Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[TheStranger]

but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.

I think the 1960s was when the system became more about "if one can use multiple interstates to get there, it is still is a direct connection" than simply making sure certain numbers went to certain places.

Cases in point:

1. the removal of I-70 going through Pittsburgh in favor of I-79 and (at the time) I-76, now I-376
2. the 1964 switch from I-5W (providing functionally one number from Oakland to Los Angeles) to I-580 in the Bay Area
3. replacing I-70S/I-70N setup in Maryland with I-70 going the direct/US 40 corridor to Baltimore, and I-270 the branch heading to the Washington DC area.

[sparker]

By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).

I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!

Agreed on both counts. Also, this would be totally counterintuitive of the original purpose of the Interstate system, which is to connect major cities to each other. Even the current system has its flaws (I-80 needs to go from Paterson to NEW YORK, not Hackensack! I-65 needs to go from Indianapolis to CHICAGO, not Gary!), but then again, we can't always get what we want. I can see why B4 was eliminated (rough terrain and high cost), but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.

With the expansion of urban/suburban development out from many of the nation's city centers -- particularly in what's loosely termed the "sun belt" -- and the expenses of both property acquisition and facility development in already built-out areas, the prospects for actually taking an interregional corridor such as I-11 anywhere near a city core are increasingly slight.  In the west, there's invariably topology that figures into the equation as well, although that factor has impinged upon plans in other regions.  Both ends of the I-11 corridor are and will be fraught with controversy just for the reasons outlined above -- plans for taking the corridor near the city cores (PHX and Reno) have been supplanted by corridor concepts that take the route near rather than directly to those cores.  In the case of Phoenix, that situation has been discussed extensively (some might say exhaustively!) in other threads, so it doesn't need to be reiterated here.  Reno's another matter -- its location, along with neighboring Carson City, renders access from some directions problematic -- which is why, historically, Las Vegas-bound traffic has simply traveled east on I-80 (and US 40 before that), used Alternate US 50 to get down to Fallon, and then US 95 south from there.  Commercial traffic has used that routing for decades; the increases in such -- plus the desire for regional development -- have brought forth the I-11 planning effort.  Now -- even with the western (B4) corridor option removed from consideration, I-11 could conceivably have gotten at least a few miles east of the suburb of Sparks by utilizing the NV 439 alignment -- which would have at least gotten it closer to metro Reno.  But that would have reduced the potential of I-11 to serve areas eastward along I-80 (including SW Idaho, considered one of the more likely choices for a corridor destination if and when further extension is contemplated), while only being a dozen or so miles west of Fernley, the I-80 junction point for the two remaining corridor options -- a NV 439 option wouldn't have "bought" much more in the way of efficiency at serving Reno while making other I-11 corridor uses considerably less attractive. 

"Leaners" are all over the Interstate system for various reasons, some of which are topographically dictated, other at local option.  Most metro areas spread out over large territories -- and city-center Interstates that didn't see construction during the early phases of the original program were often rerouted or truncated due to urban political pressures.  There was no reason to drag I-65 directly into Chicago; Gary is certainly within the overall metro area.  Likewise with I-15 over Cajon Pass in Southern California; there was never any thought given to dragging it over the mountains directly into Los Angeles; planners were content to leave it out in the San Bernardino area before the '68 legislation enabled the shortcut to Ontario (still about 40 miles east of the metro center).  These days, it's hard enough to get a new Interstate corridor planned and built -- even if the needs for such are extensively documented -- so accepting the "leaners" that don't directly serve that metro area but do so via other corridors is becoming increasingly commonplace as time goes by and regional development occupies more and more territory. 

[Bobby5280]

Highways still have a duty to help people travel efficiently from point A to point B. All sorts of interests with their own agendas are deviating that basic, core purpose. The real estate guys using I-11 as an angle to sell speculative development projects 30 miles West of Phoenix is one such example.

I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

Phoenix is a different matter. There is no costly engineering hurdle preventing a US-60 upgrade to Interstate standards from Loop 303 on Northwest toward Wickenburg. I-11 should at the bare minimum provide some kind of Interstate quality connection at the Loop 303/US-60 interchange, whether it is signed as I-11 or a 3 digit spur off I-11. If it was up to me I would just as soon run I-11 down Loop 303 from the US-60 interchange down to I-10 and where ever Loop 303 ends. Running I-11 way out to the West of Phoenix and ending it at Gila Bend without any direct freeway connection into metro Phoenix would just be stupid.

Yes, other Interstate highways have skirted big city centers or stopped short of reaching those city centers. However, Interstates like I-65 in metro Chicago or I-70 in Baltimore are at least connection into the freeway system of those cities. If these real estate developers have their way I-11 would run far outside of the Phoenix freeway loop system. That sucks.

This speculative town development they're doing may have a cloudy, possibly stormy future. The US economy just posted a 4% growth rate. But no one should bet on that being the new normal. Home sales and new home starts have started to fall. Developers have been building lots and lots of McMansions for people with high incomes. There's not enough inventory in price ranges young families just starting out can honestly afford. Millennial age home buyers are doing risky things like cashing out retirement funds to help pay for a home down payment. In terms of just renting those same young couples are being preyed upon by giant home rental companies run by Wall Street outfits like Blackstone. The price gouging taking place will dramatically push down our nation's birth rate. If we want healthy future generations of Americans there has to be an environment where parents of all income classes can afford to have kids.

Lots of young people want to live in/near big city centers. That's tough enough to do just as a single person, even with roommates. It's still a fashionable enough option that many young adults are willing to put off marriage and parenthood for many years or just not do that at all in order to be where things are happening.

And that gets back to another reason why running I-11 way outside of Phoenix is silly. New Urbanist ideals promote reviving city centers and getting more people to live closer to the core rather than way out in the suburbs or exhurbs. I-11 way out West would try to promote more sprawl.

***

Getting back to I-11 in Northern Nevada, over the long term I could see the "B4" corridor getting built out over time (years/decades). If I-580 is not expanded Westward to Lake Tahoe I certainly could see it being extended South to serve communities like Indian Hills, Minden and Gardnerville. That highway could grow farther South to Topaz Lake and the CA border. From there it wouldn't be hard to spur East toward Wellington. The pass to the North Side of Walker Lake is really the big road block. Who knows? Breakthroughs in construction engineering technology are possible in the decades ahead.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.

I wouldn't call the north 15/84 remote. That split happens in Tremonton, which is a town of 8000 people. By western standards, that's not remote at all, and nowhere close to the remoteness of places like 15/70 and 10/20, where there is absolutely no civilization for miles.

Also: Plutonic Panda was asking only about full interchanges, not Ys. Of the interchanges that have been named, all but 26/95 and 10/75 have been only three-way interchanges.

Yes, that was mainly what I looking for was an interchange that was a full four way design that served two interstates going through it. Not just merging. But it seems this freeways interchange with I-80 will be just a 3 way interchange for the foreseeable future. My guess is NE2's example takes the cake. I don't think this one will beat it.

Even if I-11 does continue north, I bet a new interchange is created around Reno and it continues north from there rather than where it will end now since Carson City was taken off the table. Part of me really wants to see an interstate built through that area though.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."  

[sparker]

I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."  

China has a functional dictatorship that is determined to put on an ersatz Western face to those with which it maintains commercial relationships; to that end, they can direct what would be distributed as profits in much of the rest of the world into massive public works programs that mimic our Interstate or the European "A-x" network.  We build things with private contractors; they have public agencies that do "design-build" as a matter of course.  They're trying to show the world that they can build a viable limited-access roadway network in a fraction of the time (regardless of cost) that it takes the Western world to do so -- that sort of activity serves as an advertisement for their engineering and building skills in order to enhance their position as "supplier of parts & labor" to those who would be in a position to purchase such expertise. 

OTOH, we have a relatively mature economic system that supplies public works in a more measured manner; part of that process, necessary in an equally mature democracy (although today's antics often belie that assessment!), is the public cost-benefit analysis -- what provides the most "bang for the buck".  In this instance, the B4 option for I-11, the one that would require cutting through the mountains next to NV 208, was deemed to provide less benefits per prospective dollar spent than the B2 and B3 options in the valleys to the east.  It's likely that the presence of the recently completed I-580 connector from Carson City north to Reno mitigated against that routing; the connection of the two adjacent metro areas was already made -- and the "brief" was service between Northern Nevada and Las Vegas; serving Reno directly was simply one of the options, not a requirement. 

The original Interstate systems was laid out essentially atop existing arterials, themselves laid out largely adjacent to the rail lines that preceded paved roads by 50+ years; as such, they all followed the "point-to-point" connections between the main existing urban areas (or at least those that were considered as "major" circa 1940).  But criteria have changed in 78 years;  new corridors, where successfully developed, need to provide access to urban areas; poking right into the midst of one is not considered necessary and, in many cases since the mid-'60's, not desirable at all!  That being said -- if the I-11 corridor eventually heads northwest toward Oregon rather than northeast toward Idaho, Reno will likely get that Interstate anyway, even if multiplexed west with I-80 from Fernley to US 395 before turning north near the city center.

[myosh_tino]

I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."

Hmmm... efficient use of our tax dollars when it comes to building roads has to mean something.  If a more cost-effective alternative exists (which is the case with the northern routing of I-11) while providing a similar benefit to motorists, that option should be selected.

[Mark68]

I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?

[myosh_tino]

I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?

Except there's no place in Carson City for a freeway-to-freeway interchange without having to take out existing homes and businesses.

[NE2]

Who says there needs to be a freeway to freeway interchange at I-580? There's always room for a tight folded diamond.

Or a trumpet just north of College Parkway with a freeway roughly along Arrowhead Drive.

[vdeane]

A folded diamond wouldn't be an all-freeway route.  Though with the businesses I don't see how one would get a freeway along US 50 anywhere close to I-580.

[NE2]

I meant three-level diamond. I guess I'm drunk.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."

Hmmm... efficient use of our tax dollars when it comes to building roads has to mean something.  If a more cost-effective alternative exists (which is the case with the northern routing of I-11) while providing a similar benefit to motorists, that option should be selected.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that, but depending on how one defines a direct connection, I would think the option presented that connects directly to Carson City is money well spent. I just don't like the excuse it's too expensive or too hard to build. Unfortunately, Bobby5280 isn't wrong by saying that as that is widely accepted in today's political climate in the U.S., but it is maddening to hear.

Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

[sparker]

Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you.  There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well!  If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!

Getting back to the deletion of the Carson City option:  Since the routing of any extension farther north has yet to be   determined, and the Boise area is still "on the table", the selection of that western (B4) alignment would have functionally eliminated that possibility unless two options north of Walker Lake would have been considered as initial branches -- and that didn't seem to be within the scope of what NDOT had in mind for the corridor.  Since a Fernley connection can "swing both ways", so to speak, it makes sense that it dominated the selection process. 

[Sub-Urbanite]

I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

[Plutonic Panda]

Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you.  There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well!  If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!

Can you go back in time and warn my past self? LOL. I ran out of gas twice in that area before. Once going from Yosemite onto US 95 and then another time driving from Reno to Vegas. I was with a girl so it wasn't all bad haha. Little embarrassing on my part. Good times anyways!

[sparker]

Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you.  There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well!  If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!

Can you go back in time and warn my past self? LOL. I ran out of gas twice in that area before. Once going from Yosemite onto US 95 and then another time driving from Reno to Vegas. I was with a girl so it wasn't all bad haha. Little embarrassing on my part. Good times anyways!

Hope all that was recent enough that you could get some semblance of cel service (there are a couple of dead spots -- at least on the AT&T network -- about 30 miles north of Beatty and again between Tonopah and Hawthorne).  If the girl was still speaking to you once you got to Vegas you got off lucky!  Never happened with my GF -- but if it did, I'd have the "evil eye" on me for the following several weeks!

[nexus73]

I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

Bring back the 2-lane Interstate.  US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH.  SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets.  One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange.  Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges.  Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.

Will it happen?  Is it needed?  Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.

Rick

[sparker]

I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

Bring back the 2-lane Interstate.  US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH.  SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets.  One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange.  Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges.  Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.

Will it happen?  Is it needed?  Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.

Rick

The Boise/Treasure Valley area of SW Idaho has yet to hit "critical mass" regarding commercial access; right now, what's on the ground seems to be adequate.  But if (a) the metro population hits somewhere around 1.25M (as projected for about 2025) and (b) there's continued corporate "migration" into the area seeking a lower tax base and a land market that, while increasing somewhat, has yet to elevate above the "bargain" category (and if that situation persists for the next decade), more efficient access to points not readily accessible via I-84 is likely to be sought.  For all intents and purposes, that's limited to two southward corridors:  US 95 (likely with an eastward divergence at its northern end toward Nampa) and the NV 225/ID 51 composite corridor intersecting I-84 near Mountain Home.  If the US 95 corridor is placed "in play", it's almost certain that the section through Oregon would need to be heavily subsidized, either at the federal level via specific legislation attached to the corridor definition, or through a cooperative of the other states, particularly Idaho, which would reap the majority of the benefits although having the least in-state mileage to build and maintain.  The only section of US 95 that would provide even minimal benefit to Oregon would be from the NV state line to OR 78, as an alternate trucking route/shortcut from I-80 to US 20 toward the Bend area.  Oregon might be convinced to kick in a nominal amount of funding toward that portion of the overall corridor; north from there the route would require maximal subsidization from outside.  The saving grace of US 95 is that most of the route traverses relatively benign "high desert"; the more difficult terrain occurs around Jordan Valley on the northern section of Oregon's US 95 (there's a reason for the sharp alignment change there -- it's to get around some nasty escarpments).  Once in Idaho, the main issue will be a Snake River bridge plus acquisition of farmland and suburban parcels.  If arrangements that don't piss off (at least fatally!) the various parties involved can be reached, then such a corridor is doable.  From a political standpoint, the Elko-Mountain Home corridor (I-13, anyone?) would be considerably simpler to plan, since NV seems to be willing to follow through with Interstate development in their hinterlands (unless it gets too expensive; see the rejection of I-11's B4 option) and Idaho and its economy stands to benefit -- but the plain fact is that it's way out of the way for commercial traffic from CA and Reno-area distribution centers to Boise-area destinations -- and SLC-based traffic from the east already has the optimally efficient 15>84 routing in place.  It's just not a practical option given the almost certainty that I-11 will hit I-80 near Fernley. 

So one is pretty much stuck with funneling extra $$ to ODOT to make US 95 a feasible Interstate corridor.  That means if the Treasure Valley projections come to pass, the parties standing to benefit from such a corridor's development have seven or eight years to ponder just how to accomplish the process.  In reality, such a routing would be its own "SIU" rather than a simple I-11 extension; it's likely more commercial traffic using that corridor would have a SW endpoint in Northern California (via I-80, of course) rather than a continuous run up I-11 from Las Vegas.  Thus the timetable for this corridor might be independent of that for the I-11 development to the south and more in line with the situation in Idaho.   

   

[doorknob60]

I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

Bring back the 2-lane Interstate.  US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH.  SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets.  One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange.  Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges.  Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.

Will it happen?  Is it needed?  Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.

Rick

The Boise/Treasure Valley area of SW Idaho has yet to hit "critical mass" regarding commercial access; right now, what's on the ground seems to be adequate.  But if (a) the metro population hits somewhere around 1.25M (as projected for about 2025) and (b) there's continued corporate "migration" into the area seeking a lower tax base and a land market that, while increasing somewhat, has yet to elevate above the "bargain" category (and if that situation persists for the next decade), more efficient access to points not readily accessible via I-84 is likely to be sought.  For all intents and purposes, that's limited to two southward corridors:  US 95 (likely with an eastward divergence at its northern end toward Nampa) and the NV 225/ID 51 composite corridor intersecting I-84 near Mountain Home.  If the US 95 corridor is placed "in play", it's almost certain that the section through Oregon would need to be heavily subsidized, either at the federal level via specific legislation attached to the corridor definition, or through a cooperative of the other states, particularly Idaho, which would reap the majority of the benefits although having the least in-state mileage to build and maintain.  The only section of US 95 that would provide even minimal benefit to Oregon would be from the NV state line to OR 78, as an alternate trucking route/shortcut from I-80 to US 20 toward the Bend area.  Oregon might be convinced to kick in a nominal amount of funding toward that portion of the overall corridor; north from there the route would require maximal subsidization from outside.  The saving grace of US 95 is that most of the route traverses relatively benign "high desert"; the more difficult terrain occurs around Jordan Valley on the northern section of Oregon's US 95 (there's a reason for the sharp alignment change there -- it's to get around some nasty escarpments).  Once in Idaho, the main issue will be a Snake River bridge plus acquisition of farmland and suburban parcels.  If arrangements that don't piss off (at least fatally!) the various parties involved can be reached, then such a corridor is doable.  From a political standpoint, the Elko-Mountain Home corridor (I-13, anyone?) would be considerably simpler to plan, since NV seems to be willing to follow through with Interstate development in their hinterlands (unless it gets too expensive; see the rejection of I-11's B4 option) and Idaho and its economy stands to benefit -- but the plain fact is that it's way out of the way for commercial traffic from CA and Reno-area distribution centers to Boise-area destinations -- and SLC-based traffic from the east already has the optimally efficient 15>84 routing in place.  It's just not a practical option given the almost certainty that I-11 will hit I-80 near Fernley. 

So one is pretty much stuck with funneling extra $$ to ODOT to make US 95 a feasible Interstate corridor.  That means if the Treasure Valley projections come to pass, the parties standing to benefit from such a corridor's development have seven or eight years to ponder just how to accomplish the process.  In reality, such a routing would be its own "SIU" rather than a simple I-11 extension; it's likely more commercial traffic using that corridor would have a SW endpoint in Northern California (via I-80, of course) rather than a continuous run up I-11 from Las Vegas.  Thus the timetable for this corridor might be independent of that for the I-11 development to the south and more in line with the situation in Idaho.   

   

An Elko to Mountain Home corridor doesn't really make sense to me. Any fictional N/S freeway east of Boise should follow US-93 (bypassing Twin Falls with a new Snake River bridge to the west, hitting I-84 just west of Jerome). I can't think of any scenario where a Mountain Home to Elko freeway would work where this option would not work just as well or better. US-93 is already the most direct route between Boise and Las Vegas. That said, traffic levels on this highway are currently quite low so I don't see a need for this (except maybe the bridge west of Twin Falls, that would be nice), probably ever. Any situation where you may need an all freeway connector between the two, I-15 is only ~90 miles longer.

I could definitely see US-95 being upgraded though, as you said. But it would be mostly to serve traffic Boise to/from California and Reno, not Las Vegas (not that it's a problem, just pointing it out; might make the I-11 number not make the most sense though; maybe I-13 or an I-x80).

[sparker]

An Elko to Mountain Home corridor doesn't really make sense to me. Any fictional N/S freeway east of Boise should follow US-93 (bypassing Twin Falls with a new Snake River bridge to the west, hitting I-84 just west of Jerome). I can't think of any scenario where a Mountain Home to Elko freeway would work where this option would not work just as well or better. US-93 is already the most direct route between Boise and Las Vegas. That said, traffic levels on this highway are currently quite low so I don't see a need for this (except maybe the bridge west of Twin Falls, that would be nice), probably ever. Any situation where you may need an all freeway connector between the two, I-15 is only ~90 miles longer.

I could definitely see US-95 being upgraded though, as you said. But it would be mostly to serve traffic Boise to/from California and Reno, not Las Vegas (not that it's a problem, just pointing it out; might make the I-11 number not make the most sense though; maybe I-13 or an I-x80).

If what's being suggested here is a separate (I-13?) corridor from the LV area generally up US 93 (or more likely partially on NV 318) to I-84 at Twin Falls, that's not going to be happening.  NVDOT will plan for one N-S state corridor; two is well beyond the scope of their planning efforts -- particularly if the purpose is to get to central Idaho.  It also doesn't help with Boise-bound traffic from Northern California, a major distribution hub in itself.  US 93 from I-80 north of I-84 has a major interregional purpose -- but it's to get I-80 traffic from CA to Yellowstone more efficiently; Boise doesn't even figure into that mix.  Realistically, the only viable corridor that can at least perfunctorily "multitask" as a conduit for both I-11 traffic coming in from Las Vegas and Phoenix and I-80 traffic from Northern California (all commercial/distribution hubs) toward the Boise area would be US 95 -- and that would require, as previously states, some degree of negotiation and financial arrangements to make it happen. 

As far as a different designation for a Boise-bound corridor is concerned; it would probably simply be a continuation (with a I-80 multiplex, signed or simply "trailblazed") of I-11 -- unless both Oregon and Idaho connectors would be proposed for relatively the same developmental timeframe -- a possibility if not a probability.  In that case, the westernmost one would likely retain the I-11 number, while the Idaho corridor might just get I-13; for something of that length, a 3di probably wouldn't be considered.  Personally, I don't understand the attraction for some for long interregional 3di's when trunk numbers remain available; these are Interstates, not U.S. highways, where long auxiliary routes are more common -- and the Interstate system designation protocol isn't intended to be a homage to the U.S. network idiom!  If you've got a trunk number available for a long corridor, just use it; the numbers aren't Hummel dolls that get more valuable the longer they sit on a shelf!   

[Kniwt]

To add another voice to the crowd, here's the chairman of the White Pine County (NV) Board of Commissioners calling for I-11 to follow US 93, not US 95:

https://elkodaily.com/news/white-pine-official-wants-interstate-to-go-through-eastern-nevada/article_652015de-99b0-5f96-8404-fc7fc3f59abf.html

(White Pine County includes Ely.)

A top-ranking route for the future Interstate 11 to connect the Las Vegas valley with Northern Nevada and beyond eclipses the eastern segment of the state and spends more taxpayer money than necessary.

That was the message that Richard Howe, chairman of the White Pine County Board of Commissioners, presented to his Elko County counterparts at their Aug. 1 meeting. He is traveling around the state to garner support of I-11 following Highway 93 rather than Highway 95 through Nevada.

... Howe also proposed that building I-11 in eastern Nevada would help mobilize a marginalized segment of the state. The rest of the state's "total disregard for eastern Nevada is obvious,"  he said. We contribute many, many dollars that they don't give us credit for."

[sparker]

To add another voice to the crowd, here's the chairman of the White Pine County (NV) Board of Commissioners calling for I-11 to follow US 93, not US 95:

https://elkodaily.com/news/white-pine-official-wants-interstate-to-go-through-eastern-nevada/article_652015de-99b0-5f96-8404-fc7fc3f59abf.html

(White Pine County includes Ely.)

A top-ranking route for the future Interstate 11 to connect the Las Vegas valley with Northern Nevada and beyond eclipses the eastern segment of the state and spends more taxpayer money than necessary.

That was the message that Richard Howe, chairman of the White Pine County Board of Commissioners, presented to his Elko County counterparts at their Aug. 1 meeting. He is traveling around the state to garner support of I-11 following Highway 93 rather than Highway 95 through Nevada.

... Howe also proposed that building I-11 in eastern Nevada would help mobilize a marginalized segment of the state. The rest of the state's "total disregard for eastern Nevada is obvious,"  he said. We contribute many, many dollars that they don't give us credit for."

Hate to break it to the johnny-come-lately East Nevada folks, but the US 95 die was cast when the I-11 designation was simply added to the 2005 HPC #68 corridor, which specified a connection to or near Reno.  They should have put their two cents in when the designation was done a few years back rather than trot out the "poor downtrodden forgotten region" argument this late in the game.  He's certainly not going to get much in the way of support except for folks along the US 93 (or NV 318) corridor -- and Ely certainly isn't going to provide sufficient support for this sort of activity, particularly when there's more population spread out along the US 95 corridor (Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon & environs) than found along US 93 -- even without the inclusion of the Carson City area. 

What Mr. Howe should do if he really wants his corridor (which shouldn't have any effect on Elko in any instance; why he's trying to get their support is questionable) is to cool his jets for a couple of years, and then go to his congressional delegation and ask for a new HPC along US 93 from I-15 north to I-84 (and solicit the folks from the Twin Falls area to pitch in to the proposal), with a number of "I-13" attached to it.  Of course, he'll get blowback from NDOT (the last thing they want is to have to deal with two expensive corridors).  But unless a Boise-area connector along US 95 has been formally proposed by then, it can be touted as the "corridor to Idaho", useful from southern CA and NV but not northern CA or NV. 

All that being said -- if one thinks the AADT on US 95 is a bit lacking to warrant an Interstate, that derived from US 93 or the NHS-specified NV 318 alternative would be miniscule in comparison.  I have no doubt Mr. Howe and his cohorts realize this fact is something that doesn't bode well for their preference, and are raising the "justice for the region" flag as obfuscation.  Maybe we here in CA should send Tim Draper (the author of the "3 Californias" initiative) over to commiserate with Howe and company; maybe they can convince Eastern Nevada to secede from the urban nightmare that is Western Nevada (sarcasm very intentional!).

[Plutonic Panda]

Mr. Howe could also wait for a bit and then push upgrades to US 93 corridor that are practical rather than turning it into a full blown interstate if it doesn't need it.

[SSR_317]

I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?

But then Dennis Hof would DEMAND an interchange be built to serve his Bunny Ranch brothel in Mound House.