Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bobby5280]

There is a pretty easy explanation for why traffic counts are minimal on US-95 going Northwest out of Las Vegas: the route absolutely sucks ass as any sort of long distance travel route. It sucks for every reason a highway could suck. Between Vegas and Reno the route has as indirect a route as it gets. It's only 2 lanes and thru very desolate territory, making it great for road hypnosis and potential head-on collisions -or at least potentially running out of fuel. North of Reno, going into Northern California and Southern Oregon isn't much better. I can't imagine anyone driving trucks or other commercial vehicles using that current corridor as a "short cut" or alternative to I-5.

Most of the existing Interstates that cross parts of the Western US go through desolate territory almost devoid of population. But those routes eventually go to big destinations. Being able to drive fast/efficient from Seattle to Phoenix shouldn't be all that different than Seattle to Minneapolis.

[Max Rockatansky]

Or more simply, the amount of freight traffic that will US 95 is already there and isn’t likely to increase significantly with improvements.  You want us all to consider your assumption that a fictional highway to points north of Reno will be some huge thing.  Problem is that’s a huge assumption that doesn’t have a significant study back it and this isn’t a fictional board. 

It might do you well to research the traffic counts roads like US 395 and CA 139/OR 39 north of Reno.  Those corridors aren’t per se lacking the ability to facilitate freight traffic and yet don’t meet the demand of bringing back 1956 era legislation to improve to full limited access. 

[Bobby5280]

There would be one fairly big incentive for long haul traffic from the Pacific Northwest heading South to bypass California if such a thing was actually possible at all: California has by far the highest gasoline prices in the contiguous 48 states. That's on top of all the other negative aspects involved with driving thru California.

It might do you well to research the traffic counts roads like US 395 and CA 139/OR 39 north of Reno.

Those numbers might not mean much since the vehicle counts would likely consist of local traffic by an overwhelming margin. A small percentage of it would be long distance traffic. Any semi trucks on those routes are going to be driving to specific locations in that immediate region. A truck heading from Portland to Phoenix would just stay on I-5 until reaching Southern California, then taking either I-40 or I-10 to enter Arizona

[Max Rockatansky]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

[mgk920]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

To Portland, OR by way of Bend , OR?   

Mike

[Max Rockatansky]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

To Portland, OR by way of Bend , OR?   

Mike

By default I would assume Bend and US 97 is part of the conceptual corridor being envisioned here. 

[cl94]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".

[Henry]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".

Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.

[cl94]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".

Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.

That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.

[Max Rockatansky]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".

Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.

That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.

Sure, it would be great if absolute NIMBY resistance in states like Oregon wasn’t a thing.  Trouble is that is the current reality with Oregon does have that NIMBY factor and it isn’t likely to change anytime soon.  So again I ask everyone, why are we speculating on I-11 north of Reno when the corridor has never been explored and basically has no chance of happening? 

[kkt]

There is a pretty easy explanation for why traffic counts are minimal on US-95 going Northwest out of Las Vegas: the route absolutely sucks ass as any sort of long distance travel route. It sucks for every reason a highway could suck. Between Vegas and Reno the route has as indirect a route as it gets. It's only 2 lanes and thru very desolate territory, making it great for road hypnosis and potential head-on collisions -or at least potentially running out of fuel. North of Reno, going into Northern California and Southern Oregon isn't much better. I can't imagine anyone driving trucks or other commercial vehicles using that current corridor as a "short cut" or alternative to I-5.

Most of the existing Interstates that cross parts of the Western US go through desolate territory almost devoid of population. But those routes eventually go to big destinations. Being able to drive fast/efficient from Seattle to Phoenix shouldn't be all that different than Seattle to Minneapolis.

Oh, it does not suck for every possible reason a highway could suck.  How about counting our blessings?

- US 95 has 12 foot lanes and similar weigh limits and height limits as interstates.  There's no barrier to big rigs.

- the route from Las Vegas to Reno is not absolutely straight, due to topography.  Even if Nevada wanted to go to the expense of building a route dead straight over pretty high mountain ranges, they'd get no thanks for doing so when in the winter traffic was forced up into the ice and snow zone instead of going around the tall mountains like a sensible road.

- 2 lanes is ample for the amount of traffic it gets.

- Road hypnosis is actually less on 2-lane roads than on freeways.

- Lack of gas stations results from lack of traffic, and building a freeway where few people want to drive is not going to make more gas stations open.

There's precious little need for I-11 at all, and none for I-11 north of Las Vegas.

[Scott5114]

The thing that gives me pause about the "there's no need for I-11 north of Vegas" drumbeating is where NDOT asked for the northern terminus to be.

- They could have left it where it is now, at I-215. This is sort of stupid because the mainline becomes I-515.
- They could have extended it to I-15. This would have been reasonable, essentially folding I-515 into I-11.
- They could have extended it to CC-215 on the north side. This makes some degree of sense, as it's applying an Interstate designation to an existing freeway. (And CC-215 will be I-215 at some point.)
- What they actually asked for (and got), which is to extend it past CC-215 to a stub end out in the desert north of town. That makes absolutely no sense unless you think there's a chance you'll want to extend it to Northern Nevada somewhere.

So are we thinking we know better than NDOT here? I mean, yeah, DOTs do dumb stuff all the time, but spending as much money as this sucker is going to take isn't something that would be done without a whole lot of people checking the numbers to make sure it makes sense. So what is it they know in Carson City that we don't?

[cl94]

Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle?  If not (and I don’t think I’ve missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?

There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".

Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.

That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.

Sure, it would be great if absolute NIMBY resistance in states like Oregon wasn’t a thing.  Trouble is that is the current reality with Oregon does have that NIMBY factor and it isn’t likely to change anytime soon.  So again I ask everyone, why are we speculating on I-11 north of Reno when the corridor has never been explored and basically has no chance of happening?

Oh, it does not suck for every possible reason a highway could suck.  How about counting our blessings?

- US 95 has 12 foot lanes and similar weigh limits and height limits as interstates.  There's no barrier to big rigs.

- the route from Las Vegas to Reno is not absolutely straight, due to topography.  Even if Nevada wanted to go to the expense of building a route dead straight over pretty high mountain ranges, they'd get no thanks for doing so when in the winter traffic was forced up into the ice and snow zone instead of going around the tall mountains like a sensible road.

- 2 lanes is ample for the amount of traffic it gets.

- Road hypnosis is actually less on 2-lane roads than on freeways.

- Lack of gas stations results from lack of traffic, and building a freeway where few people want to drive is not going to make more gas stations open.

There's precious little need for I-11 at all, and none for I-11 north of Las Vegas.

Everything here. Even without the NIMBY factor it comes down to "is this really needed?" The answer to that is a resounding "no" given how dead that part of the country is.

For those who haven't been to the region: most of Nevada is either high mountains or desert. Eastern Oregon is mostly high mountains or desert. There isn't enough water to create the type of development that a freeway may induce. As it is, 95 has a couple places high enough to get snow. Those mountains 95 goes around all get snowed on for half of the year. Tunneling under them would not only be insanely expensive just because long tunnels, but also due to seismic and volcanic concerns. Those mountains are all active uplift zones and western NV has several volcanic basins, at least one of which is right along one of the preferred routes.

The thing that gives me pause about the "there's no need for I-11 north of Vegas" drumbeating is where NDOT asked for the northern terminus to be.

- They could have left it where it is now, at I-215. This is sort of stupid because the mainline becomes I-515.
- They could have extended it to I-15. This would have been reasonable, essentially folding I-515 into I-11.
- They could have extended it to CC-215 on the north side. This makes some degree of sense, as it's applying an Interstate designation to an existing freeway.
- What they actually asked for (and got), which is to extend it past CC-215 to a stub end out in the desert north of town. That makes absolutely no sense unless you think there's a chance you'll want to extend it to Northern Nevada somewhere.

So are we thinking we know better than NDOT here? I mean, yeah, DOTs do dumb stuff all the time, but spending as much money as this sucker is going to take isn't something that would be done without a whole lot of people checking the numbers to make sure it makes sense. So what is it they know in Carson City that we don't?

It ends where it does because that's where the I-grade freeway ends. There is a Congressionally-designated corridor north of there, but I say with a decent degree of confidence that NDOT isn't yet putting money beyond what is required by the feds toward I-11 north of there. Everything they have done so far north of Vegas is the bare minimum required by Congress and the end being where it is provides a "so you say there's a chance".

(personal opinion emphasized)

[splashflash]

I thought I-11 north of Las Vegas had to do with Nevada getting something from the feds for using Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage.  It had looked like that was a possibility a decade ago, so NDoT had a route chosen and costing done, but had no illusion Nevada would be paying for it.  If Yucca Mountain waste storage were to happen, then I-11 would be built between the two casino resort cities, among other things.  Or so that is what I thought was the case.

[brad2971]

I think the reasoning for building on the east side of the lake is that north of Hawthorne US 95 is built on a cliff for a fairly long stretch.  You couldn't even widen the road to four lanes without blasting into the mountain or having to move the road off the cliff to build bridges in portions.

The fairly long stretch you speak of is a 1.7 mile segment of US-95 just South of Sportsmans Beach. The segment is short enough that a couple options are available for adding a second set of lanes on the lake side of the existing US-95 lanes. Land could be built up or they could even build a short bridge.

My own opinion is they should just bypass Walker Lake completely and build a direct route from Tonopah to Schurz (or rather a junction with US-95 to the North of Schurz). Then it would follow alongside the existing rail path to Alt US-95, then follow Alt US-95 up to near Silver Springs where it would aim at the junction with NV-439 and US-50.

I still think the option (someone brought up a while back) of the Gabbs Pole Line Road alignment makes the most sense overall.

If Gabbs Pole Line Road and CR-89 are the same thing then it would be I who made the suggestion earlier. But rather than hang right on NV-361 to go thru Gabbs and up to Middlegate I would rather this I-11 concept cut across a bunch of empty land between the CR-89/NV-361 junction and Schurz.

The only problem with this direct Tonopah-Schurz idea is the route would cut thru the Walker River Reservation. There's no telling how receptive or not tribe leaders would be to this idea. An Interstate could dramatically boost economic activity on otherwise desolate land that probably isn't attracting any visitors or new business. But some tribes don't mind letting prime real estate just sit empty. For example there is a good bit of "trust land" here in Lawton that falls into that category.

There has to be something approaching a current logistical reason for I-11 to be built from Reno-Las Vegas.

IMHO, the only way an I-11 route going NW of Las Vegas makes any sense is if I-11 was intended to be built as a much larger corridor. Vegas to Reno alone wouldn't cut it. If I-11 went farther North to connect with I-5 somewhere in Oregon the corridor could have a far more valuable purpose. It would serve as a relief valve for I-5, allowing traffic from the Pacific Northwest to head toward the Mexico border without having to deal with going thru the busy/expensive parts of California.

If the feds are going to end up funding large portions of all this construction (whether by earmark or USDOT), the easier, cheaper, and more logistically sensible option, instead of I-11 from Vegas-Reno, would be to fund the remaining freeway connection of SR 58 (or I-40!) from the Westside Parkway to I-5 in Kern County. While I-5 in the Central Valley can be a hazard on weekends and during times of Tule Fog, the routing of I-5 through there is not that busy or expensive.

Furthermore, I-5 also conveniently connects with California's ports, which are more important for intermodal shipping than any port in the Pacific Northwest. People need to get off this notion that road-bypassing California (whether freight or passenger) is some social and cultural good.

[Max Rockatansky]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available. 

[brad2971]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available. 

I know that. I'm just needling some folks who want that extension even though Bakersfield (much less Caltrans) doesn't want that extended designation. Still though, my point stands about the cost-effectiveness of completing that SR 58 extension to I-5, as opposed to I-11 between Vegas and Reno.

[sprjus4]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.

I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.

[Max Rockatansky]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.

I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.

I caught he meant I-5.  I don’t think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5. 

[cl94]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.

I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.

I caught he meant I-5.  I don’t think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.

What, you don't think they can force a freeway across the Temblor and La Panza Ranges?

[Max Rockatansky]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.

I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.

I caught he meant I-5.  I don’t think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.

What, you don't think they can force a freeway across the Temblor and La Panza Ranges?

Only if Pozo Road (old CA 178) and the La Panza town site get a dedicated exit.

[skluth]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.

I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.

I caught he meant I-5.  I don’t think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.

I've seen several proposals in Fictional that do run I-40 to the ocean. It's not just Fritzowl. Some here consider CA 58 a de facto I-40 extension even though it's not in Caltrans plans to do so. This thread from last August was moved to Fictional when the first "realistic" proposal was to eventually run I-40 to US 101 which would be "wonderful" in the poster's eyes.

[Max Rockatansky]

Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from?  The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.

I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.

I caught he meant I-5.  I don’t think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.

I've seen several proposals in Fictional that do run I-40 to the ocean. It's not just Fritzowl. Some here consider CA 58 a de facto I-40 extension even though it's not in Caltrans plans to do so. This thread from last August was moved to Fictional when the first "realistic" proposal was to eventually run I-40 to US 101 which would be "wonderful" in the poster's eyes.

Irony with that thread is that CA 239 might actually end up being a thing that happens. 

What is weird to me is how did this whole CA 58/I-40 thing start?  I saw it pop up on Facebook road groups firsts followed by an un-referenced citation on Wikipedia.  Is it really just as simple as the minds eye looking at something on paper that seems to fit an obvious pattern?  To an extent I think we might be seeing something similar with I-11 beyond the scope it has actually has been studied.  I think that I even referenced this whole phenomenon in the Road Mandela Effects thread.

[US 89]

People have been talking about it since the days of yore (MTR).

[ClassicHasClass]

Only if Pozo Road (old CA 178) and the La Panza town site get a dedicated exit.

Truck stop at Simmler!