I-80 Reroute in Wyoming

[skluth]

If you've got 11 minutes, here's a WYDOT video from about 5 years ago that'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Wyoming's high winds and their effect on highways.

Around the 2:00 mark, it mentions the wind criteria WYDOT uses to prompt advisories and closures. At about 3:30-4:00, there's a map that shows all the major locations of high winds and a slide covering the most common blow-over locations, most of which being in the area discussed about a reroute. Later on, it mentions some of the winter maintenance concerns related to winds.

Thanks for the video. This helped me understand the issue much better especially the types of wind being discussed.

I also looked at the terrain in Google Earth and there are a few other things that affect the weather. I-80 tends to run about 200 meters (~650 ft) higher than US 30 the entire length of the corridor. The air will tend to be a 2-3°F warmer along US 30, especially if you're dealing with the adiabatic heating associated with the downhill side of Chinook winds. I noticed around Arlington (one of the main blow-over locations on I-80) there's a pass to the southwest which funnels the wind down the mile-wide valley through Arlington; the valley widens considerably to the northeast and by the time it hits US 30 and Rock River the valley is several miles wide which will significantly reduce the wind tunnel effect. The other I-80 location mentioned in the video has a similar, though less extreme, valley widening.

I hope this helps why posters have stated there is a perceptible difference in wind between the two highways.

[andy3175]

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/02/17/bill-sniffin-an-alternate-i-80-could-save-national-economy-1-million-a-day-if-road-stays-open/

Did you know that when Interstate 80 is closed for weather, that US 30 next door is automatically closed, too?

This is to prevent the 8,000 semi-trailer trucks a day from storming that more narrow, more local highway as an alternate route. The resulting crush of giant rigs would be a disaster.

Those frequent closures create a national financial disaster when goods are no longer moving to their destinations. 

Del McOmie Jr. pointed out this fact out when he was asked about the creation of an alternate Interstate 80 highway that would follow the current US 30 road through Hanna, Medicine Bow, Rock River, and Bosler, enroute to Laramie.

McOmie knows all about Interstate 80 or as it is nicknamed Snow Chi Mihn Trail. He worked for Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) for almost 36 years. He also was chief engineer for 15 years. He knows these roads.

So why not build an Interstate 80 alternate route on the current route of US30? It would be good news for national economy.

In an excellent article in Cowboy State Daily by Wendy Corr, the current director of WYDOT, Luke Reiner, thoughtfully suggested the federal government consider spending $6 billion by re-routing Interstate to the US 30 route.

Reiner said the agency has made a unique proposal to the federal government — rerouting I-80 to avoid the part of the interstate that closes most often.

"If you look at a map, you'll see that the old highway, Highway 30, goes further to the north, and then sort of comes down from the north into I-80,"  Reiner said. "Rumor has it that when they went to build I-80, that the initial route followed the route of Highway 30. And somebody made the decision, "˜No, we're going to move closer to these very beautiful mountains,' to which the locals said, "˜Bad idea,' based on weather. And it has proved to be true."

Reiner said if the interstate could be shifted to the north, many weather-related closures could be avoided.

"Our suggestion to the federal government is to say, "˜If you want to do something for the nation's commerce along I-80, reroute it. Follow Highway 30 – it's about 100 miles of new interstate, the estimated cost would be about $6 billion,'"  he said. "So, it's not cheap, but our estimate is that it would dramatically reduce the number of days the interstate's closed, because that's the section that kills us."

When it came to the topic for this article, my idea to McOmie was not to move the designated road, but rather build an alternate route with a different number like Interstate 280 or Interstate 680?

McOmie agrees with Reiner as far as using US 30 in concerned. He said he thought building an alternate route would cost less than $6 billion, maybe as little as $3 billion, if you followed the old US30 roadway.

But the exciting part of this proposal, McOmie said, is that if there was a viable alternative route for all those trucks, the effect on the national economy would be very positive. He thinks based on all the lost revenue caused by closed Interstate 80, it could more than justify building a second Interstate Highway north of the current route.

McOmie said to get a different designation requires national action.  AASHTO, the American Association of State Transportation Officials, has to make that designation. "You have to have the right designation to get it approved,"  McOmie said. This is to maintain continuity with the rest of the highways across the country.

McOmie says Interstate 80 is a heavy truck route. It is often very busy. It is one of the busiest truck routes in the USA, he said. It moves a lot of goods from the three biggest ports on the west coast.

From a purely capacity standpoint, the number of vehicles is not extremely high compared to metro areas. However, it feels congested, due in a large part, to the number of trucks. "When we talk about highway capacity, there is a term called "˜side friction,' where one truck equals nine cars,"  he says.  So those 8,000 trucks equates to what 72,000 vehicles would feel like.

It always feels worse on Interstate 80 because of the up and down grades, the constant unpredictable weather, the high winds, the large volumes of trucks versus cars, and the constant starting and stopping, McOmie said. "And then you have some trucks going 65 mph and others going 80."  

Reiner said that essentially, I-80 all the way across Wyoming is a mountain pass.

"I mean, it's 6,200 feet,"  he said. "And so that brings its own trouble, and then of course the drastic wind events, the high wind events and blowing snow that we have in Arlington, around Elk Mountain, really caused a lot of trouble."

According to staff at WYDOT, in February of 2021, I-80 was closed to commercial truck traffic almost 12 percent of the daytime hours that month; in December of 2021, the highway was closed to commercial traffic almost 16 percent of the month due to inclement weather.

"(I-80) is closed more to high profile light vehicles then it is closed to all traffic,"  Reiner said. "And that's an important distinction, because we cannot control the wind events."

Beyond the impact on Wyoming traffic, Reiner pointed out that closures on this particular stretch of interstate affect the whole country.

"That wind event negatively affects the economy of our nation, because it stops the trucks,"  he said. "I-80 is a route of national commerce. And when we shut it down, we're all just very aware that it's a big deal."

[SD Mapman]

I mean that would solve the issue; making an I-280 (or whatever) from Walcott to Laramie would be pretty easy. There would only be 2 town bypasses in Medicine Bow and Rock River (I guess the east end would be a bit complicated because Laramie actually has built-up infrastructure and buildings), and there's already a ~20 mile stretch of at least almost interstate standard 4-lane.

[Scott5114]

Given that US-30 would only be the preferred route during inclement weather, is a full upgrade to Interstate standards even needed? It sounds like freeway bypasses around the towns, spot interchange improvements at high-volume junctions, and four-lane expressway between them would be sufficient. No need to screw around buying out access rights.

[sprjus4]

^ Agreed.

A four lane divided is all that's needed at most - no need to have full control of access in the rural areas.

Interstate 80 would still be the main through route 99% of the time.

[froggie]

From a purely capacity standpoint, the number of vehicles is not extremely high compared to metro areas. However, it feels congested, due in a large part, to the number of trucks. "When we talk about highway capacity, there is a term called "˜side friction,' where one truck equals nine cars,"  he says.  So those 8,000 trucks equates to what 72,000 vehicles would feel like.

I believe this comment is in error.  I recently came across a study regarding I-80 truck traffic across Nebraska...next door and fundamentally similar to the traffic on I-80 in Wyoming.  In that study, they concluded that the passenger-car-equivalent of trucks along I-80 was around 3, not 9 as this article comment alleges.  Even if you take into account that I-80 is hillier across Wyoming than across western Nebraska, you'd be talking about a total factor of 5 or 6, not 9.

[mgk920]

And it would be too logistically difficult to set up a 'ferry' service like there is in a couple of Swiss mountain passes and tunnels on the nearby paralleling Union Pacific transcontinental mainline.

Yes, I can envision several difficult parts of the I-system being rerouted besides that part of I-80.  OTOH, I don't see myself living long enough to see many of them being built.

Mike

[stevashe]

From a purely capacity standpoint, the number of vehicles is not extremely high compared to metro areas. However, it feels congested, due in a large part, to the number of trucks. "When we talk about highway capacity, there is a term called "˜side friction,' where one truck equals nine cars,"  he says.  So those 8,000 trucks equates to what 72,000 vehicles would feel like.

I believe this comment is in error.  I recently came across a study regarding I-80 truck traffic across Nebraska...next door and fundamentally similar to the traffic on I-80 in Wyoming.  In that study, they concluded that the passenger-car-equivalent of trucks along I-80 was around 3, not 9 as this article comment alleges.  Even if you take into account that I-80 is hillier across Wyoming than across western Nebraska, you'd be talking about a total factor of 5 or 6, not 9.

Definitely in error! The standard conversion rate for trucks used in traffic analysis per the Highway Capacity Manual is at most 4.5, and that's for *mountainous* terrain, meaning continuous grades of 5-6%. And even then I believe most of the terrain on I-80 in Wyoming would be closer to "hilly" which has a conversion rate of only 2.5. Now, given that the speed limit in Wyoming is 80 mph, you could potentially argue that those numbers should be a little higher, but certainly not double.

[kkt]

And it would be too logistically difficult to set up a 'ferry' service like there is in a couple of Swiss mountain passes and tunnels on the nearby paralleling Union Pacific transcontinental mainline.

Yes, I can envision several difficult parts of the I-system being rerouted besides that part of I-80.  OTOH, I don't see myself living long enough to see many of them being built.

Mike

I remember the UP's tracks being very busy through Wyoming.  I don't think they'd like setting up a bottleneck on the railroad in order to make life easier for their trucking competitors.

[DenverBrian]

Given that US-30 would only be the preferred route during inclement weather, is a full upgrade to Interstate standards even needed? It sounds like freeway bypasses around the towns, spot interchange improvements at high-volume junctions, and four-lane expressway between them would be sufficient. No need to screw around buying out access rights.

This. Upgrade US-30 to expressway standard, add a few third lanes for trucks for certain hills, and you're done. Given the climate conditions, you'd probably WANT traffic to flow into the towns so that people could be diverted to schools or buildings to ride out storms.

[Scott5114]

I don't know about forcing traffic through towns–in marginal situations where I-80 is bad but US-30 is decent enough to continue, that sort of makes life rough for anyone trying to go about their usual business in town.

[froggie]

^ Based on personal experience...in the type of scenario where 80 would be bad or shut down, the locals probably wouldn't be doing much of their "usual business" anyway.

[ZLoth]

The problem comes down to convincing the eastern half of United States why this project is important. Wyoming is the least populated state in the United states, having fewer people than the states of Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska, because of it's size, is less population dense). There is less people living in Wyoming than in that dinky little Texas city of El Paso. Until a major closure that lasts for a week or so that affects the eastern half of the United States occurs, we won't see any changes.

[Rothman]

The problem comes down to convincing the eastern half of United States why this project is important. Wyoming is the least populated state in the United states, having fewer people than the states of Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska, because of it's size, is less population dense). There is less people living in Wyoming than in that dinky little Texas city of El Paso. Until a major closure that lasts for a week or so that affects the eastern half of the United States occurs, we won't see any changes.

Despite its lack of population, I do think the East respects Wyoming's natural resources.

[froggie]

^ It does, but most of those natural resources come out of Wyoming via train and pipeline, not by truck.

[SD Mapman]

I don't know about forcing traffic through towns–in marginal situations where I-80 is bad but US-30 is decent enough to continue, that sort of makes life rough for anyone trying to go about their usual business in town.

Laramie is already used to large amounts of trucks being in town, the only difference would be Curtis and N. 3rd would be extra busy, but then there aren't really any important stores up there and there's other routes to avoid them. Rock River might have an issue since you have to cross 30/287 to get to the school. Medicine Bow and Hanna don't really need 30/287 for daily business, so they'd be alright.

^ Based on personal experience...in the type of scenario where 80 would be bad or shut down, the locals probably wouldn't be doing much of their "usual business" anyway.

They have snowmobiles!

[sprjus4]

^ I wouldn't respect the project on terms of building it as a whole new interstate highway, because that much capacity and access control is not needed for a temporary route that's served 95% of the time by an adequate existing fully controlled access interstate highway.

All that's needed is at most a four lane divided highway in rural areas with no access control, which can be accomplished by twinning the existing road.

[skluth]

The problem comes down to convincing the eastern half of United States why this project is important. Wyoming is the least populated state in the United states, having fewer people than the states of Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska, because of it's size, is less population dense). There is less people living in Wyoming than in that dinky little Texas city of El Paso. Until a major closure that lasts for a week or so that affects the eastern half of the United States occurs, we won't see any changes.

Despite its lack of population, I do think the East respects Wyoming's natural resources.

Wyoming produces about 40% of the US total, which is lower in sulfur than Eastern coal. It only produces 3% of the country's oil. I don't know how much natural gas Wyoming produces, but it didn't fall within the top 15 states for production. Wyoming did produce the most uranium in the US, but that was still minimal as the US is not among the top 10 countries in uranium production and I don't know the last time a new reactor was commissioned in the US.

The only natural resource of significance is coal, a natural resource that is going out of use around the world especially in the US. The only Wyoming natural resources the East does care about are Yellowstone, Jackson Hole, and Devil's Tower.

[triplemultiplex]

I don't know the last time a new reactor was commissioned in the US.

Ask The Navy.


Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves.  It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed.  Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.

[kwellada]

Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves.  It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed.  Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.

Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?

The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?

[SD Mapman]

Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves.  It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed.  Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.

Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?

The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?

Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.

[DenverBrian]

Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves.  It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed.  Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.

Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?

The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?

Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.

To be honest, after Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming dropped the mic. There isn't an acre of other land in Wyoming worth the effort to elevate to NP status whether the state legislature's involved or not.

[US 89]

Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves.  It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed.  Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.

Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?

The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?

Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.

To be honest, after Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming dropped the mic. There isn't an acre of other land in Wyoming worth the effort to elevate to NP status whether the state legislature's involved or not.

Ah, but if you get enough environmental lobbyists involved in Washington DC, all of a sudden some reasons appear to elevate a vast swath of land that just so happens to include the site of a proposed coal mine to national monument status...

[triplemultiplex]

If the Bighorns were in Cali, they'd be a national monument by now, on the path to becoming a national park.
Not because of any natural resources (they're mostly boring sandstones and limestones with no oil or gas) but because of the intrinsic beauty and wildlife habitat.

[Rover_0]

Fun fact about Wyoming: it's the only state where the President of the United States cannot set aside public lands under the Antiquities Act to create new national preserves.  It was part of a compromise in order to protect the Grand Tetons as a national park, which the locals vehemently (and short-sightedly) opposed.  Today, Wyoming is the only state where the state legislature must be on board to form any new national park from existing federal lands.

Technically, a President can create a national monument, then it takes an act of Congress to promote to National Park status. But I presume that the state legislature in WY has to get on board with either scenario?

The only spot I can think of that could use some preservation is Hell's Half Acre. But then again, maybe they'd want a full acre of Hell first?

Yeah the Antiquities Act is for National Monuments; Hell's Half Acre is fine being a county park, no one really visits and it's in the middle of nowhere.

To be honest, after Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Wyoming dropped the mic. There isn't an acre of other land in Wyoming worth the effort to elevate to NP status whether the state legislature's involved or not.

Ah, but if you get enough environmental lobbyists involved in Washington DC, all of a sudden some reasons appear to elevate a vast swath of land that just so happens to include the site of a proposed coal mine to national monument status...

Sounds like a very similar situation that happened in southern Utah in September 1996...