Study Comments Received
The I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study is now complete. Comments received over the duration of the 2012-2014 study can be found here or within event summaries found on the Meetings page. Additional feedback on I-11 or other efforts should be directed to the Nevada Department of Transportation or the Arizona Department of Transportation.
[Per the Entire Corridor] The U.S. Public Interest Research Group’s report terming I-11 a “boondoggle” should be of interest to study participants.
View the news story.
View the full PIRG report.
[Per the Entire Corridor] There is no reason to expand this road. The traffic levels have not increased in the past 10 years. We need to devote this money to Arizona state bridges that are in bad need of repair or replacement. This does not help the economies of the two states. As a 40 year native of Arizona, I disapprove the use of our tax money to this project.
September 24 2014
[Per the Entire Corridor] I just wanted to comment on the need for the Interstate 11 Project between Las Vegas & Reno. I have driven US Highway 95 between Yerington & Las Vegas numerous times. It continues to astound me how dangerous this single lane highway is with its lack of passing lanes, etc until you reach Indian Springs.
With the amount of semi-trucks & haul trucks & just regular vehicles that use this highway, there is a definite need to ensure traffic safety & to assist commerce. Thank You. Jim Wilkinson
Edward A. Williams
[Per the Entire Corridor] The concept of the I-11 project is all well and good but I think all the millions of dollars this project will cost could be better spent developing and construct a multi-track high speed railway through the proposed corridor and areas. The Western United States is sorely lacking in rail transportation through the North-South corridor where the I-11 is proposed to go while in the Eastern United States continuous improvements of rail lines are being made. It is a known fact that one or two rail cars can carry more freight per mile that a dozen trucks on the highway. Also, I might add that the public would benefit by being able to take a comfortable passenger train instead of flying and having to put up with all of the inconvenience and annoyances associated with it. The added benefit would hopefully aid i [comment was cut off when submitted].
amazing how the ones who want this travesty done are the ones who have a financial interest in this nonsense of a highway while landowners who live near the proposed highway robbery will lose their homes & crime will be rampant due to easy access for drug cartels, a reason why the gov’t wants this done, a cover up for the real reason here is why, quoted from another citizen : China 11/3/13 This is unbelievable! If this project is approved, it will used to help them complete their North American Union structure. This means our sovereignty and our borders will be in jeopardy! To track and trace their masses(servants), building on the massive displacement of humanity, caused by globalism, the New World Order is rapidly building the control grid. Their goal is to re-wild the rural areas, ripping out the roads and have people move to the cities. They will cordon off roads and some towns will be deserted
RTC Washoe County
Interstate 11 Resolution of Support from the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County.
Mohave County is the new Silicon Valley of Arizona Mohave County is capable of holding 1 to 3,000,000 people in the county The gaming industry in Las Vegas absolutely love this that is why it is very important for Las Vegas and Kingman Arizona to work together on this project if we could market Mohave County as the new Silicon Valley of Arizona and Las Vegas worldwide investment wood come to the valley this project would help pay for the new interstate I'11 if the economy development Department of Las Vegas and Mohave County would work together Las Vegas turns down 70 to 80 corporations per year because our city does not fit their corporate profile instead of turning them away to other states, we could pass them over to Mohave County and we could recoup revenues from their coming to Las Vegas for the annual meetings gaming and entertainment we could structure it so the companies that we pass over to Mohave County wood only go to Mohave County and no further into Arizona both development departments of Las Vegas and Kingman working together would retain all corporations into either Las Vegas or Mohave County which would be both beneficial to both counties Clark County Las Vegas and Kingman Arizona Mohave County it is a win win situation. It would be called the Nevada and Arizona global economy alliance it would interact with the Las Vegas global economy alliance if you would please email this or send to all concerned parties and the governor the mayor economy development department to discuss this project to see if it would be both beneficial for all parties concerned Las Vegas Nevada and Kingman Arizona Mohave County and the gaming industry thank you, Stephen Cardon. www.kingmanarizonaland.com (link no longer available) 702.871.7822
[Per the Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada Segment and Entire Corridor] We live in a fire district that is responsible for the state highway 93, from mp 50 to Hoover Dam. The district is large in area, small in residents,therefore there is little money to provide fire trucks and EMS to the 50 miles of 93. I-11 needs to provide for fire and EMS service to cover the entire Corridor, but especially the area in the middle of open land in northern AZ. Many tourist buses travel 93 and then the 49 miles up to the Sky Walk inside our fire district. There have been terrible wrecks and deaths on this road. I-11 must take the EMS capability of the entire length of this corridor. Thank you.
[Per the Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada Segment] As of now the LMRFD is responsible for the stretch of Hwy 93 between Hoover Dam and Chloride turn off. A desolate stretch of highway, approximately 50 miles. The taxpayer of LMRFD are paying for this where they many times do not get reimbursed for their services especially from out of country tourists. Maybe the State of Arizona should take responsibility for this service since they are going to up the traffic and therefore the need for more emergency services.
[Per the Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada Segment] I would like to suggest that provisions be made for funding of fire and emergency medical services along the proposed corridor. Our small poorly funded fire district is already stretched to provide services on Hwy 93 between mile markers 1 and 43.
The taxpayers of our District foot the bill for the 25%-30% of our ambulance calls that take place on Hwy 93. We rarely collect any reimbursement from the out of state or out of country tourists who comprise most of the traffic on Hwy 93. Increasing that traffic would put an unbearable burden on a poor community of primarily retired and/or disabled citizens. Not only would local property taxes need to be increased to meet the greater demand, but even more than currently, the services the taxpayers pay for will be unavailable when they need them because of activity on Highway 93.
Surely we are not the only fire and EMS provider along the corridor with this issue. Hopefully there will be some funding available to help us all out.
[Per the Las Vegas Metropolitan Segment] The Las Vegas valley is provided a golden opportunity if the I11 corridor goes around the East side. There is currently no route for traffic coming south on I15 or north on US95/93 to get through the East side of the valley. All this traffic goes through the Spaghetti Bowl. It is plain idiotic to push even more traffic through the Spaghetti Bowl when Ill is built (even after project Neon is completed).
Thanks for the info. Sure wish this project could move along: As we wait, the price/cost just will keep going up. As the city of Phoenix had the last stretch of Interstate 10 built, if it had been done earlier, the cost would have been a fraction. Though back then, and even today engineers need to know that eventually Phoenix/Tucson will become one large mega metro area. I know there are a few Indian reservations in between, but I still feel, not in my lifetime, it will happen. Interstate 10 needs to be widened even more now. Not only for growth, for safety as this route between Phoenix/Tucson is very heavily travelled. The point I am trying to make is that Interstate 11 needs to be built wide enough to handle growth. Not done in sections, that is another way the cost goes up. If you can, please pass my thoughts on to to the right people/area.
Jim Garza, White Pine County
Sondra and team:
White Pine County would like to thank you for your hard work in conducting the research and public meetings to conclude on the draft Evaluation Report for the NDOT Board of Directors. I have attached our comments on the draft to submit on record. Commissioner Howe and myself will be attending the August 18th NDOT Board of Directors meeting and would like to ask for your support of our items listed on our comment letter to be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to be a Stakeholder during the process.
Director, White Pine County Community and Economic Development
7/17/14, Lorina Dellinger, Nye County Administration
Attached please find Nye County Resolution No. 2014-26: a Resolution Supporting Interstate 11 and Future North-South Extension within and through Nye County, approved by the Board of County Commissioners at its July 15, 2014 regular meeting. Should you have any questions please contact me.
Eleanor Lockwood, Churchill County
Good afternoon Ms. Rosenberg,
The Churchill County Board of Commissioners adopted the attached Resolution in support of the I-11 corridor.
I understand that public comments are due by July 18th; however the City Council will be considering adoption of this Resolution at its August 5th meeting. Please accept the attached Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners anticipating City action on the same Resolution August 5th.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Robert Herr, City of Henderson
Please see the attached letter and include it in the official record for the Virtual Public Meeting for the I-11 Study.
Marily M. Mora, Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority
See attached letter of support.
Carson City Regional Transportation Commission
Resolution expressing support for the construction of Interstate 11 (I-11) from Phoenix, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada with a future extension through Carson City, utilizing the existing I-580 corridor.
JUNE 2014: Comments and feedback received from June 18 through July 18 will be published in the Virtual Public Meeting summary report.
Rachel Dahl, Executive Director of Churchill Economic Development Authority
Letter in support of Interstate 11.
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada, the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, Southern Arizona, and the Entire Corridor]
With the I-11 corridor in the conceptual phase, now is the time to brainstorm vision and values pertaining to the communities with impacts. It appears most of the corridor has been carved and planned from Las Vegas to I-10, but the southern reaches are still to be determined. With Tucson expressing interest in I-11, several possibilities exist for an I-11 extension, particularly in the southern reaches of the Tucson metro region. My proposal would entail a potential 20-50 year arc, but I believe a potential routing should start near the intersection of I-19 and AZ-86. The route would overtake AZ 86 to AZ 85 near Ajo and head north to Gila Bend, and overtake the entire AZ 85 route.
Portions of AZ 85 between I-8 and I-10 are already being improved to limited access standards, and it would make an easy transition for improvements. From Gila Bend, I would recommend starting the exiting sequence at 200 to allow for other potential corridors.
[Per Southern Arizona] I can’t understand why Chuck Huckelberry wants to destroy such a pristine area and throw over 40 families out of their homes when all they have to do is double deck I-10 for a few miles, and would be cheaper to do.
My wife and I chose to live out here to be away from the noise of the city and to enjoy the beauty of the desert. now the county wants to come out here and destroy it all for all the people who live out here, not to mention ruining Tucson Mountain Park, the desert museum and Saguaro Park West.
Let the city have the noise. They are the ones that will profit off it not the people that live out here and want nothing to do with it.
But i guess in the end the county will choose the wrong option like they always do.
Jack de Golia
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area] We now know there’s naturally occurring asbestos in the soil from S. Nevada into Arizona. What kind of mitigation can you do? In asbestos areas like Libby, Montana, water is used to keep the fibers from becoming airborne. We don’t have enough water here to do that. Blasting and digging for the highway will create a long-lasting and widespread health risk. We need a good answer this before anybody turns a shovel full of dirt.
Dear Michael Kies & Sondra Rosenberg
I have been involved with some of the I-11 past meetings and I would like to suggest some funding options for funding Infrastructure Projects. I just stumbled on this a month ago and I would like to share this with you it may be the way to get some funding started for the I-11 and other infrastructure projects. I hope you might consider to opportunity in exploring these pension fund options. SEE ALL LINK’S BELOW ABOUT PENSION FUNDS INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS…
I have also shared this with some of the locals in Pinal County and the City of Casa Grande as well as Congressman Paul Gosar Business Liaison Stephen Briggs.
City of Casa Grande Mayor Bob Jackson, Jim Thompson, Jim Dinkle and Luke Jackson-Access Arizona, Pinal County Board of Supervisor chairman Anthony Smith, Steve Miller, Tim Kanaval Economic Pinal Development manager, Louis Andersen Pinal Public works and Greg Stanley Pinal Manager.
PS Can wait to see this I-11 project move forward!
Tarantini Construction, Inc.
http://uli.org/press-release/infrastructure2013/ (link no longer available)
http://www.afr.com/p/national/tony_abbott_courts_ontario_teachers_cmxMYdxlXGR9yNwuNOCB1N (link no longer available)
http://ic.rbcits.com/2012/06/planes-trains-and-pension-plans/ (link no longer available)
https://www.atp.dk/X5/wps/wcm/connect/0bd61c804fa6d0a5a311b733917a72c0/OPP_Main.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (link no longer available)
[Per the Entire Corridor] This project is a fantastic idea. I know many people who routinely travel between either Phoenix and Las Vegas, or Tucson and Las Vegas, and all would be thrilled to have a quicker, safer, more convenient option. The economic benefits to both states would be great, and as Mexican relations to Arizona continue to improve and grow, we’ll need another big N-S corridor like the one proposed. I don’t see any reason not to do this, and hope our officials move forward on this project.
[Per the Entire Corridor] In future considerations for this proposed interstate, I hope the planners realized they either must use existing hwy routes as much as possible, or not build in the first place.
The proposed route I have seen through Arizona, makes some use of existing hwy however their is many section of the proposed interstate that Cuts across current non developed land. Further more creating this hwy based off of 1950-2010 ideas is just plain wrong. The entire stretch should incorporate high speed rail, mono rail or maglev service. With the latter more sound for future tech.
Also lining the route with Solar power of some sort either embedded in the roadway itself or raised above through out portions is vital. It no longer makes sense to build such a stretch of development with out considering dual use ways of making the route viable and future proof. Especially consider the huge drawback of the development. The planning committee really needs to get concept artist or artist involved with the plan
Bob Shriver, Highway 95 Regional Development Authority
Brenda and Sondra: Please find attached a letter of endorsement from the Highway 95 Regional Development Authority in support of the I-11 Transportation Corridor study and in particular the Western Alignment from Las Vegas to I-80 via Highway 95. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada, Phoenix Metropolitan Area, and Southern Arizona] This is personal opinion. I have no interest in nor will I support another interstate highway through the state of Arizona. It’s time to think beyond cars to more efficient transportation. If this was about a high-speed rail link across the state to Las Vegas using existing highway corridors I’d be all for it.
[Per the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area] The option to have I-15 from Ann and the 215 to Kyle Canyon is a terrible plan. It will run through 2 master planned community’s providence and Sky Canyon. I believe we should explore better options.
[Per the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area] Running the I-11 corridor through rural Henderson on proposed route bb or qq would adversely affect the lives of Henderson residents along that route, myself included. The residents of this area moved to rural Henderson to be away from the urban areas of town and a freeway running through our backyards would undermine that. Road noise, increased traffic, diminished property value, and a huge eye sore are just a few of the negative impacts to the area. Please leave the I-11 project on existing freeways in the las vegas valley.
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada and the Phoenix Metropolitan Area] While I agree with the need for this project.
I don’t see the alternate routes around Phx needing to ‘reinvent the wheel’ and build in open desert, from Wickenburg south along Sun Parkway overlap a bit with I-10 and follow an already designed freeway down AZ 85 to the underused I-8 seems so much more efficient and easier to build.
From Wickenburg north follow the mostly freeway ready us93 to I-40 and follow US93 from Kingman to Nevada again seems so much more efficient and easier to build.
I can’t see the proposed routes getting built for decades and decades, if ever.
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada] I believe the on going improvement to highway 93 should continue
Improving to federal standards. Improve interchange at I40&93
Widening I 40 west bound through Kingman. At I 40 and clacks canyon constructed an interchange to the north over coyote pass. Then on up 93 improving to federal standards.
[Per the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area] My question is this… Why would you consider building a brand new highway right thru the middle of several neighborhoods, a water treatment plant, Lake Mead National Rec Area and my back yard when there are already 2 existing routes? The cost for building this new leg of the I11 will cost far more money and cause a lot of people to loose their homes to eminent domain. I will lose my home!
You all state that it will ease the traffic into Vegas, why do you think people drive thru the desert for hours?? To come to Vegas, so no, that excuse doesn’t work for me.
As far as creating jobs, those same people you will be putting to work can go to work widening either one of the existing alternate routes.
I drive the I-515/93N/95NB to the 15NB 5 days a week and the only issue I have with the traffic is the occasional wreck not an overwhelming number of semi trucks taking up the roadway.
So no, I don’t want this highway to go thru my back yard, if that makes me selfish, so be it!
[Per Southern Arizona] My husband and I strongly oppose the proposed I-11 Highway through Avra Valley. We already have an interstate highway, I-10, which can be widened to accommodate more truck traffic. This is a much, much cheaper solution and we are saving our beautiful Sonoran desert from more destruction.
An even more economical solution would be to put all this freight onto rail cars. Switzerland allows no trucks through its country. Trucks have to offload their freight onto rail cars. This has made it safer, cheaper, and keeps traffic from snarling its tourist industry. We rely on tourists in Southern Arizona also. Think of the money that could be saved, the environment that would be saved, and our air quality improved (and green house gas emissions lowered) from expanding our rail service instead of carrying freight by truck.
Please no new interstate!
[Per the Phoenix Metropolitan Area] I think this roadway to link Arizona and Nevada is a very good idea. Hopefully the funds for this will become available.
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada and the Entire Corridor] We all recognize that the desert brings with it extra beauty as well as limitations. Transportation and the flow of goods will present corporations with the infrastructure required to move needed business operations to the desert regions. So many companies move their operations to other areas that provide better accessibility. We have a great climate and many able bodied persons ready to fill positions, should we be able to entice business to locate in our areas. Arizona is the greatest place on earth, however, we must improve infrastructure if we want to participate in economic recovery. We need this highway to connect to markets. It isn’t an option, it is a necessity.
[Per the Entire Corridor] I think that any north south corridor must include rail. You can transport many more goods, more economically with rail as opposed to thousands of trucks. This could also provide passenger service along this corridor. I also think this would require much less maintenance than a four or six lane divided highway. It would require less land for the right of way and would be far less polluting. It’s time everybody started to face up to the fact that the days of building new super highways are numbered for many reasons.
[Per the Entire Corridor] Build it! Vegas and Phoenix are the only two major cities in the country not connected by an interstate. Anyone in the Phoenix area heading north west must go miles on two lane roads to get to an interstate. And since the State of AZ only wishes to provide funding to rural roads and not the 93 corridor it’s time for the Federal Government to finish the system that was stated damn near 60 years ago.
[Per the Phoenix Metropolitan Area] If this freeway goes through the South Mountain Preserve in Maricopa County or any other preserve set aside for our wildlife, then I vote NO on this project and I will fight it. I believe the majority of people voted NO on going through the South Mountain Preserve the last time this was purpose, and if you are trying to do the same thing as before, but just presenting it differently, then shame on you for wasting tax payer dollars. I don’t see any wildlife tunnels under the roads like so many states are doing. The more I think about this, the more I’m against it. Humans are taking and taking from the environment and not giving back at the cost of the lives of wildlife. All animals know joy and pain and all want the opportunity to live just like you and I.
Councilmember Dick Powell, City of Casa Grande
I think I-11 is such a great idea if it connects with I-8 west of Casa Grande. This would allow west and east bound trucks on I-10 to circumvent metro Phoenix. Getting appreciable truck traffic to use I-11 would be like adding an extra lane to I-10 between Casa Grande and Buckeye.
Draft corridor suggestion.
Hoover Dam to Kingman traffic, if diverted immediately after Piers Ferry e.g. Take right on colorado south passing through Golden Valley crossing at 68 and colorado would give a great economic boost to Laughlin/Bullhead area as well as Kingman and Golden Valley. It would improve the economic activity of west rim, Laughlin, Bullhead City, Golden Valley. In Colorado go further south and merge with griffith/or further south . Take Alamo road to merge with the road to phoenix.
The advantage of this road is ” it can be the future ring road of the whole area of northern Arizona. This would save one hour of time. In addition Kingman can be developed for industrial warehouse of California, sea port, airport , rail port.etc.
I believe this will be the visionary step for future generation and present generation.
6/11/14, William Faria, PhD
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor] DHS, Obamas administrations, and local enforcement agencies cannot control illegal alien and drug trafficking. Are we trying to make more convenient?
6/7/14, Carolyn Leigh
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor] I have owned a second home in Alamos, Sonora for 30 years and support expanded trade, especially from the Guaymas port. Sonora is widening and upgrading Hwy15. The Mariposa Port of Entry has major improvements, but north of there, it’s a bottleneck.
However, I am very strongly opposed to building I-11 through the Avra Valley with its many natural resources and tourists attractions (Desert Museum, etc). Wildlife already contends with enough obstacles without the deathtrap of a major highway. Tourists value the quiet beauty of this major scenic area.
A highway will bring pressure for commercial zoning there and ultimately divert money from the City of Tucson.
I support double-decking I-10. The infrastructure to support the trucks is already in place along this corridor. The cost is much less. Although I don’t look forward to more I-10 construction, it is the cheaper, faster, more focused option for expanded trade from the container port in Guaymas, Sonora and elsewhere in Mexico.
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor] What is the general proposed study route for the Southern Arizona connection to Mexico via Pinal Graham and Cochise counties? On the general project map it is identified as the most eastern general route arrow. I know that this is only 1 of 4 possible routes and that it is very preliminary. Thank you.
Colonel Barry R. Cornish, Nellis Air Force Base
Ms. Rosenberg, Attached is the letter from the Nellis AFB Commander regarding the I-11 project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor and Entire Corridor] I strongly oppose this project. The last thing Arizona needs is another freeway. Auto and truck pollution, urban sprawl, light pollution and the destruction of our fragile desert habitat is already widespread throughout Arizona. This project will only add to these problems and encourage more unplanned development.
Please do not move forward with this project. If transportation studies actually prove that we need to expand our transportation system in the state, consider developing a passenger rail system connecting the stateâ€™s major cities and improving freight rail capacity on north-south railroads. Environmentally and economically, rail is a much better option for shipping and for travel than automobiles or trucks.
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor] I strongly oppose proposals to build 1-11 through the Avra Valley outside of Tucson. As a property owner and taxpayer in this area, I am concerned that will destroy quality of life, do great ecological damage, and ruin a beautiful and serene part of the greater Tucson area with noise, pollution, and other detrimental effects. It will also cause economic harm as well, harming tourism at Saguaro National Park West, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, and the Ironwood National Forest. Thank you very much.
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor] A super highway that bypasses Tucson to the west would destroy the natural beauty of this unique and fragile area;not to mention the traffic roar right along the boundary of a National Park (Saguaro N.P.West)It’s just ridiculous to be even having this discussion.
Dr. Samuel Breidenbach
[Per the Southern Arizona Corridor] This is an ill conceive and poor idea on many fronts. First, the economic benefits for this have not been shown with anything approaching sound science or economics. Second, the population growth that might drive this has actually started a reverse trend and will not be coming here to justify it. Third, those of us that live in this area are not in any way in favor. It doesn’t bring us any jobs, quicker commutes, better lifestyle, or in any way enriches our experience of living here or why we live here. We do not want it, we do not need it, and there is no reasonable studies showing how or why we ever would want it. I know of not a single person I have talked to in this region who is in favor except one neighbor who runs a towing service. Do we want to end up like Casa Grande did? I think not. Let’s leave well enough alone and bypass this bypass this idea and leave well enough alone.
Barbara DiCianno, City of Reno Office of Communications and Community Engagement
Attached is Resolution No. 7975, which was adopted by the Reno City Council on May 28, 2014 (Item L.5.2).
Town of Tonopah
Following is a transcript of comments made by Brenda Gilbert, BEC Environmental, Inc. at the June 2, 2014 NDOT Board of Directors meeting at the request of James Eason and the Town of Tonopah.
“I have been asked by James Eason, Manager of the Town of Tonopah to tell you the Town of Tonopah heartily supports designation of the western Nevada alternative of an Intermountain West corridor following Highway 95 north from Las Vegas as a segment of U.S. Interstate 11. The Town of Tonopah is drafting a resolution for approval by their Board which codifies their support for the designation.
An I-11 designation would benefit the Town of Tonopah and the State of Nevada because it:
- Connects the two population and commerce centers of Nevada
- Supports development of an electric vehicle charging network to enhance tourism
- Improves safety of the route
- Allows development of infrastructure to support “cross-dock” areas for the trucking industry
- Ties together Nellis, Fallon, Hawthorne, and Creech defense facilities
- Ties together airport facilities designated for the unmanned aerial vehicle industry
- Avoids areas in the flight path utilized to transport live ordinance
- Facilitates improvements to “feeder” highways like Highway 6 which connects Bishop California with Ely and Salt Lake City, Utah
Upon designation of the western corridor as I-11, the Town of Tonopah intends to begin a marketing campaign designed to build upon existing industry while attracting new industry consistent with the Governor’s Economic Development Plan. For example, the nation’s only active lithium extraction operation lies along this route. Presence of a robust transportation corridor that enhances connectivity regionally, nationally, and internationally would enable development of a fully integrated supply chain for lithium batteries.
The Town of Tonopah has reached out to its neighbors to begin discussions it hopes will lead to collaboration benefiting all of Nevada. The Town of Tonopah respectfully requests this Board approve support for the western alternative at its earliest opportunity.
[Per the Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada and Phoenix Metropolitan Area segments] I applaud the work so far and urge all parties to consider expanding the project to provide what I call the “Hassayampa World Port” concept. This involves a new international airport to the west and south of Wickenburg, to the west of the planned Vulture Peak Rec area, and aligning with the I 11 route there – and to include light rail into PHX, and High Speed Rail from the World Port to Las Vegas. Expected growth to the west and north of PHX will overwhelm current infrastructure in less than 10 years. Let’s be bold and think 50 – 60 years out. Thanks.
Jerry Whitehead, Idaho Transportation Board
Letter to Senator Crapo requesting support of I-11 Route C (US 93 option) through Idaho.
Mayor John H. Cook, Town of Wickenburg
Letter RE: Town of Wickenburg Position Statement on Interstate 11 Alignments
Jim Garza, White Pine County Community and Economic Development
See attached letter with attachments regarding the I-11 Intermountain West Corridor Planning.
Doa Meade, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Letter (link no longer available) regarding Interstate 11 (I-11) and Intermountain West Corridor Study – Alignments through the Las Vegas Valley and potential impacts to Southern Nevada Water Authority and Las Vegas Valley Water District infrastructure.
Interstate 11 route from Las Vegas through Northern Nevada…
If Nevada can get their act together, the I-215 beltline could be re-designated as I-11, thusly eliminating heavier truck traffic through the downtown core of Las Vegas since the section of US 95 with I-15 is reduced to a couple of lanes and the overpass across Las Vegas Boulevard and downtown area needs to be improved (at least southbound). Since US 95 is already a four lane divided highway north of Las Vegas to Mercury, only grade separations would be needed at designated points and a by-pass around Indian Springs.
Once outside of Tonopah, the interstate could follow along Gabbs Pole Road into Gabbs and then northwards along SR 361 across US 50 and along SR 121 into Winnemucca and Oregon or Idaho.
US 50 west into Fallon would need to be a four lane highway to connect into Reno.
Of course, any interstate running through Nevada will kill the small towns!
Not sure of how this works, but will include the comment submitted on the web site and to include an attachment.
It is nice to see that there have been improvements along US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman since I am finding myself traveling that route frequently. However, I would like to see just how the new interstate is going to bypass Kingman since there are rugged hills where US 96 converges with I-40 (Beale Street). The transition would either have to begin just below the summit on i-40 just north-east of the junction of US 93N or the alignment would have to continue beyond and loop off along the western side of Coyote Pass through the edge of Golden Valley and then connect north of SR 68, unless one wants to dig through a great deal of mountain. Also about the grade improvements between Las Vegas and Kingman would most likely result in a roadway west of the existing highway due to new businesses built along the present highway. Otherwise, there is going to be a great deal of displacement.
PS: Also enjoy drawing free hand sketches of highway signs, which is a hobby.
One other idea occurred to me today as I was reading an editorial in the paper about the I-11 project.
When traffic reaches the Las Vegas Area from Phoenix for the most part – most drivers will have one of four destinations in mind:
1) Their destination is the Las Vegas Area -
2) Their destination is Utah – for which they will want to take I-15 north
3) Their destination is S. California – for which they will want to take I-15 south
4) Their destination is Northern Nevada and beyond (N. California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Canada)
So in thinking about routes through the Las Vegas valley as it relates to I-11 – I think the study should think of multiple routes – depending on the ultimate destination of the drivers:
1) Las Vegas Area – drivers will essentially take local freeways, arterials, and local streets to arrive at their intended destination.
2) Utah – I would suggest a route the wraps behind Frenchman using one of the alignments I mentioned in the email below
3) S. California – drivers would take the existing I-215 West route to get over to I-15 south.
4) N. Nevada and beyond – drivers would most likely stay in the I-95 through town and to get to the I-11 route to take them through Northern Nevada.
This would be a way to peel off traffic onto 3 different routes (I-15 south, north – on I-11, or I-15 north) depending on their ultimate location. I think by shifting focus to 3 routes instead of just 1 route to handle I-11 traffic that will come into our town from Phoenix – may be a better way to study this project. Right now it feels like the focus is on all this traffic needing to head north along I-11 when in reality I would bet the majority of the traffic would be staying in Vegas or heading north or south on I-15. Planning to accommodate for all these routes for drivers coming into town from I-11 from Phoenix would make sense.
Again – I have a particular interest in a route behind Frenchman mountain. I grew up in Logandale and live in the far SE portion of Henderson – a route behind Frenchman Mountain to have quick easy access to I-15 going north would be great. I know that such a route may be decades from becoming a reality – but thinking in the near term – a route to connect I-15 to the existing State Road 147 behind the mountain would be a good start. This would at least get some initial access to the freeway – even if it was just a two lane road. This two lane road and it’s corridor could then ultimately be upgraded into a freeway in the decades to come. Again – perhaps the Nellis Dunes project – and any transportation routes planned for that project could be tweaked to provide this link between the I-15 and State Road 147.
Thanks – I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these ideas.
[Per the entire corridor] I don’t think this corridor should be built. It is an enormous cost to the citizens of the state and does not provide them with a direct benefit.
The corridor, and the following development of that corridor will destroy large amounts of untouched natural areas in the state of Arizona. I believe that it will only serve to degrade the quality of life in the State of Arizona by furthering the destruction of our natural beauty.
[Per Phoenix Metropolitan Area] I am writing to strongly oppose this project. The last thing Arizona needs is another freeway! Automobile-related pollution, sprawl and the destruction of fragile desert ecosystems is already widespread in Arizona. This project would make all of these worse.
Please scrap this project and instead use the money to build passenger rail connecting the state’s major cities and improving freight capacity on north-south railroads. Environmentally and economically, rail is a much better option for shipping and for travel than automobiles or trucks.
[Per the Southern Arizona Segment] The best route for the portion going through Tucson is a double deck highway which will cost less than the one out west, destroy no protected desert land, not create unnecessary air and light pollution for Kitt Peak and other valuable tourist areas which bring in much of our state money. Truck traffic will not add time and distance, thus reducing their dwindling profit by making a detour way out west down Sandario. Finally, many agencies and organizations have already come out against a western route for numerous other reasons. The double decker over I-10 makes the most sense in all ways. Do not destroy a protected area out west which is a major reasons tourists come to Tucson and can never be replaced. Double Decker!!!
[Per Northern Arizona / Southern Nevada Segment] Let’s put our dollars into PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION rather than more highways. The scenic are around Hiway 93 in AZ is one of our favorites and I’d hate to see a freeway cut through it. Much more forward thinking to build more light rail for north-south transportation.
Paul McClintic, Caltrans
[Per Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada Segment and Entire Corridor] Strongly in favor of a project which fringes near / or within minor travel from Lake Havasu city and Bullhead City.
Please consider future High Speed Rail in geometric alignment choices. Potential HSR alignment within the median of the new interstate could be a major positive economic benefit factor for a future expansion of “xpresswest”.
[Per the Phoenix Metropolitan Area Segment] Route North of Wickenburg (from the Prelim/Draft Level 2 Summary):
1)Where the shown I 11 will intersect with the existing US 93 it is not possible to tell if there will be an exchange with SR 71.
2) It is not possible to tell if there will be an exchange with SR 89 (or how far from the SR 89 exchange the I 11 will intersect with US 93).
Either more detail should be provided, or an explanation as to when this level of detail will be made known.
[Per the Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada Segment] Nevada and Arizona as one for the world to see the new interstate I-11 the Projects will have major impacts on Las Vegas to Kingman to see go to these link. www.about.me/LasVegasPokerGoVegas or www.KingmanArizonaLand.com
This interstate is badly needed for commercial and tourism purposes, from the Mexican border to Canada Border. I fully support the designation and construction as soon as possible.
The Map on the post card looked like the route was going along part of Lake Mead Parkway and right past Lake Las Vegas. Is that representative of where the route is going?
I was wondering if, after I-11 is open in the future, you could run a little 1-year trial: the highway will have signs showing distances in metric units. Instead of miles, it would use kilometers. If message signs display a road to exit on/off in kilometers, it feels like the motorist is traveling quicker, due to the placement of exit signs in 1 kilometer (or 0.5 km) increments. Using kilometers instead of miles is easier, in my opinion, is because it uses base 10, and it’s relatively easy to convert from kilometers to meters and vice versa, unlike converting from miles to feet and vice versa. Also, kilometers uses decimals. I’m saying “1 year trial” on this because there are many American citizens who are strongly opposed to the metric system in everyday lifestyle. If possible though, I-11 would be the 2nd highway in Arizona to use metric units, after I-19. (since I-11 will connect to/from Mexico) What do you think about the metric system use in future AZ freeways, other than I-19?
I think to spend the amount of money to build a interstate is very wasteful there could be more uses for that money. Another thing I don’t think the Mexican cartels need a faster way of delivering there drugs threw my backyard cause that’s the start of huge domino effect. Bigger police budgets, more police, higher taxes. This to me is wasteful pork spending so somebody looks good on tv about how they created jobs threw a road project.
As I understand, this corridor is to provide a direct trucking route from Mexico to Canada. for me, the only viable route thru Clark County is to place I-11 to the east of Frenchman's Mountain, then turn west near apex creating a new route following the borders of the Desert National Wildlife Range and connecting to 95 north of the Pauite Indian Reservation. This is the best route for interstate trucking, and will provide some relief to Las Vegas road system.
High speed rail from Phoenix-Tucson should be along I-10, fast, freight/passenger, and an enterprise! Thanks you. DBarker
I appreciate your feedback. I noticed in the paper that the I-11 signs went up north of Phoenix. Hopefully Phoenix doesn’t forget Southern Arizona which would provide rail service from Mexico to Tucson and then would allow truck, rail and air transportation from Mexico on.
Walter A. Kniaz
[Per Phoenix Metropolitan Area and Southern Arizona] Thanks for the opportunity to present my views.
At the risk of sounding nuts, have u folks considered placing this new road above the existing I10 and designing the structure to accommodate a future monorail type type train system hung beneath the top road just above the existing grass median strip.?
I realize this is asking a lot but when you consider the cost of right of way and road construction, this idea may be competitive. I realize u may have already considered an option like this, but just in case, who knows, from a $ standpoint it might be worthy of consideration.
thanks for listening. Walter A. Kniaz
[Per Phoenix Metropolitan Area] I think it is a waste of time and money to build I11. Just improve the existing roads and whatever problem was getting from Phoenix to Las Vegas would be solved. I have travel many times from Phoenix to Vegas. I have not experienced any long term delays that would justify spending that kind of money to make I11. Just widen exist roads.
[Per Entire Corridor] I-11 is simply not needed. The corridor from Nogales to Phoenix is already well served by !-19 and I-10. When driving between Phoenix and Las Vegas, I have never encountered heavy traffic. At worst, I might have to go a little slower for a few miles until a passing lane on the section of US-93 from Wickenburg to I-40. The slowest part is crossing northwest Phoenix on US-60. That short section could be upgraded at a tiny fraction of the cost of creating an entire new I-11. We are much better off spending scarce federal transportation dollars on maintenance of our existing highway system.
MARCH 2014: Comments and online questionnaire responses received during the virtual public meeting period (February 10 through March 7) were published and summarized in the March 2014 Stakeholder Partners Meeting Summary.
Comments Received from October 1, 2013 through February 5, 2014
Comments Received through May 14, 2013
Comments Received from May 15 through July 31, 2013
Sondra Rosenberg, PTP
Nevada Department of Transportation
1263 S. Stewart St.
Carson City, NV 89712
Michael Kies, PE
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85007