Interstate 11

[Max Rockatansky]

Canada?  lol

Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.

[kkt]

Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria.  Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.

[sparker]

Canada?  lol

Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.

Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria.  Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.

Uhh... I think we're dealing with the NV I-580.  That's always been considered one of the options:  taking the I-11 corridor over the Pine Nut Mountains west of Yerington and coming out on US 395 somewhere around Gardnerville, then using I-580 north into Reno.  Looking at GE, however, it becomes clear why there isn't already some sort of route through that ridge.  If serving Carson City becomes part of the I-11 "mandate", it'll probably have to take a convoluted route using NV 208 to the south or US 50 via Dayton, both of which would involve some level of backtracking.  IMO in the end, should the corridor be developed, I-11 will likely empty out onto I-80 east of Reno, which would be the path of least resistance in terms of overall cost and regional service.     

[kkt]

Aw, ruin all the fun.

[Max Rockatansky]

Canada?  lol

Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.

Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria.  Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.

Uhh... I think we're dealing with the NV I-580.  That's always been considered one of the options:  taking the I-11 corridor over the Pine Nut Mountains west of Yerington and coming out on US 395 somewhere around Gardnerville, then using I-580 north into Reno.  Looking at GE, however, it becomes clear why there isn't already some sort of route through that ridge.  If serving Carson City becomes part of the I-11 "mandate", it'll probably have to take a convoluted route using NV 208 to the south or US 50 via Dayton, both of which would involve some level of backtracking.  IMO in the end, should the corridor be developed, I-11 will likely empty out onto I-80 east of Reno, which would be the path of least resistance in terms of overall cost and regional service.   

Yep, that's essentially what is conveyed on the map in the video also.  Honestly that I would be my route of preference if there was ever a need to build I-11 out to the Reno-Sparks area.  The irony for me is that almost the entire route is still in "study" just between Vegas and Phoenix.  The way ADOT presented everything in the video made it sound like it was a certainty that it would not only reach Reno but also Canada when that's far from the truth.

[SD Mapman]

Canada?  lol

Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.

Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria.  Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.

Uhh... I think we're dealing with the NV I-580.  That's always been considered one of the options:  taking the I-11 corridor over the Pine Nut Mountains west of Yerington and coming out on US 395 somewhere around Gardnerville, then using I-580 north into Reno.  Looking at GE, however, it becomes clear why there isn't already some sort of route through that ridge.  If serving Carson City becomes part of the I-11 "mandate", it'll probably have to take a convoluted route using NV 208 to the south or US 50 via Dayton, both of which would involve some level of backtracking.  IMO in the end, should the corridor be developed, I-11 will likely empty out onto I-80 east of Reno, which would be the path of least resistance in terms of overall cost and regional service.   

Yep, that's essentially what is conveyed on the map in the video also.  Honestly that I would be my route of preference if there was ever a need to build I-11 out to the Reno-Sparks area.  The irony for me is that almost the entire route is still in "study" just between Vegas and Phoenix.  The way ADOT presented everything in the video made it sound like it was a certainty that it would not only reach Reno but also Canada when that's far from the truth.

I got that you would take I-15 to get to Canada from Vegas, but maybe I missed something.

[Max Rockatansky]

Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.

[SD Mapman]

Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.

OK, found it now.

That's still silly.

[sparker]

Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.

OK, found it now.

That's still silly.

Welcome to the wonderful world of hyperbole!  I-11 to Canada, I-14 to Savannah, I-69 to the Great White North and the Land of Cheap Labor (but apparently not cheap enough to compete with Asia) -- one needs to take the PR flack with a shaker -- rather than a grain -- of salt!  Unfortunately, the fact that most of these corridors have at least  some degree of merit and value becomes overshadowed by the bullshit!  But then Boise, Meridian, and Port Huron might not be compelling enough to provoke a "hey, look at me" public reaction; "shooting for the moon" seems to be the vehicle of choice in this regard.       

[Max Rockatansky]

Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.

OK, found it now.

That's still silly.

Welcome to the wonderful world of hyperbole!  I-11 to Canada, I-14 to Savannah, I-69 to the Great White North and the Land of Cheap Labor (but apparently not cheap enough to compete with Asia) -- one needs to take the PR flack with a shaker -- rather than a grain -- of salt!  Unfortunately, the fact that most of these corridors have at least  some degree of merit and value becomes overshadowed by the bullshit!  But then Boise, Meridian, and Port Huron might not be compelling enough to provoke a "hey, look at me" public reaction; "shooting for the moon" seems to be the vehicle of choice in this regard.     

The funny thing to me about any prospects of I-11 north of Las Vegas is that really given the remoteness of the terrain both US 93 or US 95 are already plenty adequate.  I've driven all of both routes entirely and I can't think of a single thing from Vegas north to Canada that would deter commercial transportation....in fact they are BOTH actually fairly well traveled corridors.  I'd say that both US 93 and 95 are far less well known to the general public as viable transportation routes.  US 95 certainly gets used more because it is the most direct route from Vegas to Reno but is a pretty easy cruise at 70 MPH.

At least its apparent that ADOT wants to build I-11 and they have some legislative pull behind it.  I would still argue beyond the Boulder City which is already in the process of being bypassed that US 93 is a pretty adequate route given it is largely an expressway between Vegas and Phoenix.

[Henry]

Kind of reminds me of I-69 further east...

[Max Rockatansky]

Kind of reminds me of I-69 further east...

The difference is that I-69 existed as a complete route before all this CANMEX stuff started.  There are some segments actually seeing real construction, almost all of I-11 just exists on paper or in impact survey...especially in Arizona.

[kkt]

And it is Arizona that would have to build by far the most mileage (as it was originally proposed, from Phoenix to LV).

[sparker]

And it is Arizona that would have to build by far the most mileage (as it was originally proposed, from Phoenix to LV).

Fortunately, AZ DOT is doing something relatively smart -- upgrading US 93 a piece at a time to divided expressway (itself upgradeable!) between Wickenburg and I-40, thus simplifying the eventual Interstate construction process -- and providing a higher capacity and safer facility in the interim -- regardless of whatever path I-11 takes south of Wickenburg. 

[US 89]

There is no need for I-11 to go all the way to Canada. Maybe there's a reason for it to go to Reno, but north of there, US 95 and 395 are just fine.

[kkt]

No need for it to go north of Las Vegas.  Could go south as far as I-8.

[i-215]

I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).

[kkt]

I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).

I-11 to I-15.  If that's too far east, there are several excellent uncongested US routes.  Not every route needs to be an interstate.

[US 89]

I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).

I-11 to I-15.  If that's too far east, there are several excellent uncongested US routes.  Not every route needs to be an interstate.

In fact, the CANAMEX corridor already uses I-15 north of Vegas. If traffic between Vegas and Reno ever got to where the current US 95 wasn't enough, it could be upgraded to a 4-lane divided highway like US 550 in NM. It doesn't need to become I-11.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).

if that is the case, wouldn't it be less money to widen I-5?

[compdude787]

I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).

if that is the case, wouldn't it be less money to widen I-5?

Exactly. It seems like I-11 will be too far away from I-5 to take pressure off of it.

[jakeroot]

I don't think I-11 would be necessary north of Reno, but "necessary" doesn't describe a lot of the rural interstates in this country. If there's a will, there's a way. And while the will of the states to build new interstates may not be what it was back in the 50s and 60s, the possibilities with a new interstate, spurring economic development and whatnot, is certainly there. I wouldn't consider a border-to-border I-11 to be fictional at all. Just, perhaps, a ways off.

[sparker]

I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).

if that is the case, wouldn't it be less money to widen I-5?

Exactly. It seems like I-11 will be too far away from I-5 to take pressure off of it.

I don't think I-11 would be necessary north of Reno, but "necessary" doesn't describe a lot of the rural interstates in this country. If there's a will, there's a way. And while the will of the states to build new interstates may not be what it was back in the 50s and 60s, the possibilities with a new interstate, spurring economic development and whatnot, is certainly there. I wouldn't consider a border-to-border I-11 to be fictional at all. Just, perhaps, a ways off.

Actually, the most problematic segment of I-5 -- the approximately 300 mile of mountain crossing between Redding, CA and Cottage Grove, OR, a largely winding 4-lane freeway with numerous 45 & 50 mph curves and only sporadic truck lanes -- would be prohibitively costly to expand, even by a single lane per direction (and such an endeavor would not likely pass environmental criteria).  A "relief" route on a different alignment would likely involve a similar cost structure.  If I-11 were to remain well east of the Cascades (such as a Boise-area option), then it obviously couldn't and wouldn't serve as such an I-5 reliever.  One of the options previously discussed in this thread (and the similar I-11 thread in Northwest) was "shunting" any I-11 alignment over to I-5 at some point; the area from and including Eugene to Portland has been cited repeatedly as characterizing the locale of the more "desirable" junction points.  However, this would likely not pass muster with ODOT -- not to mention the longstanding Oregon political establishment -- because to do so would require new freeway construction through the "old growth" forests surrounding the Willamette Valley, which is protected/"hallow" ground.  Any connection to I-5 would have to be well south of that area.  At one point several months ago (after several posters' grenades were lobbed at my original CA 89/Mt. Shasta connection concept), a suggestion was made with which I essentially concur -- that an I-11 alignment via US 395 north from Reno to Alturas, and then along CA 299 and CA 139/OR 39 to Klamath Falls would be optimal, followed by a connection west along OR 140 to a junction with I-5 just north of Medford, OR.  It's relatively benign territory and arguably the easiest crossing of the Cascade range within Oregon -- and it stays well away from the politically sensitive region to the north (out of sight, out of mind!).  Part of the rationale for such an alignment would be to avoid the "worst of the worst" part of I-5: the Siskiyou Summit crossing at the CA/OR state line.  Locating the I-5/I-11 junction near Medford also poses the potential for diverting lumber-product truck traffic intended for Las Vegas, Phoenix, and other inland places with an above-average rate of housing growth, away from I-5 and its SoCal connectors. 

Of course, the "classic" Klamath alignment continues north on US 97 to at least Bend; if development was deemed necessary, this could be accomplished under a separate corridor concept (also likely to draw I-5 traffic, but in opposite directions).  It could be decided later in the planning process that serving Bend and other areas east of the Cascades would yield more benefit than configuring the corridor to relieve I-5 -- in which case, the Klamath-Medford segment might be eliminated or reserved as a later project.  Of course, all this will need to be determined by all the parties involved in this concept -- and I, for one, expect a long and drawn-out slog!         

[kkt]

Actually, the most problematic segment of I-5 -- the approximately 300 mile of mountain crossing between Redding, CA and Cottage Grove, OR, a largely winding 4-lane freeway with numerous 45 & 50 mph curves and only sporadic truck lanes -- would be prohibitively costly to expand, even by a single lane per direction (and such an endeavor would not likely pass environmental criteria).  A "relief" route on a different alignment would likely involve a similar cost structure.  If I-11 were to remain well east of the Cascades (such as a Boise-area option), then it obviously couldn't and wouldn't serve as such an I-5 reliever.  One of the options previously discussed in this thread (and the similar I-11 thread in Northwest) was "shunting" any I-11 alignment over to I-5 at some point; the area from and including Eugene to Portland has been cited repeatedly as characterizing the locale of the more "desirable" junction points.  However, this would likely not pass muster with ODOT -- not to mention the longstanding Oregon political establishment -- because to do so would require new freeway construction through the "old growth" forests surrounding the Willamette Valley, which is protected/"hallow" ground.  Any connection to I-5 would have to be well south of that area.  At one point several months ago (after several posters' grenades were lobbed at my original CA 89/Mt. Shasta connection concept), a suggestion was made with which I essentially concur -- that an I-11 alignment via US 395 north from Reno to Alturas, and then along CA 299 and CA 139/OR 39 to Klamath Falls would be optimal, followed by a connection west along OR 140 to a junction with I-5 just north of Medford, OR.  It's relatively benign territory and arguably the easiest crossing of the Cascade range within Oregon -- and it stays well away from the politically sensitive region to the north (out of sight, out of mind!).  Part of the rationale for such an alignment would be to avoid the "worst of the worst" part of I-5: the Siskiyou Summit crossing at the CA/OR state line.  Locating the I-5/I-11 junction near Medford also poses the potential for diverting lumber-product truck traffic intended for Las Vegas, Phoenix, and other inland places with an above-average rate of housing growth, away from I-5 and its SoCal connectors. 

Of course, the "classic" Klamath alignment continues north on US 97 to at least Bend; if development was deemed necessary, this could be accomplished under a separate corridor concept (also likely to draw I-5 traffic, but in opposite directions).  It could be decided later in the planning process that serving Bend and other areas east of the Cascades would yield more benefit than configuring the corridor to relieve I-5 -- in which case, the Klamath-Medford segment might be eliminated or reserved as a later project.  Of course, all this will need to be determined by all the parties involved in this concept -- and I, for one, expect a long and drawn-out slog!         

That section of I-5 is mountainous and the weather is a problem fairly often.  Many travelers and truckers take US 97 instead.  I don't think 97 needs an interstate number or to be built to interstate standards to be a viable bypass.  Gradual expansion of the remaining 2-lane portions to 4-lane expressway would be adequate and affordable.

One could argue that interstate standards are set too high.  Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.

[jakeroot]

One could argue that interstate standards are set too high.  Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.

I agree on the "wide shoulders" requirement being kind of silly (especially with cars becoming more reliable), but I'm not sure on sightlines. Although "corner radii" might be a better term. US interstates seem to allow rather sharp corners that would be absolutely unacceptable in places like Germany. With driverless cars right around the corner, we should be seeking more strenuous geometry requirements that will allow vehicles to maintain exceptionally high rates of speed (140+).