Will I-515 be renumbered as I-11? Also I-11 Exit numbers in Nevada

[kkt]

Here's a link that briefly describes CANAMEX.

http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp

I've seen that.  It's a puff piece that avoids obvious questions.  It does not attempt to measure the need for any particular piece of I-11 as sketched out -- AADT? Truck traffic?  It ignores existing parallel routes, as if I-11 was the only way a truck could possibly get from Nogales to Calgary.

I have no problem with Arizona building a third beltway for Phoenix if they think they need it, but I think interstate numbers should be for projects that are significant beyond one city.

[english si]

Is it simply the E-W freeway north of Casa Grande/south of Phoenix that you object to having the I-11 number, or the whole route?

[Interstate Trav]

Here's a link that briefly describes CANAMEX.

http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp

It seems like I-11 is being used as a Truck route, but also in Phoenix there routing it to there advantage to make a bypass, and having the advantage of another through route in there state. 

I've seen that.  It's a puff piece that avoids obvious questions.  It does not attempt to measure the need for any particular piece of I-11 as sketched out -- AADT? Truck traffic?  It ignores existing parallel routes, as if I-11 was the only way a truck could possibly get from Nogales to Calgary.

I have no problem with Arizona building a third beltway for Phoenix if they think they need it, but I think interstate numbers should be for projects that are significant beyond one city.

I think that Arizona is building it a s through route, but there using the I-11 route through or around Phoenix to there advantage to make a bypass of town.  Serves two purposes for them.  Unless they just route I-11 down to Lukeville Arizona.

[flowmotion]

Is it simply the E-W freeway north of Casa Grande/south of Phoenix that you object to having the I-11 number, or the whole route?

Some of the common themes of discussion here among roadgeeks are topics such as "Why don't they build an Interstate connecting X and Y?" and "Why isn't there funding available for expanding route Z or bypassing Q?"

Then someone proposes a new & valuable intercity I route, and it turns out a big portion is an exurban beltway that will encourage vast amounts of sprawl, probably at the behest of politically well-connected real estate speculators. I think it really underlines how our road spending is being misallocated.

[agentsteel53]

is there a way to build beltways but discourage sprawl?

if I recall correctly, I-80 (former I-880) around Sacramento isn't particularly ornery.

[Brandon]

is there a way to build beltways but discourage sprawl?

if I recall correctly, I-80 (former I-880) around Sacramento isn't particularly ornery.

Build them without exits?

I've noticed that beltways don't really produce sprawl so much as connect different parts of the sprawl that happens anyway without a beltway.  Sprawl seems to come first, then the roads.

[roadfro]

I have no problem with Arizona building a third beltway for Phoenix if they think they need it, but I think interstate numbers should be for projects that are significant beyond one city.

Are you forgetting the part where I-11 goes to Las Vegas...?

The whole impetus behind the I-11 idea is to connect the Phoenix area to the Las Vegas area. Thus, this interstate is significant to two metropolitan areas.

is there a way to build beltways but discourage sprawl?

Build them without exits?

I've noticed that beltways don't really produce sprawl so much as connect different parts of the sprawl that happens anyway without a beltway.  Sprawl seems to come first, then the roads.

That's the plan for the Boulder City Bypass--no exits between Hoover Dam and US 95. Although I understand Boulder City has ordinances limiting the number of building permits issued each year...otherwise, I'm sure that town would be a lot bigger by now.

Sprawl and beltways can be a double edged sword. One tends to promote the other, and vice-versa.

[Grzrd]

Recent email correspondence with NDOT indicates that I-515 will not be renumbered anytime soon.  First, I asked if NDOT has plans, in light of MAP-21, to renumber I-515 to I-11.  The response:

It will take decades to create an I-11 in AZ.  No doubt when that happens, there will be a re-designation one way or the other.  No doubt, US 95 north of Las Vegas and leading north to the ID border will be improved to facilitate CMV movements, but today's traffic volumes do not warrant IR improvements. 
Route designations are not made by individual state DOTs.  This domain remains with the FHWA and AASHTO.  They will do whatever they will do.  Neither NV nor AZ is driving this determination. 
MAP-21 does not call for construction of "I-11."  It merely directs all concerned to start the NEPA process. 
Hope this clarifies your understanding of the situation.

I then had the following Q & A:

Q Does NDOT know why I-11 was included with I-69 in the MAP-21 provision that allows interstate signage for disconnected segments of those two interstates?

A We do not.   Most of I-11 will be in AZ.  NV share is only 7 miles.  FHWA and ADOT are driving this project.

Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?

[TheStranger]

Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?

Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles."  Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!

[myosh_tino]

Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles."  Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!

I think what NDOT means is only 7 miles of new freeway are needed to complete Nevada's portion of I-11 (Boulder City Bypass).  The rest of the route already exists as I-515.

[kkt]

Is it simply the E-W freeway north of Casa Grande/south of Phoenix that you object to having the I-11 number, or the whole route?

I object to both.  I object to the whole route because it's not getting enough traffic to be an interstate, and it's short enough that even if it is interstate, it could stick with I-515 and be fine.

And I object to routing a primary interstate number in a fishhook shape in order make a beltway around Phoenix.  If Arizona wants a beltway around Phoenix, let them give it an Arizona state route number.

Further, I object to assigning interstate numbers on the basis of "my congressman can beat up your congressman."  An interstate route should mean something.  It no longer means the Feds pay for it, but it should still mean it's a major route with long distance travelers' needs in mind, not just a beltway for one city.  I-8 would be a better southern beltway from the point of view of traffic from Mexico to Las Vegas and I-15; the proposed route is only better from the point of view of Phoenix real estate developers.

[english si]

it's short enough that even if it is interstate, it could stick with I-515 and be fine.

I'm sorry what? It's about 300 miles between LV and Phoenix - plenty of shorter 2dis that don't serve as many and twice as long as I-476 and it's not like they are short of spare 2di numbers in that part of the country. With the Phoenix Bypass it's nearly as long as I-8.

In your opinion, these should be 3dis as not long enough as under 350 miles (which, rounded up to the nearest 50, is how long I-11 will be) - I'd agree that some should be 3dis, but some of these would be absurd as 3dis:
I-4 (132.3), I-8 (348.25), I-12 (85.6),  I-16 (166.81), I-17 (145.76), I-19 (63.60), I-22 (213.0), I-24 (316.3), I-26 (349), I-27 (124.13), I-37 (143.00), I-39 (306.14), I-43 (191.5), I-45 (284.91), I-49 (208.25), I-66   (76.28), I-68 (112.9), I-71 (343.78), I-72 (179.29), I-73 (33.5), I-76   West (187.34), I-78 (143.56), I-79 (343.24), I-82 (143.58), I-83 (85.3), I-84 East (232.4), I-86 West (62.85), I-86 East (183.56), I-87 (333.49), I-88 West (140.6), I-88 East (117.75), I-89 (191.1), I-91 (290.37), I-93 (189.95), I-96 (192.06), I-97 (17.62), I-99 (85.0)

Also plenty of lower-trafficked interstates.

I can't see the automatic objection to a 2di on a Beltway, forming a hook shaped route. Even more absurd is that Beltways should be state routes and shouldn't be interstates.

But yes the numbering-into-law thing is annoying.

[Zonie]

Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?

Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles."  Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!

I wonder if they're referring to the unbuilt portions -- where I-515 ends at US 95 to the NV 172 exit on US 93 is roughly seven miles.

[kkt]

it's short enough that even if it is interstate, it could stick with I-515 and be fine.

I'm sorry what? It's about 300 miles between LV and Phoenix - plenty of shorter 2dis that don't serve as many and twice as long as I-476 and it's not like they are short of spare 2di numbers in that part of the country. With the Phoenix Bypass it's nearly as long as I-8.

In your opinion, these should be 3dis as not long enough as under 350 miles (which, rounded up to the nearest 50, is how long I-11 will be) - I'd agree that some should be 3dis, but some of these would be absurd as 3dis:
I-4 (132.3), I-8 (348.25), I-12 (85.6),  I-16 (166.81), I-17 (145.76), I-19 (63.60), I-22 (213.0), I-24 (316.3), I-26 (349), I-27 (124.13), I-37 (143.00), I-39 (306.14), I-43 (191.5), I-45 (284.91), I-49 (208.25), I-66   (76.28), I-68 (112.9), I-71 (343.78), I-72 (179.29), I-73 (33.5), I-76   West (187.34), I-78 (143.56), I-79 (343.24), I-82 (143.58), I-83 (85.3), I-84 East (232.4), I-86 West (62.85), I-86 East (183.56), I-87 (333.49), I-88 West (140.6), I-88 East (117.75), I-89 (191.1), I-91 (290.37), I-93 (189.95), I-96 (192.06), I-97 (17.62), I-99 (85.0)

Also plenty of lower-trafficked interstates.

I can't see the automatic objection to a 2di on a Beltway, forming a hook shaped route. Even more absurd is that Beltways should be state routes and shouldn't be interstates.

But yes the numbering-into-law thing is annoying.

Um, what?  Mapquest is telling me Phoenix to Las Vegas is 285 miles via US-60, US-93, I-40, US-93, and I-515.  I guess in length that would be the longest 3di, but there's not very much along the way.  I guess the ones that you italicized are the ones you think are indefensible as 3dis?  Note that the italicized ones are all over 285 miles.  Yes, I do think most of the short 2dis should have been 3dis (not that I advocate renumbering them now).

There is a shortage of 2dis in the southwest.  If Arizona hadn't used I-17 and I-19 for short routes we'd have a number available for I-11 that would be in the grid.  Between I-5 and I-15, there's proposals for interstates made from US-97, CA-99, US-395, and US-93; there's not enough odd-numbered interstates for all of them.  And California is running out of 3dis off of I-5.

About the beltway:  I don't mind interstates taking a beltway when they continue past the city and the beltway is the quickest way past.  But the proposed I-11 wouldn't be going past Phoenix to another destination to the east.  According to its selling points, it's supposed to be serving a destination to the south of Phoenix, and heading south to I-8 would be the most efficient way to accomplish that.

[english si]

Um, what?  Mapquest is telling me Phoenix to Las Vegas is 285 miles via US-60, US-93, I-40, US-93, and I-515.

Google saying 301 miles, alter it so that the freeway ploughs through the edge of the urban area and you get a 290 mile figure.

Total length of I-11 is looking to be about 360 miles.

I guess in length that would be the longest 3di, but there's not very much along the way.

You're right there's nothing much along the way - but there's a big city at either end.

I guess the ones that you italicized are the ones you think are indefensible as 3dis?  Note that the italicized ones are all over 285 miles.  Yes, I do think most of the short 2dis should have been 3dis (not that I advocate renumbering them now).

Nope, there's a very simple reason all the italicised ones were above 285 miles long - I italicised those between 300mi - 350mi and thus in the same ballpark as I-11, though I-24 and I-87 escaped me.

Though if it was routes that are absurd as 3dis, I'd only leave I-12, I-19, I-27, I-66, I-73, I-74, I-76(W), I-82, I-86(W), I-89/I-93 (probably extend I-93 over I-89 and renumber the rest as a 3di), I-97 and I-99 without italics. And many of those would make it onto my list of routes that should be 2dis.

There is a shortage of 2dis in the southwest.  If Arizona hadn't used I-17 and I-19 for short routes we'd have a number available for I-11 that would be in the grid.

While I agree I-17 and I-19 should have been one number, or I-19 a I-x10, there's still not a shortage of numbers - there's a problem if you want to be massively anal about the grid (same applies if the Flagstaff - Nogales interstate was numbered I-17 as would have been very likely), but that it's I-11, rather than I-17 or I-19 is not a good reason to deny it being a route worthy of being 2-digits.

And if they wanted a number that better fitted the grid, I-21 and I-23 were available, as were various even routes that would work geographically, except it's N-S traffic that they want, not E-W traffic from Eastern Mexico looking to bypass the greater LA area enroute to the Pacific NW and NoCal via an US93-I-40-CA58-CA99 route.

Between I-5 and I-15, there's proposals for interstates made from US-97, CA-99, US-395, and US-93;

All of which are too lightly trafficked to be interstates, according to what you said about US93 in AZ. And I-7, I-9, I-13 and I-11 sequence there a problem?

there's not enough odd-numbered interstates for all of them.

4 routes, 4 numbers between I-5 and I-21, plus I-21 and I-23 if you really needed.

And as a reason from you to not have I-11 as a 2di, it's absurd - you've attacked the route on traffic levels, saying it doesn't warrant being an interstate, then give some other lightly-trafficked corridors with random proposals to justify it not giving a number. You then have 'short' corridors that pass by next-to-nothing as unworthy of 2di status and should be 3dis - that must be at least one, if

And California is running out of 3dis off of I-5.

Only because the eejits decided to use up a lot of the numbers in SoCal, where I-8, I-10 and I-15 could have taken over one or two (I-605 certainly could have been an I-x10). Also, between those 3 and I-9 (which can use 3dis to remove I-205 and unsigned I-305 if needed elsewhere), most future, completely long distance proposals for I-x05s can have I-x08, I-x09, I-x10 or I-x15 numbers instead.

And lots of states would have 2dis running out of auxiliary numbers if you had had your way and had lots of current 2dis as 3dis. If you are going to make arguments, make them consistent with each other.

About the beltway:  I don't mind interstates taking a beltway when they continue past the city and the beltway is the quickest way past.  But the proposed I-11 wouldn't be going past Phoenix to another destination to the east.

You mean south. And sure it is - Nogales, only there's no point in renumbering I-19 (though quite why they didn't just extend it - then again, they'd be moans about out-of-grid).

According to its selling points, it's supposed to be serving a destination to the south of Phoenix, and heading south to I-8 would be the most efficient way to accomplish that.

Yes it probably is, but I'd imagine that a Phoenix belt would get the same federal funding if it was I-11 or Loop 404 (or something).

OK, it makes I-11 about 310 miles to end at Gila Bend, rather than 360 if it ends at Casa Grande (though AZ would dual sign I-8 to Casa Grande to route traffic around Phoenix, giving a 370 mile route for I-11).

[roadfro]

Even more interesting - the NDOT reply that I-11's portion in NV is only "7 miles."  Surely the distance from the Hoover Dam Bypass to LV is longer!

I wonder if they're referring to the unbuilt portions -- where I-515 ends at US 95 to the NV 172 exit on US 93 is roughly seven miles.

Actually, it's a little bit longer than seven miles, but yeah it seems that was in reference to what has not been built to freeway standards.

The Boulder City Bypass full length is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 miles, with the approximately 12-mile phase 2 being the portion that is under examination for possible tolling.