News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Interstate 11 Through The Northwest?

Started by 707, March 11, 2015, 01:22:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kkt

Quote from: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone.  Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike.  It's time for a new standard:

URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier

RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation

Why the heck would we need 15-foot lanes?  If you can't keep your vehicle inside a 12-foot lane, something is seriously wrong.  You realize that as soon as some routes were made with 15-foot lanes, trucks would be built 14 feet wide, and every existing road in the country would be instantly obsolete.

Six lanes with three extra feet each would be enough for another travel lane, almost two, which are needed urgently.

There are quite a few interstates that would benefit from being six lanes, but there are also quite a few where that would be a total waste of money.  It shouldn't be a minimum standard.


KEK Inc.

#76
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2015, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone.  Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike.  It's time for a new standard:

URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier

RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation

Why the heck would we need 15-foot lanes?  If you can't keep your vehicle inside a 12-foot lane, something is seriously wrong.  You realize that as soon as some routes were made with 15-foot lanes, trucks would be built 14 feet wide, and every existing road in the country would be instantly obsolete.

Six lanes with three extra feet each would be enough for another travel lane, almost two, which are needed urgently.

There are quite a few interstates that would benefit from being six lanes, but there are also quite a few where that would be a total waste of money.  It shouldn't be a minimum standard.


While I agree that 15' lanes are a ridiculous waste of money, I think the assumption that trucks will match interstate widths is fallacious.

---
The problem with these high speed dreamways is that trucks are still going to be governed at 70 MPH.  While lanes are wider and may allow for 90 MPH traffic, speed variance between different vehicles is a huge factor. 

That's why some states still have 65 MPH ceilings.  Legislature caps the truck speed limit ∴ limiting the general speed limit.  If you want true speedways, you'll have to add a separate carriageway that prohibits trucks and other slower vehicles. 
Take the road less traveled.

mcarling

Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AM
About the only route that makes any sort of sense to me would be to route I-11's northern branch along 395 to just north of Lakeview, where it can use SR 78 to US 97, US 97 to US 26 and thence to PDX.  The second choice would be to take US 97's alignment all the way to I-82.  Wow, what a climb on both sides of the Columbia that would be for building a freeway!
Those two options make sense to me -- except that I don't think OR 78 connects to US 97, but rather in the other direction to US 95.

Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AMIn any case I do not expect an I-11 northern section to be built.  One connecting Reno to Las Vegas at least makes some sense in terms of connecting Nevada's two metro areas but there are no truly large cities north of Reno.  Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions.
I agree that "Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions" however, in my opinion, Phoenix/Las Vegas/Reno to/from Portland/Seattle traffic justifies a 2x2 Interstate (which would relieve I-5, I-84, and other routes).  The dramatically shorter route compared to current Interstates would reduce a pollution by tons of CO2 per day.  Compared to existing 1x2 roads, safety would be dramatically increased.  Anyway, at the moment it's hypothetical.  Once Phoenix - Las Vegas is open to traffic and Las Vegas - Reno is approved for construction, we'll start to have a clearer picture.  Once Las Vegas - Reno is open to traffic, then the AADT along US 395 and US 97 north of Reno will be instructive.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

texaskdog

Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 23, 2015, 10:40:09 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico.  There would be no other reason I can see for it.  SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more.  There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).

Really, are they doubling the bridge over the Columbia there too?
I don't know.  It was night when I drove through there recently.  The US 97 overpass across I-84 has already been replaced.  Now they are in the process of rebuilding the slip lane ramps.  I think the US 97 overpass across the railroad (Oregon side) has also been replaced, but I'm not certain.

The DB Cooper Bridge

kkt

Quote from: mcarling on May 12, 2015, 03:11:05 PM
I agree that "Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions" however, in my opinion, Phoenix/Las Vegas/Reno to/from Portland/Seattle traffic justifies a 2x2 Interstate (which would relieve I-5, I-84, and other routes).  The dramatically shorter route compared to current Interstates would reduce a pollution by tons of CO2 per day.  Compared to existing 1x2 roads, safety would be dramatically increased.

The US routes that are there now are generally excellent.  I don't think an interstate route would draw significant amounts of traffic from I-5 or I-84.

nexus73

Quote from: mcarling on May 12, 2015, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AM
About the only route that makes any sort of sense to me would be to route I-11's northern branch along 395 to just north of Lakeview, where it can use SR 78 to US 97, US 97 to US 26 and thence to PDX.  The second choice would be to take US 97's alignment all the way to I-82.  Wow, what a climb on both sides of the Columbia that would be for building a freeway!
Those two options make sense to me -- except that I don't think OR 78 connects to US 97, but rather in the other direction to US 95.

Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AMIn any case I do not expect an I-11 northern section to be built.  One connecting Reno to Las Vegas at least makes some sense in terms of connecting Nevada's two metro areas but there are no truly large cities north of Reno.  Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions.
I agree that "Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions" however, in my opinion, Phoenix/Las Vegas/Reno to/from Portland/Seattle traffic justifies a 2x2 Interstate (which would relieve I-5, I-84, and other routes).  The dramatically shorter route compared to current Interstates would reduce a pollution by tons of CO2 per day.  Compared to existing 1x2 roads, safety would be dramatically increased.  Anyway, at the moment it's hypothetical.  Once Phoenix - Las Vegas is open to traffic and Las Vegas - Reno is approved for construction, we'll start to have a clearer picture.  Once Las Vegas - Reno is open to traffic, then the AADT along US 395 and US 97 north of Reno will be instructive.

Correction.  31 for 78.  My bad!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2015, 03:53:16 PM

The US routes that are there now are generally excellent.  I don't think an interstate route would draw significant amounts of traffic from I-5 or I-84.


The Klamath Falls to Portland corridor is pretty rough. Few passing lanes, a lot of trucks, a lot of traffic. No, there aren't many towns to slow cars down, but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.

mcarling

Quote from: NickCPDX on May 13, 2015, 02:11:09 PM
The Klamath Falls to Portland corridor is pretty rough. Few passing lanes, a lot of trucks, a lot of traffic. No, there aren't many towns to slow cars down, but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.
I agree completely.  If we imagine Klamath Falls to Bend to Portland as a 2x2 road and Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno as a 2x2 road in the future, then Reno to Susanville to Klamath Falls seems likely to get a lot more traffic in that possible future than it does today.  Thus I have no difficulty imagining a possible extension of the I-11 northward from Reno in the distant future.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

jakeroot

Quote from: NickCPDX on May 13, 2015, 02:11:09 PM
...but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.

Well, sort of. Money first, safety second.

Does the 2+1 road interest you?


Bickendan

Not with those shoulders, lol.
Where is this beauty?

jakeroot

Quote from: Bickendan on May 13, 2015, 04:14:43 PM
Not with those shoulders, lol.
Where is this beauty?

Fair enough. :-D Outside Linköping, Sweden.

mcarling

The only place I know where 2+1 roads are (somewhat) common is Europe.  Sweden used to build a lot of them but has stopped as far as I know, France has some, Lithuania is building one (bypass of Panevezys).
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

jakeroot

At the very least, we could construct 2+2 roads with the type of median seen here. No need for medians that are 50 feet wide.

kkt

Quote from: NickCPDX on May 13, 2015, 02:11:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2015, 03:53:16 PM

The US routes that are there now are generally excellent.  I don't think an interstate route would draw significant amounts of traffic from I-5 or I-84.


The Klamath Falls to Portland corridor is pretty rough. Few passing lanes, a lot of trucks, a lot of traffic. No, there aren't many towns to slow cars down, but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.

There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5.  I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5.  I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras.  There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem.  But an interstate would be overkill.  (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not?  That's kinda messed up.)

As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country.  250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway.  You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.

mcarling

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2015, 04:56:21 PM
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5.  I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5.  I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras.  There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem.  But an interstate would be overkill.  (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not?  That's kinda messed up.)

As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country.  250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway.  You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
One disadvantage of adding lanes to I-5 rather than to the Las Vegas - Reno - Susanville - Klamath Falls - Bend - Portland/Yakima route is that the former would funnel yet more traffic through already badly congested Portland and the Interstate Bridge while the latter would funnel traffic over the less congested Glenn Jackson Bridge and the Biggs Rapids Bridge.  However, I fully support upgrading I-5 to a minimum of 2x3 lanes from Eugene to Seattle.  I'm more skeptical about adding lanes to I-5 between Redding and Eugene.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

nexus73

Quote from: mcarling on May 13, 2015, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2015, 04:56:21 PM
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5.  I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5.  I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras.  There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem.  But an interstate would be overkill.  (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not?  That's kinda messed up.)

As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country.  250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway.  You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
One disadvantage of adding lanes to I-5 rather than to the Las Vegas - Reno - Susanville - Klamath Falls - Bend - Portland/Yakima route is that the former would funnel yet more traffic through already badly congested Portland and the Interstate Bridge while the latter would funnel traffic over the less congested Glenn Jackson Bridge and the Biggs Rapids Bridge.  However, I fully support upgrading I-5 to a minimum of 2x3 lanes from Eugene to Seattle.  I'm more skeptical about adding lanes to I-5 between Redding and Eugene.

6-laning I-5 from Sutherlin to Myrtle Creek to handle Roseburg/Umpqua Valley and Grants Pass's Merlin exit to Ashland would be justifiable due to the amount of local traffic.  Medford hits for around 90K per day on I-5 as I recall.  To that add in 3-lane uphill sections like California does and 6-lane I-5 through Siskiyou Pass to make sure when heavy snow hits that plowing operations will have plenty of room to work with and then some since this is one of the main climate-related chokepoints on I-5.

If we built I-5 to today's terrain-taming standards it would be a whole lot easier and safer to drive from the Lane/Douglas county line to the California/Oregon border.  The 60 miles between Roseburg and Grants Pass is the most dangerous stretch of I-5 in my eyes.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

jakeroot

Quote from: nexus73 on May 13, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
If we built I-5 to today's terrain-taming standards it would be a whole lot easier and safer to drive from the Lane/Douglas county line to the California/Oregon border.  The 60 miles between Roseburg and Grants Pass is the most dangerous stretch of I-5 in my eyes.

I-5 could use some serious reconstruction in Southern Oregon, German style (much wider corner radii, more tunnels, and so on).

Bickendan

The good news is ODOT wants to make I-5 6 lanes from OR 34 to Kuebler Blvd. The bad news is it's a backburner project.

kkt

Quote from: nexus73 on May 13, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
Quote from: mcarling on May 13, 2015, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2015, 04:56:21 PM
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5.  I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5.  I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras.  There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem.  But an interstate would be overkill.  (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not?  That's kinda messed up.)

As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country.  250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway.  You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
One disadvantage of adding lanes to I-5 rather than to the Las Vegas - Reno - Susanville - Klamath Falls - Bend - Portland/Yakima route is that the former would funnel yet more traffic through already badly congested Portland and the Interstate Bridge while the latter would funnel traffic over the less congested Glenn Jackson Bridge and the Biggs Rapids Bridge.  However, I fully support upgrading I-5 to a minimum of 2x3 lanes from Eugene to Seattle.  I'm more skeptical about adding lanes to I-5 between Redding and Eugene.

6-laning I-5 from Sutherlin to Myrtle Creek to handle Roseburg/Umpqua Valley and Grants Pass's Merlin exit to Ashland would be justifiable due to the amount of local traffic.  Medford hits for around 90K per day on I-5 as I recall.  To that add in 3-lane uphill sections like California does and 6-lane I-5 through Siskiyou Pass to make sure when heavy snow hits that plowing operations will have plenty of room to work with and then some since this is one of the main climate-related chokepoints on I-5.

If we built I-5 to today's terrain-taming standards it would be a whole lot easier and safer to drive from the Lane/Douglas county line to the California/Oregon border.  The 60 miles between Roseburg and Grants Pass is the most dangerous stretch of I-5 in my eyes.

Rick

I'd consider the dangerous part down to Redding.  In good weather, it's dangerous because people think it's safe to go 65 even around curves signed for 50.  In bad weather, there's unexpected icy or snowy patches.

The climbing lane uphill in the California Siskiyous is only loosely a third lane.  It's striped as a wide shoulder and there's no other shoulder in addition to the climbing lane.  Signs say trucks can drive on shoulder.  It'd be nice to see it laid out as three real lanes plus a shoulder.

nexus73

Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2015, 12:31:00 AM
The good news is ODOT wants to make I-5 6 lanes from OR 34 to Kuebler Blvd. The bad news is it's a backburner project.

That's the first I heard of ODOT even thinking of extending the 6-lane south of Kuebler.  Thank you for mentioning it!

As you likely noticed, the new bridges on I-5 in Eugene/Springfield are built for 6-lanes.  The current ODOT plan to actually do a 6-lane project in the area is "sometime in the 2030's", so nothing truly definite. 

WSDOT has only about 25 miles of I-5 left to 6-lane to improve I-5 from PDX to Seattle.  That state has done a good job dealing with their I-5 congestion.

To kkt: The I-5 section I mentioned as most dangerous was the part in Oregon I see in that way.  However you are right about the curves and ice problems north of Redding.  The new bridge crossing Lake Shasta is a nice needed improvement but in the end it comes down to lots of bulldozers, dump trucks and dynamite to bend the land to one's will so a great freeway can be built.  Since it is I-5 we're talking about, the main artery for the entire West Coast, I would make it into a real showcase of road engineering if I was running the show!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.



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.