is Arizona genuinely running out, or "running out" like California?

In CA, if the agricultural growers switched to drip irrigation and residential/commercial properties cut back on landscape watering, California's water situation appears to not be really that bad.  Good management is needed.

But I can see the argument that Phoenix could, legitimately, run out of water -- like nothing coming out of the tap running out.  But is that actually the case?  (I've never lived in Arizona).
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2839
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 05:45:22 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #895 on: May 21, 2018, 06:28:47 PM »

Is Arizona genuinely running out, or "running out" like California?

In CA, if the agricultural growers switched to drip irrigation and residential/commercial properties cut back on landscape watering, California's water situation appears to not be really that bad.  Good management is needed.

But I can see the argument that Phoenix could, legitimately, run out of water -- like nothing coming out of the tap running out.  But is that actually the case?  (I've never lived in Arizona).

given the water agreements, and the unreliable flow of the colorado, yes it could happen.  arizona is last to get water when the red line is crossed (water level of lake mead)
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 274
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 10:33:38 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #896 on: May 21, 2018, 07:23:11 PM »

No Southwestern city will run out of water.

Phoenix, for example, could pump its treated effluent back into the Colorado and get credited for that (as Las Vegas already does). Or, Phoenix or Las Vegas could "buy" California's water by building a desalination plant and increasing its Colorado consumption to match. (The Carlsbad facility makes about 50,000 acre-feet a year, which is about 2 months' of Las Vegas' Colorado consumption).

Water is too cheap in the desert. The Republican government has slashed infrastructure funding, so gone are the days when Arizona could get a $5 billion straw to the Colorado for $2 billion in local match. Point is, at some point, the Colorado won't be sufficient, and it's going to increase the cost of living in the desert to match with the reality of having that many people with that little water. Capitalism, baby!
Logged

KeithE4Phx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Mesa, AZ
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 11:04:34 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #897 on: May 21, 2018, 08:27:55 PM »

Phoenix also has four lakes(Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt), created by damming up the Salt River, that hold much of our water supply.  They get the rain and snow runoff from the mountains upstate.  We are in no danger of running out of water.
Logged
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2839
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 05:45:22 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #898 on: May 22, 2018, 07:46:54 AM »

Phoenix also has four lakes(Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt), created by damming up the Salt River, that hold much of our water supply.  They get the rain and snow runoff from the mountains upstate.  We are in no danger of running out of water.

you say that now...
Logged

AZDude

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 225
  • Last Login: December 07, 2018, 12:16:38 PM
Re: Interstate 11
« Reply #899 on: May 22, 2018, 01:43:20 PM »

According to the ADOT website, construction on extending the US 93 divided highway segment from mile 161 to 166 is expected to begin in 2025.

https://www.azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects/map
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 01:46:33 PM by AZDude »
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.