Talk:Interstate 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This entire article is dubious at best. There is no empirical, independant sourced information that supports the claims of this article, as opposed to the articles on other proposed interstates. I am very close to bringing this up as an AfD for that very reason. --Mhking 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

what about other preposed corridors[edit]

interstate 11 would be beter to be routed from Yuma ,arizona to las vegas,nevade and run parrall to US 95 becasue odd number routes usally run north and south routes. the corridor from wickenburg ,arizona to las vegas along US 93 would be better routed with a preposed intertate 12 becasue thats more of a east to west kind of route and interstate 12 would be a even number . so i cant see why this articale is only looking at one of the preposed corridors (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Interstate 12 already exists in Louisiana, so I doubt that another I-12 would be put into the Nevada/Arizona area.
I hope my fellow roadgeeks will help back me on this.
Allen (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Interstate highways can run for hundreds of miles, then stop, then continue again a thousand miles later. This is the case of I-84, which starts at Portland, OR, runs E. to Salt Lake City, where it (apparently) ends. Actually, I-84 begins again at Scranton, PA, then runs through New York state. I always thought I-84 ended at SLC until I talked to a guy from the east coast, who was just as surprised that there was an I-84 in the west. Also, (if anyone cares,) I edited the distance from Hoover Dam to Kingman. The article said the distance is 17 miles, when in fact it is 71. Someone may have transposed the numbers. FooeyDooey837 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)FooeyDooey837


I removed the categories "Interstate highways in Arizona" and "Interstate highways in Nevada" from the article. Inclusion within such categories implies that the I-11 exists currently, which it does not. --LJ (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?[edit]

The only source actually mentioning "Interstate 11" is this one. Everything else IMO is pure speculation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talkcontribs)

Even then the article is speculation. IMO the only discussion is should this be deleted on the grounds of hoax, or original research.Dave (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's this one, even if they get their sources from the Las Vegas Sun as well. ----DanTD (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll note that the Southern Nevada RTC (encompassing Clark County, NV) wrote a resolution supporting this proposed Interstate corridor which specifically mentioned "Interstate 11". I can't find it right now, but will link it when I find it. --LJ (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the AFD went nowhere; however, this is still an issue. I see two options: merge this article with US 93 or rename this article to something else and strip out all references to the I-11 designation. The latter approach was taken with Interstate 92, a designation that was tossed around by the media and project backers for a "Rooftop Highway" through New York and New England. – TMF 08:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum the article needs to be renamed. The people who propose the name I-11 have no authority to assign interstate designations. If this road is even built (which itself is not certain), it could just as easily be numbered I-7,9,11,13,21,23,315,715,915,110,310,510,710,910,117,317,517,717,917 or even as an extension of I-19 (which is actually the most logical choice) and still reasonably follow the Interstate numbering pattern. In any case, until the interstate designation is approved, the factual content of this article (the 40% of it left after removing the speculation) will be entirely redundant to the U.S. Route 93 family of articles. Apparently we didn't make this case at AfD, but this article has serious issues regardless.Dave (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Renumbering existing I-17 from I-10 (downtown Phoenix) to Flagstaff as I-19, as well as double designation of the stretch from Tucson to Phoenix as I-10/I-19 is the most logical solution. The I-17 moniker would then be free to use on the Phoenix - Las Vegas Interstate grade corridor (US 93). Confusion? Yes, but the most sensible solution without creating non conforming route numbers, as seen in Pennsylvania with Bud Shusters' Appalachian Thruway. (US 220 / I-99) (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that there's talk in Nevada of supporting a wider-reaching Interstate 11. This would incorporate the existing Phoenix-to-Vegas segment along US 93 all the way to the Mexican border, and extend the proposed designation up along US 95 all the way to the Canadian border. If the interstate were so routed, the I-11 numbering would be much less egregious, as the majority of the highway would be west of I-15 and align to the original grid. -- LJ  21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed incorrect info[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph:

News accounts indicate that the Congressional designation include an Interstate 11 segment between Buckeye and Casa Grande. The Arizona Department of Transportation does not have such a freeway on its master plans [1].

There is a freeway in the Arizona Department of Transportation's master plans in the Buckeye-Casa Grande segment: the Hassayampa Freeway. The article currently mentions only the portion of the Hassayampa that was covered by the I-10 Hassayampa Valley Study (see Figure 7.1 in [2]). In the I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Framework Study, the freeway is planned to continue south of the Estrella Mountains, gradually turning into a east-west direction to connect with I-10 in Casa Grande (see page 3 in [3]). Both of these studies were part of the bqAZ Statewide Framework (see Figure 2 in [4]), which is the basis of the state's 2010–20135 Long-Range Transportation Plan ([5]). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 11:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Renaming - Bad Number[edit]

No way this freeway will be called Interstate 11 since it's planned course will be EAST of Interstate 15, so the number has to be BIGGER than 15, and 11 is smaller. Most likely this freeway will be designated as Interstate 16, since the new freeway will be east of I-15 and still west of I-17 in Arizona. I believe that we should rename this article to Interstate 16. Giggett (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I-16 already exists in Georgia, so I don't know how that could work. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That's weird, Georgia should not have such a low number so far east. I guess there can be exceptions on the numbering system. In that case, I-11 seems likely. Giggett (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that I answered your query, but you can get even better answers if you ask the U.S. Roads WikiProject. The editors there have much more experience with the U.S. Roads topics than I do. I can try to help, but they are better. Also, consider joining the Project. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Interstate 11 was the number promoted by advocates for the designating the interstate corridor. This number was mentioned in recent federal highway authorization, which somewhat locks in the number. I-11 is not so egregious as other numbering violations in the grid (notable others being I-99 and I-238). I-16 is not a numbering violation as it fits in the even-numbered east-west grid between I-10 & I-20. -- LJ  02:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Future Interstate Corridor[edit]

Now that the I-11 signs are up, should we upload a picture of the sign and put it into the article just like you guys did in Interstate 69#History and on Interstate 99#Future? I got some good pictures of the sign that I found on Google Giggett (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The only signs that are up, from what I can tell, are "Future I-11 Corridor" signs in Arizona...which is not enough to say that I-11 is currently signed. Any pictures of the sign found on Google would need the appropriate license in order for us to use them here (ideally uploaded to Commons). -- LJ  03:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Exact alignment of route[edit]

The article currently says that I-11 will use I-515/US 95 to travel through the Las Vegas Valley. This is incorrect, as the route of I-11 in Nevada has not been decided beyond the end of the Boulder City Bypass project. There are currently three routing alternatives under study by the I-11 team for the route going through/around Las Vegas (with the I-515/US 95 route being one of those options). Similarly, I don't think the exact route has been determined on the Phoenix end either. -- LJ  02:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well looking at this image, it's pretty clear that I-11 will use I-515 into Las Vegas, especially since I-515 is the only freeway from the Boulder Dam Bypass that goes into the Vegas metro area. Giggett (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You've linked to an image created by a Arizona newspaper for illustrative purposes. The I-11 study website would be more reliable. The exact alignment is not yet finalized as they are still in the feasibility study stage. -- LJ  04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The evaluation study (start on page 80) shows that I-515 is only one of the alternatives being considered for the Las Vegas metro area, and that the exact alignment will be determined in future studies. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Highway map[edit]

Interstate 11 map.png

I uploaded a map of the proposed I-11 routing to Commons. At this point would it be too early to add such a map to the article, considering the project is essentially still in the planning stage? Or would it be useful as reference? Thanks. Shannon 22:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is too early to include this map, as it is still too early in the planning process to be sure whether the dotted line portions represent a reasonable approximation of the future alignment. For example, on the image description, it indicates the Reno extension following US 95, 395 and SR 208—that description leaves out the connecting piece of US 95 Alt, and is seemingly unlikely as following SR 208 would make the Vegas-to-Reno aspect much more circuitous than desired (not to mention the unlikelihood of putting an interstate through Wilson Canyon on SR 208). -- LJ  03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
On second thought the NV 208 connection does seem strange, I remember seeing it in one of the sources I used to make the map but I can't find it now. A routing through Fallon to join I-80 near Fernley seems more logical to me. Though do you think it would be fine to include a map with just the Phoenix-Las Vegas segment drawn? As a reader I'd find that useful; also the corridor following 93 and 515 is essentially set. Shannon 04:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The smaller Phoenix–Vegas extent might be acceptable on a map with this scale at the present time. Keep in mind that the exact paths through Phoenix and Vegas are not set yet. (e.g.: I-11 will likely use the current path of I-515 where it enters the Las Vegas Valley from the southeast. But it is not yet decided whether I-11 will follow I-515/US 95 through downtown, I-215/CC-215 around the south/west side of the valley, or the Lake Mead & northern CC-215 route to connect with US 95 heading northwest out of Las Vegas.) -- LJ  04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll make a map with the possible alignments drawn out and see how it goes. Thanks! Shannon 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One IP sais that the Bypass will be a toll road. I believe this is false.[edit]

Do you think this is true or false? (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether it is true or false. It's only really important that it is verifiable to a reliable source. –Fredddie 21:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I remember reading a news article where it said it might be a toll road, but that was years ago. It doesn't seem like it will be a toll road anymore by looking at the official Bourder Bypass website. Either way, no one knows for sure until we see toll gates get built. Giggett (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
As I recall, Nevada DOT proposed constructing this as a toll road for a brief time. This was during a legislative cycle (2011 or 2013?) in which a bill was under consideration that would change state law to allow a toll road demonstration project (Nevada law prohibits toll roads), and the Boulder City Bypass would have been the demo project. It would have been one way to help pay for the bypass to get constructed sooner. That bill did not pass, so the toll concept fizzled.
Since then, fuel revenue indexing in Clark County has been in place that has helped finance and accelerate construction of several road projects in the Las Vegas metro area. The Boulder City Bypass has benefited from this, as it's a major source of the construction funding for phase 2 (US 95 to US 93 at Hoover Dam). -- LJ  13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Boulder City Bypass opened as far as... where?[edit]

According to NDOT, Phase One was opened, which runs from I-515 to US 95, PAST the US 93-Railroad Pass interchange. Some sources disagree. Can anyone confirm where the Bypass ends? EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The ENTIRE bypass was NOT opened. A 2-mile section of the southbound lanes only was opened from the present end of I-515 down to where US 93 Business will branch off from southbound US 93/95 (and really it's not even two miles because it's counting the flyover which isn't part of the ultimate I-11 alignment). What's open is marked on this Google Map, which shows the extent actually open (highlighted) in comparison to some of the ultimate Phase 1 bypass construction visible on satellite imagery. The map accompanying this Las Vegas Review-Journal article confirms the above. I've surmised the southbound lanes were shifted onto this brief stretch of permanent alignment in order to accommodate other construction activities.
So it's really not accurate to say I-11 is "open" at this point... The LVRJ article confirms the entirety of Phase 1 (down to the new US 95 interchange) will open by December 20182017, with the remainder of the bypass (US 95 to the Hoover Dam interchange) will open June 20192018. -- LJ  13:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Edited to correct dates. -- LJ  17:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they even approved the I-11 designation EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The I-11 designation is approved. NDOT has sought and received approval to post I-11 from the AZ state line to the I-215/I-515 interchange. -- LJ  13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I-11 Terminus[edit]

I just wanted to clarify the length of I-11, one user stated that the section of I-515 from I-11 to I-215 was now part of I-11. Is it technically part of I-11 yet or not? TextClick (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevada DOT has already received approval to resign that stretch of I-515 as I-11. As of September 29, 2017, it is not yet signed. I would not anticipate resigning to take place until after NDOT has at least completed construction on phase 1 of the Boulder City Bypass in late 2017 (and probably more likely that resigning will wait until RTC completes phase 2 in 2018). -- LJ  16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)