Interstate 11

[silverback1065]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

[TheStranger]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.

[Sonic99]

I don't have any problem with them looping I-11 around the Western and Southern outskirts of Phoenix (but I still think US-60 needs to be Interstate quality from AZ-303 up to Wickenburg). I-11 ought to connect into I-10 or I-8 near Casa Grande and just end there. This business of extending I-11 down thru Tucson and to Nogales is overkill.

I-10 is getting a little squeezed in some parts of Tuscon, but it still looks like it's possible to add an additional lane in each direction, making it up to a 5-5 configuration.

The main problem with Tucson is no additional loop or spur freeways to work directly with I-10 and I-19. They need to improve AZ-210 as much as possible so it can be eventually turned into I-210. Then they need to build some other loop highways. Tucson is basically in the same position Phoenix was about 40 years ago: no loop highways. Pushing I-11 down there to try to accomplish that is going to cost way too much money. They need to simplify the approach.

Tucson is quite proudly "anti-Phoenix" and has always fought any new highway projects. I doubt much will happen with the 210 more than the mile or so extension down to directly connect it to I-10.

[Zonie]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

Newsflash:  The urban sprawl is already happening there. 

[sprjus4]

^ I think he's talking about I-11 south of I-10 in Tucson, not Phoenix.

I-11 should follow the AZ-85 corridor and end at I-8. It doesn't need to go further.

[silverback1065]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.

That's guaranteed to happen.

Pixel 2 XL

[TheStranger]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.

That's guaranteed to happen.

Pixel 2 XL

As an example closer to where you are:  Has there been increased sprawl in the areas around Keystone Parkway and the US 31 limited-access bypasses north of there?

Out where I am (the San Francisco bay area), I-280 did not lead to any development between Millbrae and Cupertino, though it is firmly in or near parkland that cannot be developed (i.e. the Crystal Springs Reservoir area).

Adding interchanges to the existing AZ 85 expressway does not by itself induce development at all, I wouldn't think, especially when that road has been an expressway for quite some time now.

(Now as for the portion between I-8 and past Tucson, I have no opinion on that really)

[silverback1065]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.

That's guaranteed to happen.

Pixel 2 XL

As an example closer to where you are:  Has there been increased sprawl in the areas around Keystone Parkway and the US 31 limited-access bypasses north of there?

Out where I am (the San Francisco bay area), I-280 did not lead to any development between Millbrae and Cupertino, though it is firmly in or near parkland that cannot be developed (i.e. the Crystal Springs Reservoir area).

Adding interchanges to the existing AZ 85 expressway does not by itself induce development at all, I wouldn't think, especially when that road has been an expressway for quite some time now.

(Now as for the portion between I-8 and past Tucson, I have no opinion on that really)

Us 31 and keystone aren't good examples, those areas were already developed. And if you look in Westfield further north along 31, yes sprawl is being induced up there. Bad zoning laws allow for this.

Pixel 2 XL

[The Ghostbuster]

I'm sure SR-85 will eventually be upgraded to freeway standards regardless of what happens to Interstate 11 in the area.

[Roadwarriors79]

It's ironic that with all the freeway closures of I-10 in Phoenix due to the Loop 202 construction, ADOT is consistently advising drivers to use AZ 85 and I-8 to detour towards Tucson or California. Yet with a chance to use "a new interstate" to upgrade AZ 85, this isn't the top option. I wouldn't be surprised if the southern Arizona communities forced ADOT to keep any serious I-11 construction to the Phoenix area and north.

[sparker]

all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.

I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.

That's guaranteed to happen.

Pixel 2 XL

As an example closer to where you are:  Has there been increased sprawl in the areas around Keystone Parkway and the US 31 limited-access bypasses north of there?

Out where I am (the San Francisco bay area), I-280 did not lead to any development between Millbrae and Cupertino, though it is firmly in or near parkland that cannot be developed (i.e. the Crystal Springs Reservoir area).

Adding interchanges to the existing AZ 85 expressway does not by itself induce development at all, I wouldn't think, especially when that road has been an expressway for quite some time now.

(Now as for the portion between I-8 and past Tucson, I have no opinion on that really)

Us 31 and keystone aren't good examples, those areas were already developed. And if you look in Westfield further north along 31, yes sprawl is being induced up there. Bad zoning laws allow for this.

Pixel 2 XL

There's a lot local jurisdictions -- particularly if local governments actively work with their MPO's -- to forestall undue sprawl -- zoning, control of egress (less interchanges) on any new freeways in the affected areas, and the like.  And -- this is vital -- they have to resist the entreaties -- including money -- from developers who are in the game for a quick appreciation and turnover.  In AZ, that seems to be a difficult proposition; money seems to not only talk but shout out loud -- hence the I-11-as-parallel-to-I-10-and-I-19 concept -- obviously designed to induce development between Maricopa County and Tucson -- and do an "end run" around Tucson's reluctance to increase developable areas by giving developers another corridor a bit out west around which to rally. 

Ideally, those developers would have to deal with what's on the ground right now; they seem to be doing well enough in Maricopa, Chandler, and the other edge-of-area locations with only lines on a map (the nascent AZ 24 and the like) as access facilities.  But they probably envision a situation similar to L.A. and San Diego -- with two major corridors (I-5 and I-15) connecting the metro areas, with the potential of development between the two (save topology and Camp Pendleton as obstacles in CA) -- more along the lines of the sea of housing and commercial sites between 5 & 15 and south of CA 76.  Grandiose plans -- likely only marginally transferrable to a desert rather than a coastal environment.  Nevertheless, PHX and environs seem to be in that same "grow or die" mode that has characterized the last several decades -- still willing to accommodate a good deal of development -- likely one of the prime motives for even the I-11 extension to Casa Grande.   From a strictly regional-transportation standpoint -- assuming there's not a sea change in local preference regarding shooting I-11 straight down US 60 to Loop 303 -- the I-11/Hassayampa corridor should simply turn east immediately south of I-10 and merge with AZ 85, subsequently following that facility south to I-8 at Gila Bend.  Period.  Anything south of there, while somewhat more efficient as a PHX bypass due to its diagonal line to Casa Grande, is gratuitous and simply a sop to sprawl.  It would be much more cost-effective if ADOT would reach a deal with the Gila tribe; expand I-10 to 6 or 8 lanes (8 would be helpful if part of that deal would be additional casino/outlet store facilities on tribal land along the freeway).       

[kdk]

I'm sure SR-85 will eventually be upgraded to freeway standards regardless of what happens to Interstate 11 in the area.

It's been planned for years, independent of what happens with I-11.  Pre-I-11 the Loop 303 was already planned to loop down south of Goodyear along the now proposed I-11 routes, so both were always in the works.

That's why AZ 85 has the frontage roads already in on the north part, similar to when the Loop 101 was planned in Chandler in the late 90's- the frontage roads were used as the main road until the freeway went in between them.  Also ADOT relocated parts of the existing AZ 85 a few years back at the intersection of Maricopa Road into the new current configuration to allow the freeway overpass to be built above it.

[Bobby5280]

Water is arguably the biggest reason why city governments in the Phoenix and Tucson areas need to pump the brakes on development that adds to sprawl. The Phoenix area has a very finite water supply. Reservoirs like Lake Mead are draining down to crisis levels. These desert cities need more residents moving into dense developed areas.

Unfortunately efforts to promote densification (convincing more people to move from the suburbs into city centers) has failed to offset sprawl. Living spaces in urban/city center mixed use developments tend to be way too expensive for most people. And the folks who can afford those downtown properties often opt for much larger living spaces out in the 'burbs. The city center apartments are more attractive to younger professionals who are single and have no children. Only so many young adults have lots of money.

Regarding I-11 and how it might contribute to sprawl, it all depends on how the road is built. If it's a "free" freeway with frontage roads and lots of exits then, yeah, it will promote new development (and added sprawl). If you greatly limit the number of exits where each interchange is several miles or more apart and build only short stretches of frontage road that would cut down the highway's effect at inducing sprawl.

In the past I would have thought just building a superhighway as a toll road would be enough to cut down on sprawl next to the highway. The truly critical issue is the spacing/frequency of exits. If the road has exits spaced no more than .5 to 2.5 miles apart (typical for an urban or suburban area) then the highway will help promote development. If the road is more like a turnpike where you get an exit once every 7-10 miles (or farther) not much is going to get built up next to the road in those long spaces between exits, especially not anything commercial/retail oriented.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Water is arguably the biggest reason why city governments in the Phoenix and Tucson areas need to pump the brakes on development that adds to sprawl. The Phoenix area has a very finite water supply. Reservoirs like Lake Mead are draining down to crisis levels. These desert cities need more residents moving into dense developed areas.

Unfortunately efforts to promote densification (convincing more people to move from the suburbs into city centers) has failed to offset sprawl. Living spaces in urban/city center mixed use developments tend to be way too expensive for most people. And the folks who can afford those downtown properties often opt for much larger living spaces out in the 'burbs. The city center apartments are more attractive to younger professionals who are single and have no children. Only so many young adults have lots of money.

Some context, though:

An acre of cotton is using about 3500 gallons of water a day. The average Arizonan uses about 100 gallons of water a day. So, at 10 units per acre — you're looking at housing using less water than cotton. Converting farmland to housing is a win for Arizona's water masters.

The fact is Arizona (or Nevada or California) are never going to run out of water. They'll just bond out the costs of desalination and charge the costs back to water customers. (You probably won't see any Gulf of California water getting pumped from Puerto Peñasco to Phoenix, but you might see desalinated water irrigating the Imperial Valley and offsetting increased Colorado River consumption by the CAP).

As for density — it winds up becoming a question of commute time more than anything. Eventually, a huge house on the edge of the city loses its appeal when it involves an hour commute each way. The edge then becomes home to service workers, particularly who are working in the strip malls along the freeway corridors, and the money moves inward.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
Greater Phoenix is looking more and more like SoCal's "Inland Empire" more and more, as warehousing and distribution facilities are starting to dominate both the southeastern and western exurban areas (Chandler, Gilbert, Goodyear, Avondale).  But like the closer-in areas of the Inland Empire (i.e. Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Chino) which themselves provide lower-cost housing compared to the coastal areas of L.A. and Orange Counties -- thus drawing massive amounts of commuters from those high-priced regions, the fact is that the "coastal" commuters crowding CA 57 and CA 91 daily have, with their higher incomes, essentially priced out local housing for the working/middle-class employees who work at the warehouse/distribution centers.  Much the same is happening with Gilbert, Chandler (Tempe, Mesa, and Scottsdale were the initial suburbs to witness this phenomenon -- at least until the latter started annexing land farther and farther north into the foothills).  Warehouse management -- the top of the "food chain" in that field, still make considerably less than the employees of technical and financial companies in the city centers; the latter, in SoCal, dominate the homeowners on the south edge of the San Gabriels -- and in PHX and environs, the closer-in communities like Gilbert, Chandler, and Surprise.  This drives the "middle/working" class, generally sub $100K/year, outward -- in SoCal, this means Moreno Valley, Perris, and even over the pass to Hesperia and Adelanto, where the family-oriented worker can get a house for $250-300K that would cost at least double that in Rancho Cucamonga.  In AZ, the equivalent would be Maricopa, Apache Junction, Queen Creek -- all with a time-based commuter penalty.

Now granted the situation in AZ hasn't quite reached the "critical mass" point that characterizes SoCal -- but neither is the principal populated area quite as hemmed in as L.A./Inland Empire in regards to the surrounding mountains; in PHX there are multiple directions for new housing to crop up; the fact that most of it is either southeast along I-10 or US 60 (or arrayed between the two) or west/northwest between, again, I-10 and US 60.  To the north flanking I-17 seem to be larger "ranch" developments geared toward the upscale buyer (including well-heeled retirees -- Phoenix's version of SoCal's Temecula, itself an outlier in the outward expansion process).  But service workers -- making substantially less than warehouse employees -- generally find themselves looking inward to older housing stock within the urban areas; unlike in coastal California, that has yet to be priced out beyond all reason -- residents inbound from elsewhere are doing so in order to purchase a new/newer residence at a price all but unheard of in CA (where a lot of that inbound is coming from!). 

The whole thing, regardless of venue, is simply circles moving outward in phases, pushing the outer ones even further out.   

[Sub-Urbanite]

The whole thing, regardless of venue, is simply circles moving outward in phases, pushing the outer ones even further out.

The relative lack of hard geographic boundaries — save for the sovereign lands of the indigenous people — is the saving grace for Phoenix. It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road — a 2 mile outward expansion across the entirety of Phoenix's western suburbs is 34 square miles. By comparison, the central Phoenix core (17-Northern-51-10) is 36 square miles.

So the sprawl eventually does have to start peter out of out necessity.

[sparker]

The whole thing, regardless of venue, is simply circles moving outward in phases, pushing the outer ones even further out.

The relative lack of hard geographic boundaries — save for the sovereign lands of the indigenous people — is the saving grace for Phoenix. It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road — a 2 mile outward expansion across the entirety of Phoenix's western suburbs is 34 square miles. By comparison, the central Phoenix core (17-Northern-51-10) is 36 square miles.

So the sprawl eventually does have to start peter out of out necessity.

Except for the "void" in development that is the Gila reservation, there are few if any physical obstacles for continuous development southwest east of I-10 all the way down to Casa Grande -- and since I-10 southeast of there simply follows the old RR line that took the flat-as-possible path of least resistance toward Tucson, there's little save economic variables (including periodic recessions) to stop a L.A.-to-San Diego continuous sort of development -- in fact, due to both Camp Pendleton on the coast and the rugged mountains just south of Temecula, the AZ situation is actually easier.  West and northwest the valleys narrow somewhat (the I-10 and US 60/I-11 corridors), so developers have to get a little creative around the more hilly areas -- but south/SE is "tract-ready", for the most part (just look at Maricopa!).   Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek just have to instigate a south-moving "wave" (similar to what happened in the SoCal Inland Empire from Upland eastward along the southern flank of the San Gabriels, aided and abetted by the CA 210 freeway extension).  These days, there's essentially one solid chunk of housing from the L.A. county line east to the Lytle Creek floodplain.  But unless an AZ version of the subprime housing scandal of 2007-08 reoccurs -- and most financial institutions are a bit more wary these days -- there will be something of a naturally occurring slowdown of the outer "wave" of development simply because of the lack of qualified buyers (unless everyone in CA decides to retire all at once and also elects to move to AZ for the tax and cost-of-living savings!).  Those 2-mile expansion rings -- with logarithmically increasing areas -- won't be developed by any builders with an ounce of common sense until they sense that most if not all of the housing units built will be occupied within a year of construction.  That -- and the sheer level of capital expense involved -- will invariably slow things down considerably.  Remember, while it's one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, it's still desert that gets up over 110 degrees during late summer!  Some folks will check out the area in August and September, and simply say "fuck this; we're going to check out St. George" (if retirees) ....or maybe Austin or San Marcos (if looking for tech jobs).           

[KeithE4Phx]

It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road...

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that Southern and Bell are the southern and northern city limits of Phoenix?  They were... circa 1960.  Now it's Pecos Rd. (soon to be the Loop 202) on the south, and New River Rd @ I-17 on the north, which is a span of about 40 miles.

[Sub-Urbanite]

It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road...

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that Southern and Bell are the southern and northern city limits of Phoenix?  They were... circa 1960.  Now it's Pecos Rd. (soon to be the Loop 202) on the south, and New River Rd @ I-17 on the north, which is a span of about 40 miles.

I was just pointing to that as a linear representation of one edge of the city.

[Roadwarriors79]

Do any of these agencies mention CANAMEX anymore? I know that the original CANAMEX route in Arizona was supposed to start at I-19 in Nogales, go to I-10 in Tucson, then I-10 to the Phoenix area, various roads to US 93 in Wickenburg, and US 93 all the way to the Nevada state line. I-11 is supposed to fill in the highway gap from the Phoenix area to Nevada.

[Bobby5280]

With all the protectionist sentiment going on in the government now I think concepts like the CANAMEX corridor are not being discussed much. There's a decent amount of activity on I-69 in Texas, but I think the thought process on selling I-69 there has more to do with serving city to city or region to region connections within Texas rather than something to do with NAFTA.

[silverback1065]

I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.

[Sub-Urbanite]

I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.

To borrow from former Las Vegas water czar Pat Mulroy, there will always be water. It's just a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.

[sparker]

With all the protectionist sentiment going on in the government now I think concepts like the CANAMEX corridor are not being discussed much. There's a decent amount of activity on I-69 in Texas, but I think the thought process on selling I-69 there has more to do with serving city to city or region to region connections within Texas rather than something to do with NAFTA.

The Canamex aspect was simply a vehicle to prompt the funding for the initial I-11 projects -- and an existing corridor definition on which to append the I-11 designation back in 2012.  The "parallel freeway" projects south of Casa Grande are simply a local developer artifice to drum up the concept of new housing southwest of I-10 in the Marana area -- and to circumvent the longstanding Tucson opposition to new-terrain freeways in their midst by providing a far western bypass.   Since the Canamex corridor's status (HPC #26) dates from 1995 -- and political sentiments regarding commerce with Mexico have fluctuated widely since then, the actual effect upon I-11 development, at least now that the basic corridor concept has been established, is likely to be negligible regardless of any particular administration's posturing -- it's now a matter of regional/local input on precise routings (or the need for the various extension plans) rather than something that will wax and wane with D.C. flack.

[jakeroot]

I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.

To borrow from former Las Vegas water czar Pat Mulroy, there will always be water. It's just a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.

The same way we'll never run out of oil...it'll just become too expensive. But either way, the supply does effectively dry up. If water in Phoenix costs $20/gal (even for household taps), Phoenix will never run out of water, because there won't be anyone left in Phoenix that'll have the money to afford such ridiculous utility costs.