Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[LM117]

If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).

I agree.

[sparker]

If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).

I agree.

If you're going to build a complete bypass loop around a city or metro area, it is best -- for simple navigation purposes alone --  that it carries one consistent number; in this instance, I-215 is more than adequate in its present configuration (presuming the I-designation will eventually supplant County 215 when the presently planned 3/4-loop is finished) and would also be if the eastern quadrant is planned & built.  I-11 may as well stay on US 95 through the metro area; through traffic that wants to use the south and west part of I-215 as a bypass will do so absent additional  I-11 signage on the loop. 

[Henry]

If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).

I agree.

If you're going to build a complete bypass loop around a city or metro area, it is best -- for simple navigation purposes alone --  that it carries one consistent number; in this instance, I-215 is more than adequate in its present configuration (presuming the I-designation will eventually supplant County 215 when the presently planned 3/4-loop is finished) and would also be if the eastern quadrant is planned & built.  I-11 may as well stay on US 95 through the metro area; through traffic that wants to use the south and west part of I-215 as a bypass will do so absent additional  I-11 signage on the loop. 

For that reason, I also say take I-11 through Vegas instead of around it. That would be the most logical thing to do!

[coatimundi]

I would still maintain that route numbers don't really matter. 90% of drivers from outside the region are going to go where the little voice from their phone tells them to go, and that voice's ideas are dictated by distance and traffic volumes. Google seems to have few qualms about going through interchanges (provided they built a direct connector from 215 E to 11 N at the northern end), but it seems that 215 would add at least 11 miles, so the traffic would have to be pretty bad for it to actually be quicker.

Back when the route for I-69 was being chosen for Houston, there were proposals that put it on I-610, instead of through Downtown on US 59. The problem was that I-610 was, at that time (and I think even now), in much worse shape than was US 59 through the city, so I think that partially led to the final choice of heading through the city.
There was a recent thread about bypasses that are not really bypasses. I don't know if I-215 was listed, but it potentially could have been. Seems to me that it's mostly a freeway serving some outlying suburban areas.

[dfwmapper]

Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.

[michravera]

It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.

Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit

LA and San Jose are not connected by an interstate. They are sort of connected by a single route number, but only one that takes a pronounced turn of approximately 90 degrees.

[roadfro]

Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.

It might not be modern Interstate standards for shoulder width, but I'm fairly certain it meets at least AASHTO minimum shoulder widths for freeway settings along most of that stretch (and, honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, if any). Most of that has been reconstructed/widened (again) within the last 5-10 years and sits on plenty of ROW, so there's no good reason why it wouldn't meet minimums.

Keep in mind that the most recent widening was designed before I-11 was officially designated. Even if the I-11 concept was in discussion when the last widening was being designed, that original I-11 concept was Phoenix-to-Vegas only–talks of northward extension only really gained traction after the number was signed into law.

[Bobby5280]

I think it would be easier to justify upgrading US-101 between the L.A. area and San Jose fully to Interstate standards than building a Las Vegas to Reno Interstate link. That's even with some of the fairly sharp turns along the way, like the one at Gaviota State Park.

Most of US-101 along that way is limited access. Dozens of entrance/exit ramps and many shoulders would have to be upgraded to bring it up to Interstate standards. And there is dozens of drive ways and at-grade intersections along the route. An Interstate upgrade of US-101 would be far more expensive to do than extending I-40 to Bakersfield. The traffic is there to justify it though.

Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.

It's just ridiculous between Tonopah and Carson City or Reno. There's at least 2 really big mountain ranges standing in the way of a reasonably direct path between those cities.

The existing highways in Nevada and Eastern California have to go way around all these different mountain ranges, adding many miles and hours to the drive. A new Interstate would need to have a more direct route, but that would involve going through 2 or more of those mountain ranges. Tunnels would be necessary to keep the grade at or below 6%. Other countries (Japan, China) don't seem to have so much of a problem building new tunnels. The United States has no ability to build tunnels without completely destroying the budget. It's all about the price gouging here.

[kkt]

There's certainly not enough traffic to justify tunneling.  The benefit to making an interstate out of the existing US routes is pretty marginal anyway.  It would be a slight safety improvement, and follow US 95 from Las Vegas to Fallon to I-80 near the Fallon Rest Area, with a 3di from Fallon to I-80 at Fernley.  Minimal mountains, no tunneling, relatively low elevation route that would stay open year around without needing to be plowed.

But I bet there are other investments in safety that would have a bigger payoff for the money.

[coatimundi]

Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.

Nevada is funny in that the majority of the center of the state is federal land, so building new highways on new ROW would encounter less public resistance when compared to other states. US 95 follows a deliberately flat path to avoid mountains, just for the sake of path of least resistance in terms of terrain. I don't think an interstate routing would move that far from the US 95 path, simply because it's easier to upgrade much of the existing ROW rather than create a new routing, and it would be prudent to utilize the existing limited services available in the towns on that corridor.
I would be interested to see how the routing happened if it were decided that I-11 should connect to I-580, instead of following the current path of Vegas-Reno traffic: west at Fallon to I-80. There's no good, existing path between US 95 and US 395, and a new path would, conversely, meet with a lot of resistance. Going to Fallon with the route seems like the better choice.

[sparker]

Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.

Nevada is funny in that the majority of the center of the state is federal land, so building new highways on new ROW would encounter less public resistance when compared to other states. US 95 follows a deliberately flat path to avoid mountains, just for the sake of path of least resistance in terms of terrain. I don't think an interstate routing would move that far from the US 95 path, simply because it's easier to upgrade much of the existing ROW rather than create a new routing, and it would be prudent to utilize the existing limited services available in the towns on that corridor.
I would be interested to see how the routing happened if it were decided that I-11 should connect to I-580, instead of following the current path of Vegas-Reno traffic: west at Fallon to I-80. There's no good, existing path between US 95 and US 395, and a new path would, conversely, meet with a lot of resistance. Going to Fallon with the route seems like the better choice.

It's likely that an I-11 alignment more or less via Fallon and intersecting I-80 near Fernley would be the most likely (as well as the topographic path of least resistance).  There aren't a lot of major obstacles between Tonopah and Fallon to a freeway facility along US 95 -- the main one, Walker Lake, can be obviated by running the Interstate around the east side of the lake following the railroad.  Also, a Fernley intersecting point would be relatively "neutral" in regards to the trajectory of any further northward extension (Boise or Oregon), while remaining somewhat near Reno, the population center of the region.

[coatimundi]

I would also guess that the towns along US 95, that currently receive all of that cross-state traffic, would be pretty upset if I-11 went a different way. Fallon seems to be pretty heavily reliant on the traffic.

[sparker]

I would also guess that the towns along US 95, that currently receive all of that cross-state traffic, would be pretty upset if I-11 went a different way. Fallon seems to be pretty heavily reliant on the traffic.

Actually, Fallon has found favor as a retirement community due to its relatively low cost of living; it also is partially supported by the nearby Fallon NAS.  Traveler services don't comprise much of the immediate area's economy.

[kkt]

If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain.  The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway.  The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.

[michravera]

If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain.  The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway.  The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.

Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.

[sparker]

If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain.  The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway.  The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.

Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.

I can just see the brothel billboards alongside the freeway:  "Stop in and see us.....what else have you got to do on I-11?"

[roadfro]

If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain.  The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway.  The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.

Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.

I can just see the brothel billboards alongside the freeway:  "Stop in and see us.....what else have you got to do on I-11?"

Actually, there are no brothels currently operating in or around Tonopah. I don't think there has been any near Tonopah along US 95 in the last 15-ish years, as I've never seen any (I've driven Vegas-to-Reno or vice versa at least once a year since 2001).

[coatimundi]

If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain.  The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway.  The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.

Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.

I can just see the brothel billboards alongside the freeway:  "Stop in and see us.....what else have you got to do on I-11?"

Actually, there are no brothels currently operating in or around Tonopah. I don't think there has been any near Tonopah along US 95 in the last 15-ish years, as I've never seen any (I've driven Vegas-to-Reno or vice versa at least once a year since 2001).

I was going to say, the last time I drove this over Thanksgiving, the brothel I remembered around (read: within 15 miles of) Beatty was gone. They usually push them well out of town. Even the Chicken Ranch is on the edge of Pahrump.

[Bobby5280]

I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.

[kkt]

I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.

I suspect the young ladies work there because they don't feel they have any alternatives, not because it's such an attractive job.

[Bobby5280]

I didn't intend to suggest that was an "attractive" line of work. But for red-light district type work, there's a lot of it in far more populated cities. Prostitution may not be legalized. But I think there is a far larger customer base looking for regular topless bar thrills in cities. A stripper's pay per stage dance or lap dance isn't nearly as high as a brothel transaction, but the cash flow might actually be better. I can't imagine there is a great deal of "bunny ranch" customers willing to drive up US-95 to some very remote spot in Nevada. I would think a brothel in a remote area would struggle pretty badly to stay in business.

[jwolfer]

I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.

They may not live there.. I would suspect that many of the " working girls" have other gigs as research scientists... Just kidding.

Most proably work in Las Vegas as strippers or escorts most of the week with a night or 2 a week in the country

LGMS428

[dfwmapper]

Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.

It might not be modern Interstate standards for shoulder width, but I'm fairly certain it meets at least AASHTO minimum shoulder widths for freeway settings along most of that stretch (and, honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, if any). Most of that has been reconstructed/widened (again) within the last 5-10 years and sits on plenty of ROW, so there's no good reason why it wouldn't meet minimums.

Keep in mind that the most recent widening was designed before I-11 was officially designated. Even if the I-11 concept was in discussion when the last widening was being designed, that original I-11 concept was Phoenix-to-Vegas only–talks of northward extension only really gained traction after the number was signed into law.

IIRC current Interstate standards require 10 foot inside shoulders if there are 3 or more lanes in each direction, and 10 foot outside shoulders always. A lot of the shoulders look like they're only about 8', and some of the underpasses have no shoulder at all. It's fine in its current condition for what it is, but getting approval for that blue sign beyond Vegas (which is what that discussion was about) might be tough, at least without demolishing a bunch of bridges.

I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.

As I understand it from some reading on the subject, they typically aren't allowed to leave during their shifts, which can be up to 3 weeks long. Part of the whole public health aspect of legalized brothels is that they are required to get medical testing (including an STD test) before each shift, and if they could just leave and do anything with anyone it would undermine that. And as for jwolfer's comment, the whole point of doing it legally is to do it legally. Stripping, sure, or serving cocktails, waiting tables, dealing blackjack, going to class at UNLV to become a research scientist, whatever, but not working as an escort.

[abqtraveler]

I think it would be easier to justify upgrading US-101 between the L.A. area and San Jose fully to Interstate standards than building a Las Vegas to Reno Interstate link. That's even with some of the fairly sharp turns along the way, like the one at Gaviota State Park.

Most of US-101 along that way is limited access. Dozens of entrance/exit ramps and many shoulders would have to be upgraded to bring it up to Interstate standards. And there is dozens of drive ways and at-grade intersections along the route. An Interstate upgrade of US-101 would be far more expensive to do than extending I-40 to Bakersfield. The traffic is there to justify it though.

Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.

It's just ridiculous between Tonopah and Carson City or Reno. There's at least 2 really big mountain ranges standing in the way of a reasonably direct path between those cities.

The existing highways in Nevada and Eastern California have to go way around all these different mountain ranges, adding many miles and hours to the drive. A new Interstate would need to have a more direct route, but that would involve going through 2 or more of those mountain ranges. Tunnels would be necessary to keep the grade at or below 6%. Other countries (Japan, China) don't seem to have so much of a problem building new tunnels. The United States has no ability to build tunnels without completely destroying the budget. It's all about the price gouging here.

True, but nearly all of the freeways in Japan and China are tolled (quite expensively), so with toll revenues being shared across all of each country's freeway network, not just the roads from which the tolls are collected.  That's why both countries can afford big highway building binges with expensive tunnels through areas that would not otherwise be buildable.

[Bobby5280]

As I understand it from some reading on the subject, they typically aren't allowed to leave during their shifts, which can be up to 3 weeks long. Part of the whole public health aspect of legalized brothels is that they are required to get medical testing (including an STD test) before each shift, and if they could just leave and do anything with anyone it would undermine that. And as for jwolfer's comment, the whole point of doing it legally is to do it legally. Stripping, sure, or serving cocktails, waiting tables, dealing blackjack, going to class at UNLV to become a research scientist, whatever, but not working as an escort.

The comparison I was drawing was total money making potential between legal activites in either place. Yes, a prostitute working in a legal brothel way out in the middle of nowhere could potentially make a lot of money. But that depends totally on a steady supply of customers will to pay for those services. A really remote location might reduce the amount of customer traffic down to where the worker's cash flow is less than what she would make stripping legally at topless bar in a city.

True, but nearly all of the freeways in Japan and China are tolled (quite expensively), so with toll revenues being shared across all of each country's freeway network, not just the roads from which the tolls are collected.  That's why both countries can afford big highway building binges with expensive tunnels through areas that would not otherwise be buildable.

I think there's more to it than that. Both China and Japan do put tolls on most of their super highways and I imagine the current prices are not cheap. I lived in Japan when I was a kid, but can't remember what some of the toll prices were back then. It has been over 30 years. There has to be a balance with toll prices. If they're too expensive not enough vehicles will use the road to help it pay for itself.

The United States has let its road building costs rise out of control while not allowing its infrastructure funding mechanisms to either rise and account for that price inflation or do something to limit the price inflation. It's expensive as hell to build anything in Japan since land prices are so high. For what ever reason China can build roads, bridges and tunnels at a mere fraction of what it costs in the United States. I think some of those reasons are likely inhumane. The Chinese government can quickly force a new transportation project in any direction it likes, no matter what villages get bulldozed in the process.

It would be nice if the United States could find some sort of happy medium, like new advancements in highway building techniques and technology that bring about cost savings rather than balloon the project costs even worse.