II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 842 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to extend Interstate Route 11. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 24, 2015 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. FLAKE, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to extend Interstate Route 11. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Intermountain West 

5 Corridor Development Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) Interstate Route 11 would significantly en9 hance for the Western United States— 

10 (A) commerce; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 842 IS

1 (B) tourism; 

2 (C) international trade; 

3 (D) economic vitality; and 

4 (E) competitiveness on the global stage; 

5 (2) Interstate Route 11 would connect commu6 nities and economic systems in the States of Arizona 

7 and Nevada, including— 

8 (A) the 2 largest cities in the United 

9 States without an Interstate connection; 

10 (B) major trade hubs; 

11 (C) existing and future domestic and inter12 national deep-water ports; and 

13 (D) transcontinental roadways and railroad 

14 corridors; 

15 (3) Interstate Route 11 would improve safety 

16 and travel time in north-south corridors of the West17 ern United States; and 

18 (4) the establishment of Interstate Route 11 

19 from the State of Arizona-Mexico border through the 

20 State of Nevada and, ultimately integrating into ex21 isting high priority corridors of the National High22 way System leading to the Canadian border, would 

23 enhance the economic vitality of the Western United 

24 States. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 842 IS

1 SEC. 3. ROUTE DESIGNATION. 

2 Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transpor3 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph 

6 (68) (105 Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1213) and inserting 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(68) The Washoe County Corridor and the 

9 Intermountain West Corridor shall generally fol10 low— 

11 ‘‘(A) in the case of the Washoe County 

12 Corridor, along Interstate Route 580/United 

13 States Route 95/United States Route 95A, from 

14 Reno, Nevada, to Las Vegas, Nevada; and 

15 ‘‘(B) in the case of the Intermountain 

16 West Corridor, from the vicinity of Las Vegas 

17 extending north along United States Route 95, 

18 terminating at Interstate Route 80.’’; and 

19 (2) in subsection (e)(5)— 

20 (A) in subparagraph (A) (109 Stat. 597; 

21 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213), in the first 

22 sentence— 

23 (i) by inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (A) 

24 and (B)(i) of subsection (c)(26),’’ after 

25 ‘‘(c)(20),’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 842 IS

1 (ii) by striking ‘‘and subsection 

2 (c)(57)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(57), 

3 and subsection (c)(68)(B)’’; and 

4 (B) in subparagraph (C)(i) (109 Stat. 598; 

5 126 Stat. 427), in the last sentence by inserting 

6 ‘‘, and subsection (c)(68)(B), extending south 

7 from the vicinity of Wickenburg to Interstate 

8 Route 10 and continuing south toward the Tuc9 son vicinity to the Nogales, Arizona region, es10 tablishing an international trade corridor by 

11 employing Interstates in existence on the date 

12 of enactment of the Intermountain West Cor13 ridor Development Act of 2015 or new align14 ments to be determined through appropriate 

15 studies, and extending north from the vicinity 

16 of Las Vegas along United States Route 95, 

17 following alignments to be determined by fur18 ther study, terminating at Interstate Route 

19 80,’’ after ‘‘subsection (c)(26)’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS