AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update  (Read 8444 times)

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: August 18, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2017, 03:46:20 PM »

Quote from: myosh_tino
I find it interesting that the final phase of the project, constructing the interchange at 50/395 south of Carson City, probably won't be built for another decade.  Granted the current setup, using a signal to control the intersection, should be more than sufficient for quite some time.

I wonder what kind of interchange will be built or is being planned. I don't know if there is quite enough room at the US-50/US-395/I-580 intersection to build a fully directional freeway to freeway interchange. But could make a good case for short freeway upgrades along both US-50 and US-395.

The future 580/395/50 interchange is supposed to be a SPUI with US 395 traffic having to negotiate the signal lights.

The SPUI is the formal plan, but Minden and Gardnerville have room to grow and there are some plans for growth to happen down there.  I think the SPUI will be an obsolete idea in 10 years, and we'll have at minimum a flyover ramp from southbound 580 to southbound 395; there's definitely space available to do that.

I recall there being some formal talk of adding a southbound flyover later on, but I don't know if that's still in the long-range plan or not. NDOT has other priorities in the north to address before working on that (namely a revamp of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and addressing traffic/capacity concerns on US 395 north of Reno).
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:54 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2017, 11:45:11 PM »

NDOT has other priorities in the north to address before working on that (namely a revamp of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and addressing traffic/capacity concerns on US 395 north of Reno).

Glad to hear that NDOT is finally realizing the inadequacies of the Spaghetti Bowl (ironically the same term applied to the central freeway interchange in Vegas!); a stack would be nice, but if land acquisition's an issue, a turbo would be fine.  Was up there around Easter, and the traffic on EB 80 definitely ground down to a crawl while some hesitant folks negotiated that interchange!  Came back from Reno via 395 and CA 70, and did notice a significant traffic increase in the north part of town compared to a few years previously -- so NDOT seems spot on regarding their project choices (Caltrans, take notes!).
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: August 18, 2017, 11:59:40 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #52 on: August 07, 2017, 07:03:57 PM »

NDOT has other priorities in the north to address before working on that (namely a revamp of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and addressing traffic/capacity concerns on US 395 north of Reno).

Glad to hear that NDOT is finally realizing the inadequacies of the Spaghetti Bowl (ironically the same term applied to the central freeway interchange in Vegas!); a stack would be nice, but if land acquisition's an issue, a turbo would be fine.  Was up there around Easter, and the traffic on EB 80 definitely ground down to a crawl while some hesitant folks negotiated that interchange!  Came back from Reno via 395 and CA 70, and did notice a significant traffic increase in the north part of town compared to a few years previously -- so NDOT seems spot on regarding their project choices (Caltrans, take notes!).


It's interesting that NDOT is still dumping money into that interchange. I get that I-80 is an important national route, but at the end of the day, we are talking about a metropolitan area of less than 500,000 people.
Logged

Inyomono395

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 64
  • Location: Bishop, CA
  • Last Login: August 18, 2017, 11:27:43 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #53 on: August 07, 2017, 11:06:28 PM »

I took a drive to Carson City yesterday to see the new freeway. I really liked it. Very easy to get on the freeway from northbound US 395. Got off the freeway at US 50 so I could get downtown and see the road diet on Carson ST. The road diet looks better then I thought but I still question the decision to make it single lane in each direction. I wonder if city officials will regret that decision in the future.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:54 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2017, 12:42:38 AM »

NDOT has other priorities in the north to address before working on that (namely a revamp of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and addressing traffic/capacity concerns on US 395 north of Reno).
It's interesting that NDOT is still dumping money into that interchange. I get that I-80 is an important national route, but at the end of the day, we are talking about a metropolitan area of less than 500,000 people.

Well, it is the connecting point for the major E-W and N-S corridors in the region -- and if it's getting congested during off-peak hours, that points to a design that is inadequate for the traffic flow.  Since N. Nevada is a relatively fast-growing area (within Reno metro as well as the various exurbs to the east and south), attending to chokepoints before they become more of a problem than they currently are seems to be an appropriate use of available funds; the "band-aid" approach applied to the interchange in the past clearly hasn't cleaned up the issues.  If the funds are indeed available, better to utilize them in short order rather than wait until inflation eats away at their purchasing power -- particularly with a project that requires multiple structures.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: August 18, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #55 on: August 08, 2017, 02:37:11 AM »

NDOT has other priorities in the north to address before working on that (namely a revamp of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and addressing traffic/capacity concerns on US 395 north of Reno).
It's interesting that NDOT is still dumping money into that interchange. I get that I-80 is an important national route, but at the end of the day, we are talking about a metropolitan area of less than 500,000 people.

With that mentality, why did NDOT bother dumping money into a freeway around Carson City when it only serves a metro population of less than 60,000?

Well, it is the connecting point for the major E-W and N-S corridors in the region -- and if it's getting congested during off-peak hours, that points to a design that is inadequate for the traffic flow.  Since N. Nevada is a relatively fast-growing area (within Reno metro as well as the various exurbs to the east and south), attending to chokepoints before they become more of a problem than they currently are seems to be an appropriate use of available funds; the "band-aid" approach applied to the interchange in the past clearly hasn't cleaned up the issues.  If the funds are indeed available, better to utilize them in short order rather than wait until inflation eats away at their purchasing power -- particularly with a project that requires multiple structures.

The "still dumping money into that interchange" comment is questionable...  That interchange was originally built circa 1970, and is substantially the same now as when it was originally built. The only real improvements have been braiding the westbound I-80 ramps between 4th St and US 395 in the mid 2000s (previously a VERY short merge) and splitting the northbound US 395 ramp to I-80 into two during the northbound 395 widening project circa 2010.

Sparker is correct in that the Reno area population is expanding, particularly in the north valleys (up US 395 towards Stead and Cold Springs, as well as out the Pyramid Highway corridor) and most of that traffic funnels through the Spaghetti Bowl. The interchange has design flaws that don't allow address current traffic demands. Southbound backups during morning commute as lanes drop through and downstream of the bowl, and northbound backups happen through the bowl due to weaving. I-80 eastbound has backups in both morning and evening rush hours (as well as other off-peak times). It needs a revamp now—NDOT is just beginning the scoping phase and aren't even projecting to finish environmental review until 2020...
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: August 18, 2017, 11:59:40 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #56 on: August 08, 2017, 12:08:20 PM »

NDOT has other priorities in the north to address before working on that (namely a revamp of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and addressing traffic/capacity concerns on US 395 north of Reno).
It's interesting that NDOT is still dumping money into that interchange. I get that I-80 is an important national route, but at the end of the day, we are talking about a metropolitan area of less than 500,000 people.

With that mentality, why did NDOT bother dumping money into a freeway around Carson City when it only serves a metro population of less than 60,000?

Well, it is the connecting point for the major E-W and N-S corridors in the region -- and if it's getting congested during off-peak hours, that points to a design that is inadequate for the traffic flow.  Since N. Nevada is a relatively fast-growing area (within Reno metro as well as the various exurbs to the east and south), attending to chokepoints before they become more of a problem than they currently are seems to be an appropriate use of available funds; the "band-aid" approach applied to the interchange in the past clearly hasn't cleaned up the issues.  If the funds are indeed available, better to utilize them in short order rather than wait until inflation eats away at their purchasing power -- particularly with a project that requires multiple structures.

The "still dumping money into that interchange" comment is questionable...  That interchange was originally built circa 1970, and is substantially the same now as when it was originally built. The only real improvements have been braiding the westbound I-80 ramps between 4th St and US 395 in the mid 2000s (previously a VERY short merge) and splitting the northbound US 395 ramp to I-80 into two during the northbound 395 widening project circa 2010.

Sparker is correct in that the Reno area population is expanding, particularly in the north valleys (up US 395 towards Stead and Cold Springs, as well as out the Pyramid Highway corridor) and most of that traffic funnels through the Spaghetti Bowl. The interchange has design flaws that don't allow address current traffic demands. Southbound backups during morning commute as lanes drop through and downstream of the bowl, and northbound backups happen through the bowl due to weaving. I-80 eastbound has backups in both morning and evening rush hours (as well as other off-peak times). It needs a revamp now—NDOT is just beginning the scoping phase and aren't even projecting to finish environmental review until 2020...

It seems to me that they've been re-aligning that interchange since the 1980s. Fairly sure that I-580 south of there was, at one point in the 2000s, the widest freeway in Nevada. I mean, at a certain point, develop a plan and implement it, sure. But I could easily see another 80/395 project spiraling into a multi-billion-dollar Project Neon-type behemoth… for a city of a half-million people.

As for the comparison to the Carson City Freeway, I think that's apples and oranges. Clearly, there's a need for the West to catch up on mobility in its formerly-rural corridors, and 395 is high on that list. I guess I'm just saying that as far as Nevada's spending needs goes, a $1 billion or $2 billion could be better spent improving rural safety, extending 580 to Gardnerville, improving access to Spanish Springs Valley, or even building 100 miles of high speed rail between Reno and Las Vegas than reducing congestion at the 80/395 interchange.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:54 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #57 on: August 09, 2017, 01:03:45 AM »

..................or even building 100 miles of high speed rail between Reno and Las Vegas than reducing congestion at the 80/395 interchange.

If anyone thinks the California HSR proposal is pie-in-the-sky optimism manifested, a Vegas-to-Reno equivalent would be pie-in-outer-space!  And it certainly would be well over 100 miles of track; that wouldn't even get you out to Beatty!  And there don't seem to be any planning efforts -- or calls for such -- to extend I-580 beyond its present southern terminus.  The Reno interchange is an existing facility that is functioning in a substandard fashion; it's entirely appropriate for NVDOT and the local MPO to want to address that situation before committing funds for speculative ventures.     
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: August 18, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2017, 09:44:49 AM »

It seems to me that they've been re-aligning that interchange since the 1980s. Fairly sure that I-580 south of there was, at one point in the 2000s, the widest freeway in Nevada. I mean, at a certain point, develop a plan and implement it, sure. But I could easily see another 80/395 project spiraling into a multi-billion-dollar Project Neon-type behemoth… for a city of a half-million people.

As for the comparison to the Carson City Freeway, I think that's apples and oranges. Clearly, there's a need for the West to catch up on mobility in its formerly-rural corridors, and 395 is high on that list. I guess I'm just saying that as far as Nevada's spending needs goes, a $1 billion or $2 billion could be better spent improving rural safety, extending 580 to Gardnerville, improving access to Spanish Springs Valley, or even building 100 miles of high speed rail between Reno and Las Vegas than reducing congestion at the 80/395 interchange.

Nope. NDOT hasn't really touched the Reno Spaghetti Bowl much at all—nothing realigned or worked on other than what I mentioned previously. And I-580 has never been the widest freeway in Nevada—that title belonged to US 95 west of Vegas' Spaghetti Bowl as of 2005-ish, and currently is I-15 near the 215 interchange (with the C/D roads).

There is definitely a need to increase mobility in the greater Reno-Sparks/Northwestern Nevada region (FYI: Washoe RTC has been planning for a Pyramid-395 connector, a freeway to improve access to Spanish Springs, for a while now). To me, when you look at putting transportation dollars towards improving mobility, updating the Reno Spaghetti Bowl makes far more sense than extending 580 to Minden-Gardnerville. And to upgrade the Reno Spaghetti Bowl will not be a billion-dollar undertaking of Project Neon proportions—depending on what the design is, we're probably talking a couple hundred million.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 173
  • Location: Lake Tahoe, NV
  • Last Login: August 12, 2017, 08:20:22 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #59 on: August 10, 2017, 02:58:15 PM »

We're getting some complaints regarding near-crashes on the northbound 395 approach to the freeway because a right-turn-only lane at the previous intersection (Clear Creek Road) appears to lead directly to the freeway on-ramp lane.   Watch the driver who recorded this video cross into the lane too early and illegally proceed straight through the intersection:


That's an expensive fix if they have to move that right turn lane a few feet to the right, because of the positioning of the traffic signal on that corner.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:54 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2017, 01:29:40 AM »

We're getting some complaints regarding near-crashes on the northbound 395 approach to the freeway because a right-turn-only lane at the previous intersection (Clear Creek Road) appears to lead directly to the freeway on-ramp lane.   Watch the driver who recorded this video cross into the lane too early and illegally proceed straight through the intersection:


That's an expensive fix if they have to move that right turn lane a few feet to the right, because of the positioning of the traffic signal on that corner.

They'll probably need to install an overhead sign assembly indicating (1) the fact that the right-turn lane does NOT take one to NB US 395/I-580 (2) the lanes that DO work for US 395 continuation, and (3) the correct lane(s) for any other movements at either of the intersections.  I can see problems with the present arrangement possibly resulting in attempts to advance the schedule of the 50/395/580 interchange on this site to sooner rather than later.
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 173
  • Location: Lake Tahoe, NV
  • Last Login: August 12, 2017, 08:20:22 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2017, 02:33:03 AM »

I drove northbound 395 yesterday and I completely understand why drivers get into that right turn lane and go straight through the intersection.  It's because the overhead BGS positioned just past the intersection is screaming at you to "Get in the right lane now if you want to get on the freeway!!"  When I was stopped at the light, four cars lined up in that right-turn-only lane; #1 and #3 made the right turn, while #2 and #4 illegally went straight through.

Here's the intersection from above:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1156268,-119.772655,445m/data=!3m1!1e3

Obviously not quite up to date but it's enough to illustrate the point.

My idea is to put in a right turn lane to the frontage road as close to the self-storage place as they can, i.e. move it back away from the signalized intersection.  Then rip out the right turn lane at the signal and post "No Right Turns" there.  That way, the extra lane onto the freeway does not appear until after the intersection.  The way it is now, they are begging for rear-end collisions in that right-turn lane.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 278
  • Last Login: August 16, 2017, 04:49:06 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2017, 11:59:33 AM »

The easiest, cheapest, and best solution is to make that right turn lane at Clear Creek an option lane.  $3 worth of paint and the collision issue goes away.
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 173
  • Location: Lake Tahoe, NV
  • Last Login: August 12, 2017, 08:20:22 PM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2017, 07:50:02 PM »

The easiest, cheapest, and best solution is to make that right turn lane at Clear Creek an option lane.  $3 worth of paint and the collision issue goes away.

I'm not keen on an option lane on a 50-mph roadway with most traffic focused on getting on the freeway just ahead.  I think a dedicated right-turn lane is needed there.  Your $3 paint job doesn't make the collision issue go away; what it does is make the action that causes collisions legal.
Logged

ZLoth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 565
  • ImaTech!

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:09 AM
    • List of links
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #64 on: August 12, 2017, 08:26:17 PM »

I think that's intentional in order to speed up getting the money to put in an interchange there.
Logged
"In an effort to increase your cable and satellite bills beyond the point of affordability and to further pad the pockets of our executives..."

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:54 AM
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2017, 08:52:05 PM »

The easiest, cheapest, and best solution is to make that right turn lane at Clear Creek an option lane.  $3 worth of paint and the collision issue goes away.

I'm not keen on an option lane on a 50-mph roadway with most traffic focused on getting on the freeway just ahead.  I think a dedicated right-turn lane is needed there.  Your $3 paint job doesn't make the collision issue go away; what it does is make the action that causes collisions legal.

Problems will occur -- if the option lane were implemented -- if there's a relatively heavy flow of 50 mph traffic and one car in the line slows down to make the turn onto Clear Creek -- that situation would be a rear-ender waiting to happen (and it probably would affect the adjoining lane at that speed).  I still think proper signage and lane delineation would be the way to go!
Logged

ZLoth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 565
  • ImaTech!

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:48:09 AM
    • List of links
Re: Carson City Freeway progress, Summer 2014 w/Summer 2016 update
« Reply #66 on: August 17, 2017, 04:14:37 PM »

Still not on Google Maps. :(
Logged
"In an effort to increase your cable and satellite bills beyond the point of affordability and to further pad the pockets of our executives..."

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.