AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north  (Read 232194 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #250 on: January 06, 2018, 02:36:48 PM »

The original I-11 feasibility study seemed to indicate that I-11 could go practically any direction northward from Vegas. There was a map image showing arrows extending northward along several corridors (US 93, US 95, plus a few others that likely made use of some existing state highways).

I remember that map.  Its message to me was, "We have no idea where I-11 should go next.  Maybe if we show it going everywhere, the people who support all possible routes will support the project."


That's probably precisely the mindset of the I-11 project backers -- give everyone a chance, and the ones with the most clout will get their corridor where they want it -- and hoping that that same clout will eventually translate into actual developmental action.   In reality, there were two feasible corridors north from LV: US 93 and US 95.  And the latter was chosen, as it functionally linked the two most populous areas of the state.  But -- also in reality -- the primary function of the US 93 corridor would be to convey traffic into Idaho; except for the Ely railroad museum (among other local lore artifacts), there's not much along that corridor.

 
This may have been more in the concept of using 93 as a freight train corridor than expanding roads to Interstate standards. (I can't quite recall where I saw this and can't locate at the moment.)


Such a freight line would likely branch off the UP main near Caliente, then head up US 93; there would be significant tunneling involved to get it up to Ely.  Once in Ely, any freight line might well follow the old Nevada Northern, once a mining-access railroad but now the path of a steam-powered tourist operation.  From Wells up to Twin Falls, ID, following US 93, is the path of the Wells UP branch abandoned in the late '60's; the last time I drove up that way the RR alignment, which closely followed the highway for most of its length, remained intact albeit overgrown.  But in any case, all the rail activity in the area is dependent upon Union Pacific activity -- they own all the active tracks (save the tourist line) in NV and southern ID; their needs would be the determining factor in whether an additional freight line up US 93 would be feasible -- and given the freight patterns of late, I would have serious doubts about the necessity of such an additional rail line. 
Logged

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 611
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:29:55 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #251 on: January 06, 2018, 09:12:39 PM »

The only available number for a Vegas-Boise corridor would be I-13, and NV wants no part of it, especially due to its bad luck connections.

Getting back to I-11, I guess swinging it to the west to reach Carson City could work, although I see more of an AR situation, where I-49 gets its own route east of Fort Smith instead of absorbing the southern half of I-540. Sure, it won't be an easy task (and then again, nothing is), but we'll see how things work out on that part, if and when they get to it.

If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!).  Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!
I do have a feeling that if there was going to be an I-13, it's signs would quickly fall victim to theft. (But then again, there's US 13, which hasn't had any signs get stolen, as far as I'm aware. So that could help...)

CA 13, even within a dense urban area and partially signed over city streets, doesn't seem to have a particularly problematic theft issue.  But then the city involved is Berkeley -- and the citizens there may be less inclined to even want to possess a highway sign than a broad cross-section of folks.  But unlike the late and lamented CA 69, the US 95 alignment between Winnemucca and any corridor's likely Idaho terminus is relatively remote; miscreants would have to drive dozens if not hundreds of miles to snag one of the potential I-13 shields.  If deployed, there might be a trailblazer or two that occasionally goes missing near the more populated Treasure Valley end of the route -- but probably not out of line with normal thefts of any numbered route's shields save 69, 420, and the like with "giggle" factor!  But I-69 -- arguably one of the numbers with the greatest theft potential -- is being extended thousands of miles, and AFAIK, no DOT along the corridor has raised this concern -- at least to the level of public discussion.  Bottom line -- I don't see a particular problem with an I-13, particularly considering its likely rural/desert environment.
Good point; there'd hardly be anyone traveling that road, and I doubt anyone would even consider taking a sign, of those few that do go that route.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #252 on: January 08, 2018, 02:02:02 PM »

At this point, any planning for an Interstate corridor (basically) following US 95 from I-80 to the Treasure Valley in Idaho would be based on projected growth of that portion of Idaho and perceived need for connectivity to other populated areas of the West; presently US 95 adequately handles the current traffic load.  If the growth trends continue or increase, there may be some movement toward such measures if only to stay ahead of inflation; nevertheless, I wouldn't expect any activity of this sort to even emerge until the 2030's at the earliest.   
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3250
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 03:35:22 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #253 on: January 08, 2018, 06:36:47 PM »

For a Reno priority route I would have I-11 go up to Tonopah (bypassing the town just to the West) and then go near/parallel to Gabbs Pole Line Road for 58 miles, unless Pole Line Road starts bending up to NV-361. I would just have I-11 keep following that diagonal line through mostly flat valley territory. It would cross NV-31 just North of the Rawhide Landing Strip, skirting a large open pit mine. I-11 could continue through the flat valley until meeting US-95 near the South boundary of the Fallon Naval Air Station. But that would mean crossing the NE corner of the Walker River Indian Reservation. Fallon could be bypassed on its SW side. I-11 wouldn't be able to join the existing US-50 alignment to Fernley and I-80 until it passed the US-50/US-50A intersection.

That's a great creative solution. The Carson City backers could still get reasonable access to I-11 by finishing the four laning of US 50 between Carson City and Fallon. (There's only about 25 miles left.) The overall distance from Las Vegas to Carson City is probably still less using your "shortcut" and US 50 than the expensive routing to get I-11 to US-395.

The corridor from Tonopah to Gabbs is pretty much a given. I see a couple options from Gabbs north to get to Fallon and the I-80/US-50 interchange. I won't speculate to keep this out of fictional territory.

I don't think the military will care about it not running by the Hawthorne Depot. If they were, they'd have built a four-lane US-95 to Fallon.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #254 on: January 08, 2018, 10:00:37 PM »

I don't think the military will care about it not running by the Hawthorne Depot. If they were, they'd have built a four-lane US-95 to Fallon.

The only concern with the military is not that a 4-lane facility serves Hawthorne; rather problems posed by running a I-11 corridor around the east side of Walker Lake, which would put it along the rail line flanking the depot on the northeast.  At this point, I don't think the Army much cares about such things; US 95 actually bisects two depot sections east of Hawthorne itself (and it's weird driving through there at night!) and has for several decades.  Besides, any particularly bulky or heavy movements requiring more than an normal flatbed or semi-truck would likely be handled by rail (the reason that branch line hasn't been pulled up so far).  So a Gabbs option almost certainly wouldn't faze the Army in any way -- and its likely a closer alignment wouldn't as well, as long as it didn't pass directly through the depot. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #255 on: January 08, 2018, 10:34:08 PM »

The military doesn't move very much tactical equipment and supplies by way of highways. Air and rail are used far more (which is a big reason why I think a bunch of the I-14 stuff to link various Southern bases is ridiculous). The most common thing the military moves by road is personnel, their families and moving trucks when they're transferring to a new duty station within the lower 48 states.

Quote from: sparker
The only concern with the military is not that a 4-lane facility serves Hawthorne; rather problems posed by running a I-11 corridor around the east side of Walker Lake, which would put it along the rail line flanking the depot on the northeast.

A route going thru Tonopah, Gabbs, the Rawhide Landing Strip and to US-95 at the South boundary of Fallon Naval Air Station would be well away from Walker Lake. Roughly 30 miles to the East behind a couple layers of mountain ranges. The road wouldn't affect the Hawthorne Facility at all.

Now if I-11 were routed into Carson City from the South, then I think a bypass of Tonopah would be necessary to cut off a big chunk of mileage. And I-11 would cannibalize US-95 thru the Hawthorne Facility. But then it would need to punch through that mountain range on the West side of Walker Lake to open a passage directly West over to the gateway to Minden, Gardnerville and Carson City.

There is no perfect way to get I-11 into the Reno-Carson City area. Any alignment is going to involve some level of compromise. Routing I-11 over US-95 the whole way from Vegas to Fallon would be its own crappy compromise. No towns would be bypassed, but the road would be a lot longer and ultimately be even more expensive to build.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #256 on: January 09, 2018, 05:36:36 AM »

Starting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore.  But if the Gabbs option ends up being selected, the optimal place for it to go once past NV 839 (old 31) is to skirt the north end of the Walker River reservation, cross US 95 south of Carson Lake, and curve it around the SW side of Fallon in order to avoid the housing area that occupies the southwest quadrant of the town and its environs.  It'd cross Alternate 50 near Hazen and terminate at I-80 a couple of miles east of Fernley; that would optimize access to both directions of I-80 -- which is about the best outcome for this corridor.

At the risk of sliding into Fictional -- if the Carson Valley wants a through interstate, something up US 395 from the greater L.A. area -- way off into the distant future -- might be their best bet (if it were even politically possible to punch a freeway through the West Walker river canyon in CA). 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #257 on: January 09, 2018, 12:37:49 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Starting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore.

US-95 gets pretty tightly squeezed next to the lake between the town of Walker Lake and Sportsman's Beach Campground a few miles North. That's the most challenging point to build a 4 lane freeway if it got built that far North. One option is using the pass West of the town of Walker Lake. Currently Cottonwood Canyon Road goes well into the mountain next to the dry creek bed. It's possible to route I-11 along that. A tunnel or two isn't out of the question to get the road to the other side of the mountains and keep it from back-tracking South to Pike Peak. Still, it would be a pretty expensive stretch of road to engineer and build. That's would make a Tonopah to Gabbs thing more attractive (bear in mind the route I have in mind would only come near those towns and bypass them).
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #258 on: January 09, 2018, 02:39:50 PM »

Quote from: sparker
Starting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore.

US-95 gets pretty tightly squeezed next to the lake between the town of Walker Lake and Sportsman's Beach Campground a few miles North. That's the most challenging point to build a 4 lane freeway if it got built that far North. One option is using the pass West of the town of Walker Lake. Currently Cottonwood Canyon Road goes well into the mountain next to the dry creek bed. It's possible to route I-11 along that. A tunnel or two isn't out of the question to get the road to the other side of the mountains and keep it from back-tracking South to Pike Peak. Still, it would be a pretty expensive stretch of road to engineer and build. That's would make a Tonopah to Gabbs thing more attractive (bear in mind the route I have in mind would only come near those towns and bypass them).

Anything through the Wassuk range and down the West Walker canyon tracing NV 208 would be a massive undertaking, requiring either tunnels or absolutely huge cuts and fills; the canyon portion would likely resemble the Pisgah River section of I-40 across the Great Smokies -- narrow, curving, and with occasional tunnels at least on the cliff-side lanes.  Reasons #1-20 inclusive why, as I said before, I'm starting to warm to the Gabbs routing (thanks for doing the GSV work to find it out!).  I wouldn't worry too much about bypassing anything along the US 95 corridor; as long as it comes near enough to Beatty or Tonopah so services can be provided and the residents have some extra work opportunities.  Fallon's doing all right itself with an active NAS and the retirement communities being built around its edges, and Hawthorne is Hawthorne, for better or worse (being in the middle of an Army ammo depot doesn't allow for much in the way of growth opportunities).   
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 962
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 08:41:16 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #259 on: March 07, 2018, 02:00:04 PM »

NDOT has some public meetings scheduled in various cities in late March (notice posted here) regarding potential alignments of I-11 from Las Vegas to I-80.

Quote
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is initiating the I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis. The goal of this Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) process is to advance the congressionally designated I-11 corridor of US 95 between Las Vegas and Interstate 80 as identified in the I-11 Intermountain West Corridor Study (2014) by considering a range of potential corridors. The result will be a smaller range of potential corridors to be analyzed under future environmental study process(es).

At the bottom of the notice, it states there will be full presentation on Facebook Live on March 29 at 2:30 Pacific time.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4948
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:02:06 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #260 on: March 07, 2018, 04:43:47 PM »

I suspect it will be a long time before US 95 between Interstate 15 and Interstate 80 becomes an extension of Interstate 11. Heck, it will probably be a long time before Arizona builds substantial portions of Interstate 11 in its state.
Logged

kwellada

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 122
  • Location: Tucson, AZ
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:00:15 PM
    • Robot Impurity Photography
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #261 on: March 10, 2018, 02:31:38 PM »


If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!).  Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!

Well, he never did win that Super Bowl...

(Though Kurt Warner did wearing #13)
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 978
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:31:22 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #262 on: March 10, 2018, 05:52:27 PM »

Starting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore.  But if the Gabbs option ends up being selected, the optimal place for it to go once past NV 839 (old 31) is to skirt the north end of the Walker River reservation, cross US 95 south of Carson Lake, and curve it around the SW side of Fallon in order to avoid the housing area that occupies the southwest quadrant of the town and its environs.  It'd cross Alternate 50 near Hazen and terminate at I-80 a couple of miles east of Fernley; that would optimize access to both directions of I-80 -- which is about the best outcome for this corridor.

At the risk of sliding into Fictional -- if the Carson Valley wants a through interstate, something up US 395 from the greater L.A. area -- way off into the distant future -- might be their best bet (if it were even politically possible to punch a freeway through the West Walker river canyon in CA).

Almost any re-routing imaginable would beat US-95. I just planned the flight from Las Vegas to Reno as 300 NM = 556 km and the road trip as 448 mi = 721 km. Now the flight takes you right across the mountain tops, but still. It has to be reasonable to cut off at least 100 of those additional 165 km! (the last 50 km are likely to be backtracking on I-80 anyway)

This disparity, in percentage terms, has to be almost as bad as San Jose to Fresno. I know that the SJC-FYI flight is less than 100 NM (180 km) because I couldn't use it as the long cross county leg for my FAA private pilots license. It's 246 km by road (not all of which is even 4-lane).

Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4870
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 07:21:57 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #263 on: March 17, 2018, 01:11:26 PM »

NDOT is holding public meetings this month about the future I-11 corridor north of Las Vegas. They're starting with Las Vegas next week, then stopping in Tonopah, Hawthorne and Fallon before wrapping up in Reno and Carson City the following week.

NDOT traveling to 6 Nevada cities to discuss need for I-11, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/13/18
Quote
The Nevada Department of Transportation is going on a road trip this month to discuss Interstate 11, with the first stop scheduled for Las Vegas.

The six-city tour is aimed at explaining the importance of building the new freeway and gathering public input on where I-11 should be routed north of Las Vegas.

“A lot of people get excited about I-11, and rightly so, because it is a game-changer for economic vitality and freight mobility and safety,”  NDOT Director Rudy Malfabon said during the agency’s board meeting on Monday.

EDIT: Added omitted word in 2nd sentence.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 01:38:55 PM by roadfro »
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4870
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 07:21:57 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #264 on: March 17, 2018, 02:16:57 PM »

Looking at NDOT's webpage for the above I-11 meeting notice, I found a flyer describing the "I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis" background and purpose.
https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=12958 (PDF)

Bonus on that document is that it has a map showing the alternatives under consideration, which I assume will be discussed in further detail at the upcoming meetings. Segment A is Las Vegas to Tonopah, and will basically follow the current alignment of US 95.

Segment B is Tonopah to I-80, and has four alternatives under consideration:
  • B1 - "Fallon Connection": A new highway alignment more directly connecting Tonopah to US 50 near Salt Wells, bypassing Fallon to the northeast, then reconnecting with US 95 to I-80
  • B2 - "Fernley East Connection": Follows US 95 (with jog on east side of Walker Lake) to south of Fallon, bypassing Fallon to the southwest, then connecting to US 50 Alt to Fernley and I-80
  • B3 - "Fernley West Connection": Follows US 95 (with jog on east side of Walker Lake) to Schurz, then following the US 95 Alt corridor (bypassing Yerington to the north) to Fernley and I-80
  • B4 - "Reno Connection": Follows US 95 (with jog on east side of Walker Lake), departs westward just north of Walker Lake through mountains on new highway (possibly old NV 2C), connects to SR 208 in Smith Valley, then follows US 395/I-580 north to I-80 in Reno

Several of these incorporate ideas previously discussed in this thread. But they are four very different corridors. I think NDOT will need to further define the ultimate goal(s) of I-11, as that would greatly impact the preferred alternative. If trying to push I-11 further north than I-80 into Oregon and beyond, B1 is best. If trying to facilitate freight travel within Nevada, B3 is best. If trying to connect Nevada's population centers, B4 is best (although possibly still a bit circuitous).
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3250
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 03:35:22 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #265 on: March 17, 2018, 03:03:45 PM »

Interesting that B1 is very similar to the Gabbs Pole Line Road option discussed earlier. That means skipping Hawthorne completely could happen. There are also options between the alternatives so that parts of different alternatives can be combined. IMO, Option e which connects the majority of B1 with the Fallon-Fernley part of B2 would satisfy most everyone except those who want the route to go through Carson City. It may also be the least expensive build. The B4 alternative is probably the most expensive (as previously discussed) and really only satisfies Carson City business interests that want to force traffic to Carson City. I wish there was an Option h connecting US 95 north of Fallon to the intersection of US 50/Alt US 50 west of Fallon, but that's slipping into Fictional territory so I won't go down that rabbit hole.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #266 on: March 17, 2018, 03:33:26 PM »

If option B1 is given serious consideration, it's likely that Reno-area interests will press for a Fallon-Fernley connecting corridor to expedite service to their area.  Interesting that B2 does make a detour around the east side of Walker Lake (following the RR rather than the cliffside US 95); that would likely decrease construction costs considerably.  B2 vs. B3 will be an interesting discussion: the existing commercial center of the east-of-Reno area (Fallon) or the growing retirement areas around Yerington and Silver Springs.  That just might come down to property acquisition costs, particularly between Fallon and Fernley south of US 50 and/or Alternate 50.  And unless Carson Valley interests can conjure up the additional $$ that B4 would require -- and whine loud enough to get their way -- IMO that alternative will be the first to be discarded.  If I were a betting man, my money would be on B2 (unless B1 is modified to go to Fernley rather than up US 95 north of Fallon). 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #267 on: March 20, 2018, 12:29:31 AM »

The B1 option would only be good for a long term option to multiplex I-11 with I-80 up to Winnemucca and then follow US-95 North up to the Boise area.

I would prefer to see I-11 go more along the lines of the B4 alternative into Carson City and Reno (consuming I-580 in the process). However, I don't really like the route path all that much. Forcing the route through Tonopah takes it way out of the way. That town could be bypassed and cut a big chunk of mileage off the route. I understand the politics of including Tonopah in that route, but what's the bigger priority? Tonopah or the Reno-Carson City metro? I think the latter priority would place a much larger premium on building a more direct route rather than something even more curvy than I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky. If they were willing to build a mountain pass route directly West of Walker Lake they could cut off another significant chunk of mileage. The project would be an expensive engineering feat, but that version of I-11 would be far more useful for more Nevada residents and long distance traffic using the I-11 corridor.

If connecting Tonopah is really that much of a priority then it would make variations of the B1 alternative more attractive. Although I would prefer the B1 option to diverge at Salt Wells and then head over to meet I-80 at Fernley. At least that would point I-11 in the direction of Reno. Ultimately I-11 could multiplex with I-80 to Reno and then be extended farther North via US-395 and then maybe to Medford, OR and the I-5 corridor.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4870
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 07:21:57 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #268 on: March 20, 2018, 03:49:34 AM »

I would prefer to see I-11 go more along the lines of the B4 alternative into Carson City and Reno (consuming I-580 in the process). However, I don't really like the route path all that much. Forcing the route through Tonopah takes it way out of the way. That town could be bypassed and cut a big chunk of mileage off the route. I understand the politics of including Tonopah in that route, but what's the bigger priority? Tonopah or the Reno-Carson City metro? I think the latter priority would place a much larger premium on building a more direct route rather than something even more curvy than I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky. If they were willing to build a mountain pass route directly West of Walker Lake they could cut off another significant chunk of mileage. The project would be an expensive engineering feat, but that version of I-11 would be far more useful for more Nevada residents and long distance traffic using the I-11 corridor.

If connecting Tonopah is really that much of a priority then it would make variations of the B1 alternative more attractive. Although I would prefer the B1 option to diverge at Salt Wells and then head over to meet I-80 at Fernley. At least that would point I-11 in the direction of Reno. Ultimately I-11 could multiplex with I-80 to Reno and then be extended farther North via US-395 and then maybe to Medford, OR and the I-5 corridor.

This goes back to needing to define the desired purpose. That seriously affects how you consider the alternatives.

I do think it is (somewhat) important for this route to serve Tonopah, no matter what happens north of there. Tonopah is the only "major" population center and services (food, gas, lodging) in that part of the state. Bypass that, and you have a ~200 mile gap in services between Beatty and Hawthorne (probably closer to 230 if B1 is chosen to bypass Hawthorne).

There is not a viable location to build a route directly west from Walker Lake, other than the point where old NV 2C comes in just north of the lake. That's the narrowest part of that mountain range, and is a natural valley--anything else would require significant cuts or more significant tunneling that makes things infeasible.

A very rough approximation of alternative B4 (using existing roads) from downtown Reno to Tonopah versus the existing route of US 95/50/50A via Fallon is that the B4 route is about 10-15 miles longer. So long-distance traffic between Reno and Vegas is likely better served by one of the other alternatives. But again, things go back to what is the long-distance travel pattern that is expected/desired to be served?
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 498
  • Think critically

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:20:52 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #269 on: March 20, 2018, 12:13:42 PM »

I do think it is (somewhat) important for this route to serve Tonopah, no matter what happens north of there. Tonopah is the only "major" population center and services (food, gas, lodging) in that part of the state. Bypass that, and you have a ~200 mile gap in services between Beatty and Hawthorne (probably closer to 230 if B1 is chosen to bypass Hawthorne).

I just disagree with this. I-11 can serve Tonopah even if it only gets as close as Goldfield and Coaldale Junction. Services will open in Goldfield, shifting some of the economic benefit — but let's be honest, an interstate bypass of Tonopah isn't going to be a boon to any tourism economy in Tonopah. Tonopah's going to have to attract people on its own merits no matter what the alignment is, because people who are just passing through for gas are going to stop & go.

If you can cut 25-or-so miles off the drive, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me to make that investment in construction, maintenance and carbon generation to serve a town of 2,400 people.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #270 on: March 20, 2018, 12:17:56 PM »

I would prefer to see I-11 go more along the lines of the B4 alternative into Carson City and Reno (consuming I-580 in the process). However, I don't really like the route path all that much. Forcing the route through Tonopah takes it way out of the way. That town could be bypassed and cut a big chunk of mileage off the route. I understand the politics of including Tonopah in that route, but what's the bigger priority? Tonopah or the Reno-Carson City metro? I think the latter priority would place a much larger premium on building a more direct route rather than something even more curvy than I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky. If they were willing to build a mountain pass route directly West of Walker Lake they could cut off another significant chunk of mileage. The project would be an expensive engineering feat, but that version of I-11 would be far more useful for more Nevada residents and long distance traffic using the I-11 corridor.

If connecting Tonopah is really that much of a priority then it would make variations of the B1 alternative more attractive. Although I would prefer the B1 option to diverge at Salt Wells and then head over to meet I-80 at Fernley. At least that would point I-11 in the direction of Reno. Ultimately I-11 could multiplex with I-80 to Reno and then be extended farther North via US-395 and then maybe to Medford, OR and the I-5 corridor.

This goes back to needing to define the desired purpose. That seriously affects how you consider the alternatives.

I do think it is (somewhat) important for this route to serve Tonopah, no matter what happens north of there. Tonopah is the only "major" population center and services (food, gas, lodging) in that part of the state. Bypass that, and you have a ~200 mile gap in services between Beatty and Hawthorne (probably closer to 230 if B1 is chosen to bypass Hawthorne).

There is not a viable location to build a route directly west from Walker Lake, other than the point where old NV 2C comes in just north of the lake. That's the narrowest part of that mountain range, and is a natural valley--anything else would require significant cuts or more significant tunneling that makes things infeasible.

A very rough approximation of alternative B4 (using existing roads) from downtown Reno to Tonopah versus the existing route of US 95/50/50A via Fallon is that the B4 route is about 10-15 miles longer. So long-distance traffic between Reno and Vegas is likely better served by one of the other alternatives. But again, things go back to what is the long-distance travel pattern that is expected/desired to be served?

Unfortunately for those who are trying to get a more definitive handle on this corridor, the legislated definition (via the HPC 68 amendment) merely states I-80 as the northern terminus zone.  That was likely deliberate and derived from the Nevada congressional delegation to "kick the can down the road", so to speak, regarding the final selection.  With that in mind, it's likely that the four "B" options presented won't be the final iterations of the routing choices, as two of the four (B1 & B4) represent two vastly contradictory purposes:  Boise vs. the US 395 corridor.  B2 & B3 are simply choices that won't please anyone in particular but also don't fully disadvantage anyone either (save the residents of Carson Valley and points south). 

IMO something will be cobbled together out of the first three options (given that B1 represents an efficient Tonopah-Fallon routing that avoids Walker Lake altogether) -- but I'll also take an educated guess that Reno interests will prevail even if a Fallon-area server is selected; if there's enough clamoring for a route aiming toward Idaho, it'll be tacked on as a spur (unless B3 is selected, in which case the NE bend of I-80 at Fernley would probably be sufficient to address both Boise and Reno destinations).  Carson Valley folks may just have to wait until someone down the line plans an additional corridor up US 395 from SoCal.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #271 on: March 20, 2018, 01:48:27 PM »

I favor B4 since it does the best job of connecting the places with actual population.  If NV wants to do a cheaper routing, I could live with B2 or B3.  B1 IMO doesn't even bother to pay lip service to the stated objective of connecting Vegas and Reno in favor of an Idaho connection that is pure Fictional Highways (as is anything else north of I-80).

Going through the middle of nowhere just to save a bend around Tonopah is idiotic.  Tonopah may only have a couple thousand people, but in that part of the country, that's the big city.  It's also not that big of a bend for the distance traveled, and serving Tonopah also puts I-11 on easier terrain.  Compare to the bend to go around Boulder City, or I-87 in North Carolina.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1480
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: April 02, 2022, 10:41:13 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #272 on: March 20, 2018, 02:55:07 PM »

I know why they want it going through Fernley, ease of future connection north and all that, but I think they should take B3 up 439 (US Parkway).  Keeps it 20 miles closer to Reno.

B4, judging from the terrain, almost looks like a no-go to me, even though it's probably the best routing they can get through the mountains there.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #273 on: March 20, 2018, 04:10:20 PM »

I say B3.  B4 would be painfully expensive, vulnerable to closure in the winter storms, and more expensive in fuel.  B3 is pretty close to as as fast, while not nearly as expensive to build.  B2 would also require more expensive construction with not much payback, and B1 even more so.  If there was going to be heavy traffic up to Idaho, one could argue for B1, or B2 with the f option, and making a spur to Fernley.  But I'm not sure Idaho traffic justify it.  (I remain unconvinced that any extension north of Las Vegas is justified, frankly.)

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #274 on: March 20, 2018, 04:15:19 PM »

I know why they want it going through Fernley, ease of future connection north and all that, but I think they should take B3 up 439 (US Parkway).  Keeps it 20 miles closer to Reno.

B4, judging from the terrain, almost looks like a no-go to me, even though it's probably the best routing they can get through the mountains there.

When it comes to B4, it's not just getting through the Wassuk range west of Walker Lake; it's also negotiating the canyon along NV 208; I've driven that one a few times, and it's narrow with steep canyon walls.  Between the mountain pass (which is essentially new-terrain, as the old NV 2C was little more than a couple of tire tracks) and the canyon, expect per-mile construction cost 3-4X what any of the other "B" options would be (and that's not including acquiring relatively prime properties for the segment through Minden and Gardnerville).  If anything will sink B4, it'll be the raw cost. 
Logged

 


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