Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[kkt]

And if Donner Pass is bad, then Siskiyou Pass probably is too.  If the weather is rotten and you have to head from Phoenix to Seattle, your best bet is US 93 to Twin Falls, I-84 to Portland, I-5 to Seattle.  But even in winter there's a pretty good chance of getting through those passes without any problem.

[sparker]

In spite of its failings, I-10 to I-5 is generally the preferred long-haul truck and trailer route from the Southwest to the Northwest, especially in the winter, simply because it avoids a lot of the problematic mountainous terrain. This is why most on this board seem to understand the importance of completing the SR 58 segment west of Barstow to I-5: Tehachapi Pass is annoying, but it's got nothing on Donner, so its viability as an alternative to the LA routing becomes all the more important if you think about that sort of inter-regional traffic.

And I don't know that bringing I-11 to I-80 would necessarily bring any of that traffic away. Not solely due to Donner, but also the routings involved in getting back to I-5. I-80 into Sacramento is a pretty big detour. The shortest route is SR 20, but that's in no condition to be used as a regional thoroughfare. Everything north of that closes regularly in the winter and has some serious mountainous terrain.

I understand the "if you build it, they will come" thinking in general on interstates (that's part of how I-69 is justified), but I don't think it applies here. The only way it would apply is if they could get it up to I-5, and I just don't see that happening. Ever.

That said, I think this sort of thing lends credence to the idea of routing I-11 to Boise instead of to Reno. That would provide a good cut-off where surface highways, I-15, I-5, or a combination of one or more are used for this travel pattern now.

And if Donner Pass is bad, then Siskiyou Pass probably is too.  If the weather is rotten and you have to head from Phoenix to Seattle, your best bet is US 93 to Twin Falls, I-84 to Portland, I-5 to Seattle.  But even in winter there's a pretty good chance of getting through those passes without any problem.

Actually, Siskiyou Pass is about 2900 feet below Donner Pass and along an east-west ridge rather than a north-south; while it does see quite a bit of snow in winter (there's a ski resort near the summit!), that snow tends to melt off quicker than at the higher altitudes -- and the storms tend to drop less snow at 4300 feet than at 7200, so recovery times are quicker -- and those storms that come Siskiyou's way tend to skip along the ridge rather than dwell over it, dumping precipitation all the while (they're usually following the Klamath valley to the south or the upper branches of the Rogue to the north).  It certainly doesn't have the closure history of Donner.

Since the subject of I-11 as a "relief route" for I-5 has been breached, an alternative that hasn't been explored in depth for a north-of-Reno routing is a more or less direct route to I-5 rather than any destination east of the Cascades.  A real relief route isn't necessarily a parallel route to the entire facility; it's intended to address the chokepoints along the original route.  To this end I'm suggesting an alignment extending north of Reno following US 395 to CA 36 east of Susanville, then CA 36 west to CA 44, CA 44 northwest to CA 89, and CA 89 north and west to I-5 at Mt. Shasta.  This route mostly uses a "saddle" across the mountains; it's functionally along the dividing line between the Cascades and the Sierra -- and has the added advantage of posing the least difficult crossing of the mountains, requiring some enlargement of the CA 44 segment over the Old Station escarpment (most of the rest of that route is already a 2-lane "California expressway" alignment and one of the later deployed routes in that area [ca. 1962-63]).  The sole major structure on the route would be a bridge over the Pit River near Burney Falls.  Most of the remainder of the route is either through forested area or in "high desert" southeast of Susanville (which itself will require a bypass facility). 

So what happens to Eastern Oregon?  It could, eventually, be addressed independently by a facility following US 97 from I-5 at Weed northward to wherever regional plans deem appropriate.  Most of the I-11 traffic would have its origins or destinations somewhere along the I-5 corridor in any case; the same would apply to an Interstate corridor along US 97 except in a reverse direction.  I'd venture a guess that compared to that traffic, there would be relatively little flowing from inland Oregon to Reno or Las Vegas; such traffic could use the short section of I-5 around Mt. Shasta to segue from one inland corridor to the other.  Also -- Boise-related traffic would be addressed by another independent corridor from Winnemucca north to somewhere around Nampa, ID.     

Please excuse the interregional and/or slightly fictional nature of this post in this thread -- but the viability of any I-11 extension is germane to this particular discussion -- and, IMO, positioning it as a real relief route rather than just a potential line through sparsely populated territory is an appropriate subject here.

[nexus73]

Some folks know how to use webcams to find out conditions in the passes.  Here's the ODOT website that does a great job of covering the state.  Take a look at Siskiyou Summit and see how clear it is!  Then click on any of the Cascade passes and you're looking at ground central for a snowcone factory...LOL!

YMMV depending on date/time.

Rick

[kkt]

This is getting to be fictional territory, but:  If what's wanted was a reliever for I-5, wouldn't the obvious way be upgrading CA 99 to interstate standards (whether the number was changed or not)?  Combine that with the upgrades to CA 70 to Yuba City that have already been done and you've have a good bypass route.  For that matter, most of I-5 in the Central Valley has enough right of way to be six lanes. 

Upgrading US 97 could help too.  I wouldn't seriously recommend interstate status, but 4 lanes divided from Weed to Madras would be a help.

Beckwourth Pass (CA 70) is another low-elevation pass. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?

[coatimundi]

To this end I'm suggesting an alignment extending north of Reno following US 395 to CA 36 east of Susanville, then CA 36 west to CA 44, CA 44 northwest to CA 89, and CA 89 north and west to I-5 at Mt. Shasta.  This route mostly uses a "saddle" across the mountains; it's functionally along the dividing line between the Cascades and the Sierra -- and has the added advantage of posing the least difficult crossing of the mountains, requiring some enlargement of the CA 44 segment over the Old Station escarpment

So we're making the leap from fictional - where I-11 gets north of I-80 - to fantastical? 44 to 89? Plow through Lassen NF and right through the backyard of Lassen Volcanic NP? It's hard enough to build new roads in the state, anything like this would require a near-catastrophic event, or I-5 through the Sacramento Valley becoming a parking lot.
And, really, why does the interstate have to get dumped into CA? Is there that much Vegas-Redding traffic out there that I'm just not that aware of?
Dumping more traffic onto I-5 in Oregon is not the solution. If you build something on the east side of the Cascades, it needs to continue north until it reaches an existing east-west interstate. Susanville - Bend - Madras - The Dalles - Yakima? I think that's more likely to happen than anything crossing the mountains into Jefferson.

However, I do think 395 will eventually be expressway-ed up to Susanville. It just won't carry an interstate designation.

[sparker]

So we're making the leap from fictional - where I-11 gets north of I-80 - to fantastical? 44 to 89? Plow through Lassen NF and right through the backyard of Lassen Volcanic NP? It's hard enough to build new roads in the state, anything like this would require a near-catastrophic event, or I-5 through the Sacramento Valley becoming a parking lot.
And, really, why does the interstate have to get dumped into CA? Is there that much Vegas-Redding traffic out there that I'm just not that aware of?
Dumping more traffic onto I-5 in Oregon is not the solution. If you build something on the east side of the Cascades, it needs to continue north until it reaches an existing east-west interstate. Susanville - Bend - Madras - The Dalles - Yakima? I think that's more likely to happen than anything crossing the mountains into Jefferson.

However, I do think 395 will eventually be expressway-ed up to Susanville. It just won't carry an interstate designation.

I figured I'd get some flack about this concept -- but it's actually based on several interlocking realities.  The first is the need to address the points of origin of traffic that would be likely to utilize the I-11 corridor.  Three such points in the Northwest come to mind -- the Puget Sound extended metro area, the Portland/Willamette Valley area in Oregon, and Southern Oregon, where much of the remaining NW lumber business is situated -- operating mills are still primarily located along I-5 from Ashland north to Eugene, with Roseburg being the most active wood processing center.  The second reality is ODOT and its relationship to current Oregon policy matters.  Constructing an Interstate-grade facility across the Cascades is a non-starter in the state; not only does ODOT frown upon new freeway construction in general, but to do so in the old-growth forests of the west Cascade slope would be not only costly but politically infeasible.  Also, none of the available cross-range pathways (US 26, US20 and/or OR 22, OR 58) would feature simple construction -- US 26 has exurban development and/or popular recreation areas from Gresham east to Wapinitia Pass while the other two routes feature extensive side-of-canyon alignments that would require route features likely to enrage the state's potent environmental community.  The singular exception to the bias against freeways is sited east of the Cascades as a concession to the more conservative nature of that area; this is manifested with the Bend parkway (despite its shortcomings as a full limited-access facility) and the US 97 freeway in the Sunriver area.  The only viable freeway corridor within the state follows US 97.  But the problem with a I-11 extension along that route as far south as Klamath Falls is that it's way, way out of the way for traffic to and from Portland and environs if the only practical all-freeway routing heads due east from Portland along I-84 before turning south at The Dalles or Biggs.  While that portends well for a possible Interstate corridor along US 97, it correspondingly does little to address traffic originating at Portland or points to the south along I-5.   

The third "reality", so to speak, is the fact that the corridor I cited across northern CA is already in use as one of the main thoroughfares for traffic from the I-5 corridor to Reno & environs.  I've used this routing myself, in both directions, at least a dozen times since the late 1980's, and have observed not only substantial truck traffic -- a large portion of which are lumber trucks which, according to the mill logos painted on the side of the loads, originated in Roseburg or Medford -- and were destined for either Reno or other points east of the Sierras.  There were also substantial empties headed in the opposite direction as well.  This was interspersed with a good deal of interregional recreational traffic (in fact, I was rear-ended heading southbound at the 89/299 junction back in '87 by an older gentleman heading to Reno on a gambling junket who -- believe it or not -- thought that the rumble strips prior to the stop sign at the intersection were meant to slow down his 1979 Cadillac -- the CHP officer who took the accident report was trying his best not to break out in laughter!).  But the gist of this is that the combined routing is not only regularly used as an interregional corridor, but is signed as such at the 5/89 interchange at Mt. Shasta City (SB auxiliary signage listing Susanville & Reno as exit destinations).  From my observations, this is a viable corridor to consider.

Redding isn't even in the mix here; the 5/89 junction is some 55 miles north of that city.  And yes, I'm even a bit reluctant to utilize I-5 in southern Oregon to potentially handle even more traffic than at present considering its physical configuration and challenges.  But unless there's a drastic change of policy direction within the Oregon transportation establishment, getting traffic from anywhere along the I-5 corridor over to Reno will likely have to occur in another jurisdiction.  If a Reno-Klamath-US97 routing were eventually to be developed, I'll concede that it may attract traffic to and from Portland and points to the north -- but certainly not from any points south of there. 

All that having been said, I certainly wouldn't complain -- or be surprised -- if I-11 were to be redirected up through Winnemucca to the Boise area.     

[roadfro]

Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?

I can't really speak to I-5, but that I-15 segment desperately needs to be widened. NDOT has widened it's share of I-15 to at least three lanes south of Vegas but that third lane drops at Primm (the state line) which is the start of significant backups when all the SoCal traffic heads back after holiday weekends.

[DTComposer]

Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?

I can't really speak to I-5, but that I-15 segment desperately needs to be widened. NDOT has widened it's share of I-15 to at least three lanes south of Vegas but that third lane drops at Primm (the state line) which is the start of significant backups when all the SoCal traffic heads back after holiday weekends.

From my time in L.A., having made about 15 trips to Vegas, was that traffic on I-15 was horrific during the weekend rush (Fridays/Sundays/holidays), but free and clear at other times (accidents and weather notwithstanding).

On the other hand, I-5 has issues almost constantly, regardless of day of the week.

[Quillz]

It's kind of a shame that I-15 was built directly over US-91. That stretch from Barstow to Vegas might have been a good example of where maintaining a parallel US highway (not necessarily a frontage road, however) might have been useful. If nothing else, at least could provide a decent backup when the 15 is crowded.

[coatimundi]

I figured I'd get some flack about this concept -- but it's actually based on several interlocking realities.

No, no problem. Feel free to totally ignore my point about the issues of pooping out an interstate next to a national park... 

My bringing up an Oregon routing was to illustrate how ridiculous the California routing would be, from my perspective. There would have to be a significant policy shift on the part of one stakeholder group. Here, it's not Caltrans but, rather, the fact that Caltrans listens to the local population, and that local population would never let a new highway push through, failing something totally catastrophic.

I'm stating it for the benefit of others because I know you already realize this, but it's exceedingly difficult to make any determination on logging areas with respect to where the trees are going and when and if it's going to be logged. Even on NFS land. This is by design to try and protect against environmental activism and sabotage. That said, seeing a truck with a Rogue River Valley logo means as much as seeing a semi-trailer with an Indiana plate. It doesn't necessarily tell you where it's going or where it came from. Boise Cascade has a large presence in that area as they do in most of Northern California, and as they do in Mississppi, and Georgia, and Louisiana, etc.
I went up to that region a couple of years ago on a rare clear and mild (it was still f'in cold, but there wasn't much snow) February, and there was very little traffic. When those roads close, they close hard, and you have what I call a Yellowstone effect, where everyone mobs in for the few months that the recreational opportunities are available. Year-round tourism does not seem to exist up there. Anything going over the Sierras there, in terms of a major highway, is going to be another burden on the state. Donner is extremely tough to keep open at this time of year, and no one wants another Donner.

It's kind of a shame that I-15 was built directly over US-91. That stretch from Barstow to Vegas might have been a good example of where maintaining a parallel US highway (not necessarily a frontage road, however) might have been useful. If nothing else, at least could provide a decent backup when the 15 is crowded.

You know, I think this is a good point. There was definitely a lack of foresight in the design of the original interstate system, where original surface routings were bypassed for the sake of cost and convenience while, in reality, it would have been advantageous to keep most of them in tact for the purpose of emergency detour routings. There is a thread on the Mountain West forum where ADOT is proposing an emergency reversible lane on I-17 north of Phoenix, because the hordes of Phoenicians can't seem to take a curve on their way to Flag and constantly cause wrecks. Instead of building what looks to be a really ridiculous configuration, the original highway could have potentially been retained, and the need wouldn't necessarily exist.

That said, Angelenos all seem to go to and from Vegas all at the same times. Fly (you guys have five airports with flights to Vegas), don't bitch about the traffic, or don't go. If you drive I-15 on a Wednesday afternoon, it's no worse than I-40. And, of course, I-40 is a totally acceptable alternate routing to I-15 between Barstow and Vegas. But you would never know it with the contrast in traffic between the two roads on Fridays.

[sparker]

Pooping out an interstate?  If only it were that easy.   Somehow, I don't think there would be all that much locally-sourced opposition to placing an Interstate along the route I outlined.  This part of CA is among the "reddest" zones in what is, in terms of population aggregate, a blue state.  Susanville, the largest town en route, provided the highest Republican percentage of any incorporated city in CA.  Every county along the route posted similar if not quite as robust results.  If any area of CA would welcome a project that would promise (at least for the construction period) additional jobs plus the potential for commercial ventures, it would be this one.  You might get some squawking from a few Bay Area transplants in the Lake Almanor area (more than a few of those on the Almanor peninsula), but objections are more likely to emanate from the usual objectors who tend to denigrate road projects in general and Interstate projects in particular.  And the observation that Caltrans tends to listen to the locals is correct -- but we're not on the coast here -- we're in the inland NE pine forests.

No, it wouldn't be the locals who'd object -- it'd be Caltrans itself not wanting to take on a major new project.  It would take a massive level of political pressure -- from regional legislators and business groups from the area -- to get such a project going.  And then there's the prospect of getting the folks behind the legislated extension of I-11 as far as Reno on board regarding a CA terminus of their baby!  There's still stars in the eyes of some planners regarding pushing on into eastern Oregon (Bend, Burns, or bust!).  But if any of that takes place, the corridor will likely pass near the Susanville/Johnstonville area (I don't see Burning Man territory being on the radar!).  Most speculation to date that I've seen cites the corridor extending up CA 139/OR 39 to Klamath Falls, with an alternative up 395 to Alturas before heading west and NW.  Continuing up 395 through Lakeview and shunting over OR 31 is a possibility as well, but one that really is geared toward long-distance traffic only without serving any significant population centers along the way.  It does, however, keep the proposed facility east of the Cascades, where to all but the most vehement OR objectors I-11 would be largely "out of sight, out of mind" -- and hitting I-84 either at The Dalles or Biggs.  What my alternative to Mt. Shasta does is keep the corridor relatively short and on the path of least developmental cost of any alternative heading north from Reno.  Here's an exercise:  find a map of western U.S. and lay a ruler or straight-edge along a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas -- and continue that trajectory northwest.  It crosses I-80 just east of Reno, and intersects I-5 near Weed, a few miles north of Mt. Shasta.  The concept here is to position I-11 as a western counterpart to I-85 or I-81 (this being the more sparse West, one such facility is sufficient), shunting traffic intended for the inland SW US away from I-5 (and out of L.A.!), while serving Reno and Las Vegas along the way. 

But I don't think either my concept nor one accessing Eastern Oregon will fly in the foreseeable future; a link to Boise remains more likely.  We'll just have to see where influence & pressure will be applied north of I-80. 

[coatimundi]

While Susanville and the majority of Lassen County is quite red, politically, there's also a significant prison employee population. That population tends to lean red, but the population is also traditionally transient. So there's stats that would make it look like the highway-loving climate of Texas or Oklahoma but, from what I've learned in the area, the "true locals" (not the prison guards) are very much into the preservation of their rural lifestyle, specifically availability of hunting, which is already a bit of a problem in the state. Routing an interstate through Lassen NF would be seen as opening up the region, and I don't believe most people there would want that, nor would they be willing to sacrifice the open landscape for any potential economic boom. People, from my experience, are very status quo-oriented up there.
It's somewhat similar here: Monterey County tends to vote a bit more red than many of the other coastal counties in the state, but we still have very much an anti-road crowd that is easily mobilized. I chalk this up to the military presence locally, who also tend to vote more Republican but do not necessarily get involved in local affairs because they don't stick around more than a year or two, typically. Meanwhile, those focused on environmentalism are a much more entrenched population.

While I-85 is a totally different roadway due to its connection of major cities (mainly Atlanta and Charlotte), I-81 is a bit of a similar case study. However, with I-81, it's clearly a bypass of I-95, which goes through the heart of the major cities on the Eastern Seaboard, while I-5 specifically avoids the entire Bay Area and all of the Central Valley cities, making it essentially a bypass of the former north-south US highways. A new corridor is not what's needed for I-5 relief, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. Since, past LA, it doesn't really go through any major cities besides Sac and Stockton, simply widening it wouldn't have the same futility as, say, widening I-95, as the urban areas and their exits on that road are too close together for an extra lane, alone, to be of tremendous benefit. Conversely, in Oregon, you have one north-south road directly serving the major population centers.
My point here is that there would be no benefit in dumping I-11 traffic into California. For long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.

[Bobby5280]

Here's an exercise:  find a map of western U.S. and lay a ruler or straight-edge along a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas -- and continue that trajectory northwest.  It crosses I-80 just east of Reno, and intersects I-5 near Weed, a few miles north of Mt. Shasta.

There are no existing routes between I-5 and US-395 over the Cascades in Northern California that are friendly to truck traffic. Regarding Mount Shasta, there are no possible highway corridors that lead from that area and Weed, CA down to the Southeast toward Reno.

A route following CA-89 around the South side of Mount Shasta would have to make hard turns at CA-299 and CA-139 to avoid Lassen Peak. Lots of miles would be added to the route. If this was an alternative it would be more simple to just go from Susanville, CA over to Red Bluff CA. Even that route would go over some difficult, weather prone terrain.

US-97 from Weed to US-395 and points Southeast would make even less sense. I-11 would have to go North quite a ways until it could either take a new terrain path through mountains to get to CA-139 and turn South. Or the road would go clear into Oregon before turning South.

I think it would be easier and cheaper to just make I-11 follow US-395 up to Susanville. That stretch would be relatively easy to upgrade since it's going through a lot of wide open valleys. From Susanville, build near the CA-139/OR-139 corridors up to Klamath Falls, OR. Sierra Army Depot, Amedee Army Air Field and Honey Lake force US-395 on a very out of the way C-shaped path. If I-11 stayed with US-395 through here it would have to go to North to Alturas before taking a hard turn left to Canby and Klamath Falls. From Klamath Falls, push the highway West to either Ashland or White City along one of those exiting highway corridors through the mountains. It's either that or send I-11 North along US-97 to Bend before pushing over the mountains to Corvallis or Salem.

For long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.

I think most of the traffic headed Northwest into that region is going to the Portland and Seattle areas, not bypassing them. I don't think The Dalles and Yakima are big enough to make I-11 completely avoid I-5. I think I-11 in the very long term would be dove-tailed into I-5 in Southern Oregon. I-81 connects some interior Appalachian cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, Binghamton, Syracuse)

[sparker]

Here's an exercise:  find a map of western U.S. and lay a ruler or straight-edge along a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas -- and continue that trajectory northwest.  It crosses I-80 just east of Reno, and intersects I-5 near Weed, a few miles north of Mt. Shasta.

There are no existing routes between I-5 and US-395 over the Cascades in Northern California that are friendly to truck traffic. Regarding Mount Shasta, there are no possible highway corridors that lead from that area and Weed, CA down to the Southeast toward Reno.

A route following CA-89 around the South side of Mount Shasta would have to make hard turns at CA-299 and CA-139 to avoid Lassen Peak. Lots of miles would be added to the route. If this was an alternative it would be more simple to just go from Susanville, CA over to Red Bluff CA. Even that route would go over some difficult, weather prone terrain.

US-97 from Weed to US-395 and points Southeast would make even less sense. I-11 would have to go North quite a ways until it could either take a new terrain path through mountains to get to CA-139 and turn South. Or the road would go clear into Oregon before turning South.

I think it would be easier and cheaper to just make I-11 follow US-395 up to Susanville. That stretch would be relatively easy to upgrade since it's going through a lot of wide open valleys. From Susanville, build near the CA-139/OR-139 corridors up to Klamath Falls, OR. Sierra Army Depot, Amedee Army Air Field and Honey Lake force US-395 on a very out of the way C-shaped path. If I-11 stayed with US-395 through here it would have to go to North to Alturas before taking a hard turn left to Canby and Klamath Falls. From Klamath Falls, push the highway West to either Ashland or White City along one of those exiting highway corridors through the mountains. It's either than or send I-11 North along US-97 to Bend before pushing over the mountains to Corvallis or Salem.

For long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.

I think most of the traffic headed Northwest into that region is going to the Portland and Seattle areas, not bypassing them. I don't think The Dalles and Yakima are big enough to make I-11 completely avoid I-5. I think I-11 in the very long term would be dove-tailed into I-5 in Southern Oregon. I-81 connects some interior Appalachian cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, Binghamton, Syracuse)

The CA 89/CA 44 combination features plenty of truck traffic, largely dominated by finished lumber shipments out of southern Oregon heading toward Reno and/or Vegas.  It's also the "cutoff of choice" for recreational traffic from the more populated NW areas toward Reno and Tahoe.  The eastern section of CA 44 is a fast route with the typical characteristics of a CA 2-lane expressway.  And there's no real reason to give Lassen Peak a wider berth than the 89/44 routing presently does; the corridor hardly impinges on the park, skirting it well to the north. 

The principal reason I came up with this routing -- besides having driven it several times -- was to avoid coming to loggerheads with ODOT regarding some sort of cross-Cascade routing, which would almost definitely be a non-starter with them -- particularly in regards to the old-growth forests on the east side of the Willamette watershed.  As I've iterated earlier, they tend to be more accommodating of road development east of the Cascades but decline to accept the same west of the ridgeline.  But maybe Bobby's on to something here -- ODOT had no problem plowing the OR 140 corridor across the lower Cascades in the late '70's -- and in my own experience it's a relatively benign route, topography-wise.  Perhaps a I-11 corridor could utilize the oft-proposed CA 139 (& OR 39, of course) alignment from Susanville to Klamath Falls and simply head west to I-5 along the OR 140 corridor, merging with I-5 just north of Medford.  A US 97-based corridor could then be considered separately as need or political will dictates. 

Such a corridor would be at a lesser altitude than the 44/89 "Shasta" corridor I outlined (about 5200' maximum elevation vs. 6300' along CA 44 east of CA 89), and would serve the Klamath Falls area, with its active lumber industry as well as the site of Oregon Tech.  IF ODOT doesn't get a bug up their ass about such a corridor, it would certainly pose a viable alternative -- and peeling Nevada-bound traffic off I-5 prior to Siskiyou Pass supplies an additional dividend.  Good eye, Bobby -- you caught a potential routing I never considered in an area I've scrounged around extensively -- and one that might not make the picky folks at ODOT throw a shit-fit!   

[coatimundi]

For long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.

I think most of the traffic headed Northwest into that region is going to the Portland and Seattle areas, not bypassing them. I don't think The Dalles and Yakima are big enough to make I-11 completely avoid I-5. I think I-11 in the very long term would be dove-tailed into I-5 in Southern Oregon. I-81 connects some interior Appalachian cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, Binghamton, Syracuse)

The idea there was something similar to I-5 in CA, or even I-81, where the principal cities are directly avoided and other routes are used to connect, similar to how I-580 connects I-5. In this case, I-84 would be used to reach Portland and I-82 to reach Seattle. Both those routes are well below capacity outside of Portland for I-84 and Yakima for I-82.
And maybe someone out there in the country still gives a shit about "CANAMEX Corridors." Maybe not in this region, but surely somewhere. That's how I-69 was sold.

[Bobby5280]

I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.

Regional super highway bypasses can be a good thing. But they all must end up going somewhere significant otherwise they're a waste of money to build.

Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.

I think the national effort on I-69 is a joke. The route is so needlessly crooked for one thing. The even bigger joke is it's largely an unfunded mandate dumped off on individual states. If I-69 was really so important for national interests why isn't the federal government ponying up the 90%/10% ratio of funding like it did for the original Interstate highway system? I think most of us will be long dead before roads like I-69 or even I-11 are substantially completed under the current, very broken funding model.

[Rothman]

New I-69 is funded at 80/20?  Weird.  I would have thought it was being funded with NHPP under the 90/10 exceptions.

[coatimundi]

I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.

Right: "other routes are used to connect." 66 for DC, 76 for Philly, 78 for NYC, 88 for Albany, Boston and Montreal.
AFAIK, I-81 was planned as a continuous segment, not built to I-78 and then added on to Syracuse and Canada as an afterthought.

Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane.

Okanogan Valley. I-11 would make my cherries and apples cheaper. It's a little absurd what we pay for cherries here, even when they're in season.

I don't believe I-69 will ever be totally finished. It was left up to individual states too much, and too many people don't care about it (mainly Louisiana). Similarly, even if I-11 were proposed to the Canadian border, I don't believe that it would ever be built. I just point it out as a way to sell it. Selling something that could be proactive in terms of relief on an existing corridor is too difficult. People just can't think that way.

[NE2]

The CA 89/CA 44 combination features plenty of truck traffic, largely dominated by finished lumber shipments out of southern Oregon heading toward Reno and/or Vegas.  It's also the "cutoff of choice" for recreational traffic from the more populated NW areas toward Reno and Tahoe.  The eastern section of CA 44 is a fast route with the typical characteristics of a CA 2-lane expressway.  And there's no real reason to give Lassen Peak a wider berth than the 89/44 routing presently does; the corridor hardly impinges on the park, skirting it well to the north. 

This is part of the reason SR 44 was built east of Lassen in the 1960s: http://archive.org/stream/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich#page/n37/mode/2up

[stwoodbury]

I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.

Regional super highway bypasses can be a good thing. But they all must end up going somewhere significant otherwise they're a waste of money to build.

Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.

I think the national effort on I-69 is a joke. The route is so needlessly crooked for one thing. The even bigger joke is it's largely an unfunded mandate dumped off on individual states. If I-69 was really so important for national interests why isn't the federal government ponying up the 90%/10% ratio of funding like it did for the original Interstate highway system? I think most of us will be long dead before roads like I-69 or even I-11 are substantially completed under the current, very broken funding model.

I've always had a sense of a corridor along US 97 from I-5 at Weed through KFalls and Bend along 97 and then shifting over to 395 at the Tri-Cities (Pasco-Richland-Kennewick) towards Spokane, then up 95 through Coeurd d'Alene into BC and Alberta towards Calgary and Edmonton, basically connecting the Bay Area and Sacramento to Spokane, Calgary, and Edmonton.(I-15 is more oriented towards Southern California, so is not useful here).  US 95 in North Idaho carries a fair amount of truck traffic from Alberta, although maybe not enough to justify an interstate. That being said Idaho has upgraded the route north of Coeur d'Alene including ten miles of freeway near Silverwood and Arthol and a two lane bypass around Sandpoint. Also 395 is four lanelargely limited access with a 70 mph speed limit  from Pasco, WA  to I-90 at Ritzville. If I-11 connected Phoenix to Vegas and perhaps Reno in a northwestern heading, and managed to work its way through NE California, then it could bow to the northeast again to absorb this corridor. Also it would briefly join 84 at The Dalles, which would provide a convenient connection to Portland and Seattle (which could also use 97, 82, and 90 over Snoqualmie)..

[kkt]

Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.

Yes, this.

The destinations in Canada would be Calgary, Edmonton, and the Alberta oil industry.  The oil coming out will probably go by pipeline, but some equipment and supplies will go by truck.  The Mexico and US to the Canadian midwest is served by I-15, pointed at Calgary and Edmonton.

The other destination is Vancouver, and I-5 points to it.

We really don't need an interstate pointed towards Penticton.

Okanogan Valley. I-11 would make my cherries and apples cheaper. It's a little absurd what we pay for cherries here, even when they're in season.

Cherries are expensive mainly because of high demand in Japan.  If you want them to be cheaper, maybe expanding air freight from Yakima to Japan would help more than an interstate to Reno.

[inkyatari]

I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.

[roadfro]

I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.

No problem in studying it now, whether there ends up being a justification for building it north of Vegas or not. An EIS study can be updated later if conditions significantly change.

Sometimes having the study done way in advance helps so that the project can proceed once the money is ready and the demand is met. The Hoover Dam Bypass and Boulder City Bypass projects were somewhat like this. Studies were done in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but construction didn't get going until this decade (partially due to the recession), and the projects already had approvals once finding was identified.

[sparker]

I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.

No problem in studying it now, whether there ends up being a justification for building it north of Vegas or not. An EIS study can be updated later if conditions significantly change.

Sometimes having the study done way in advance helps so that the project can proceed once the money is ready and the demand is met. The Hoover Dam Bypass and Boulder City Bypass projects were somewhat like this. Studies were done in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but construction didn't get going until this decade (partially due to the recession), and the projects already had approvals once finding was identified.

Regardless of what happens north of I-80, I still think that the best use of any funding that becomes available courtesy of HPC 68 be directed toward projects such as 4-lane access-controlled expressway bypasses of the more sizeable towns along US 95 (Beatty, Tonopah/Goldfield, Hawthorne, Fallon) that can for the time being stand on their own as SIU's but can, if & when I-11 plans become reality, be upgraded to serve as parts of that facility.