AARoads Forum

Quote from: OCGuy81 on October 18, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
It's been a very long time since i was on 93 heading south from I-40 near Kingman, but I don't recall it being a super busy stretch of road, though this was at least 10 years ago.  I'm assuming I-11 would follow 93, with a possible bypass around Wickenburg and then following 60 into Phoenix? Is there enough traffic along the existing route to justify this?

Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
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 :)

Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
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 :)

Quote from: roadfro on October 30, 2012, 04:45:57 AM
^ Distance and junction signs on US 95 north don't regularly include "Reno" once leaving the Las Vegas area. Many of them will list Tonopah consistently (signs in Vegas used to say "Tonopah / Reno"). I don't think Reno is used consistently until US 95 intersects US 50 in Fallon, at which point every junction sign points the way to Reno. However, I believe southbound uses Las Vegas as a control on junction and distance signage much more regularly.

Quote from: NE2 on October 30, 2012, 05:26:01 AM
However, this sign on I-80 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.617722,-119.277921&spn=0.030149,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.617778,-119.278279&panoid=fX4ARjg9lJdCRVkUAbL2IQ&cbp=12,137.76,,2,-0.2) implies that the route between Vegas and Reno is via Yerington, not Fallon.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 30, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
I wonder if the I-11 freeway gets built, would it bypass Reno, or go into it.

Also since current traffic volumes don't seem to justify I-11, is it a "If they build it they will come" type of plan? 

Quote from: roadfro on October 31, 2012, 05:45:40 AM

Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 30, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
I wonder if the I-11 freeway gets built, would it bypass Reno, or go into it.

Also since current traffic volumes don't seem to justify I-11, is it a "If they build it they will come" type of plan? 

The I-11 study proposals look at extending north from Vegas in a multitude of directions towards Canada. A lot of speculation is that it would connect to I-580 in Carson City and Reno, but that is not a given. The goal would be what route efficiently moves trucks and goods, and a direct link to Reno may not be best considering how you'd tie that in to points further north. An earlier idea reported in media had it following much of the US 95 corridor north, and the US 93 general corridor through eastern Nevada would also be a viable option--it all will depend on where the demand will be.

I doubt this will lead to a major "if they build it, they will come" scenario. Look at I-80 through northern Nevada. No new towns have sprung up along that highway since it was constructed through the 60s-80s. Except for maybe Elko, no town served by I-80 has had significant growth due to the I-80. Central Nevada is sparsely populated as it is (much less populous than the region served by I-80), so it is very doubtful that a new north-south interstate will spur significant growth.

Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 31, 2012, 10:32:00 PM
But given how rural US 95 and US 93 are in Nevada would building a new Freeway be a hard sell? 

Quote from: mgk920 on November 01, 2012, 11:24:38 AM
Even without a full upgrade to an 'I-11', I would think it advisable to at least assemble a single 'no intersection turns' highway corridor between the Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City areas.

Also, I would run such a corridor through the East Walker River valley west of Walker Lake, NV and south of Yerington to feed into I-580 via US 395 from the south - it is a much more direct routing than the others and it includes Carson City (the state capitol, BTW) in the corridor.

Mike

Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.

QuoteSeriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 01, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
I'd utilize the NV-208 corridor.  that would give I-11 a big swinging S curve, just like I-25 in New Mexico, but such are the mountains.

Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.

Quote
Seriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.

And then push it through Kings Canyon or Yosemite Valley for a direct route to Frisco.

Quote
PS: Vegas to Boise traffic would sure as hell not go up US 95. US 93 is over 100 miles shorter.

Quote
PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?

Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
Seriously, there's no way in hell anyone's going to go for putting an interstate through King's Canyon or Yosemite.

Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2012, 06:45:07 PM

Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
Seriously, there's no way in hell anyone's going to go for putting an interstate through King's Canyon or Yosemite.

You haven't spent enough time in Alanland fictional highwayland.

Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2012, 06:40:29 PM

Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?

Maybe US-93 is the original route and stayed there when NV-318 was built?

Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 23, 2012, 03:09:17 AM
Build it from Vegas to Reno, so that our two largest metro areas can finally be connected by Interstate.

Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.

Seriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.

And then push it through Kings Canyon or Yosemite Valley for a direct route to Frisco.


PS: Vegas to Boise traffic would sure as hell not go up US 95. US 93 is over 100 miles shorter.

PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?

Quote from: mapman1071 on December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.) 

This route could have Future I-11 Signs.

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM

Quote from: mapman1071 on December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.) 

This route could have Future I-11 Signs.

I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

Quote from: mapman1071 on December 07, 2012, 04:16:02 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM

Quote from: mapman1071 on December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.) 

This route could have Future I-11 Signs.

I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

The majority of the land to the E of the row Is federally owned and/or protected (See MIB or Area 51)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon?  if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.

Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon?  if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.

"Never" is a long time.  If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable.  Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on October 18, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
It's been a very long time since i was on 93 heading south from I-40 near Kingman, but I don't recall it being a super busy stretch of road, though this was at least 10 years ago.  I'm assuming I-11 would follow 93, with a possible bypass around Wickenburg and then following 60 into Phoenix? Is there enough traffic along the existing route to justify this?

Quote from: andy3175 on December 08, 2012, 01:43:58 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon?  if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.

"Never" is a long time.  If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable.  Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.

A key question in this discussion is whether there's a concerted effort by western states to reroute truck/commercial traffic off of other north-south freeway corridors (I-5 and I-15) to create a trucking corridor along US 95 or if either corridor is overburdened to the point a third route would be helpful. I'm not sure if, in this scenario, ending such a route in Reno would be sufficient. Instead, it would have to connect at least to Interstate 84. If this scenario is realized, then four-laning could be justified.

Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:51:19 PM
Hm?  Ellis AFB and the Nevada Test Site appear to be several miles away from US-95, and Area 51 is on the far side of Ellis AFB.

Quote from: roadfro on December 08, 2012, 05:36:22 PM

Quote from: andy3175 on December 08, 2012, 01:43:58 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM

Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point.  All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.

when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon?  if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.

"Never" is a long time.  If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable.  Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.

A key question in this discussion is whether there's a concerted effort by western states to reroute truck/commercial traffic off of other north-south freeway corridors (I-5 and I-15) to create a trucking corridor along US 95 or if either corridor is overburdened to the point a third route would be helpful. I'm not sure if, in this scenario, ending such a route in Reno would be sufficient. Instead, it would have to connect at least to Interstate 84. If this scenario is realized, then four-laning could be justified.

That is a key question, which is a key component of the study process being undertaken by NDOT & ADOT. They are not limiting the study to the US 93 and US 95 corridors either, but pretty much anything north of Las Vegas is fair game to look at. No matter which way a potential I-11 would travel north through Nevada, it won't be hard to for NDOT to get ROW...there's a lot of open space in Nevada owned by BLM.

Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:51:19 PM
Hm?  Ellis AFB and the Nevada Test Site appear to be several miles away from US-95, and Area 51 is on the far side of Ellis AFB.

What is "Ellis AFB"?  Maybe you're referring to the Nellis AFB flight range, which encompasses the test site and Area 51. The test site is accessed from the Mercury exit, where the four-lane US 95 transitions to two. Area 51 is better reached from SR 375 on the opposite side.

Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2012, 04:48:58 PM
I was going by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANAMEX_Corridor) (links broken, as I said) and AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr26.html)–not that we should ever trust those two sites as accurate.

Quote from: Mark68 on December 18, 2012, 05:20:55 AM
I could see a potential routing of I-11 north of Reno along US 395. It's doubtful that there would be enough traffic from, say, Alturas north to Pendleton, but there already is Interstate between the Pendleton/Hermiston area and the Tri-Cities (I-82), and there already is a decent amount of 4-lane on 395 between Tri-Cities and I-90. This route COULD generate more traffic between Portland and Reno, not to mention draw traffic east from Bend & Klamath Falls.

Quote
Transportation experts say a 15-mile toll-road bypass around Boulder City would only be used by about 44 percent of the motorists using what eventually would become a piece of the proposed Interstate 11 between Hoover Dam and Henderson.
Representatives of the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission tried to reassure a skeptical crowd of about 50 people attending a public hearing Wednesday that a four-lane freeway bypassing Boulder City would still achieve the goal of reducing traffic on the city's streets.
Transportation officials took testimony and answered questions during a three-hour open house and public meeting at Boulder City High School.
The estimate that 44 percent of the traffic would use the bypass is based on studies by the Las Vegas-based Louis Berger Group, which was tasked with analyzing prospective toll structures to determine what price point would guarantee maximum revenue.
The estimate was based on a toll of $2.25 per passenger vehicle. Large trucks and commercial vehicles would potentially pay more ....
The reason the majority of motorists aren't expected to use the toll road is that they'd have the option of using the existing U.S. 93 route through Boulder City that would remain free.
NDOT officials said the proposed $2.25 toll could be used the first year of operation, then modified up or down, depending on whether there was a need to increase or decrease demand.
Phase 1 of the project, which would be under the jurisdiction of NDOT, is a short piece that would run from Railroad Pass to a new intersection at U.S. 95 and cost between $20 million and $30 million for right-of-way and $90 million to $110 million for construction. Some of that land, in the Jericho Heights area, currently is the subject of contentious condemnation proceedings.
The longer Phase 2 portion of the highway, where the tolling would occur, is under the RTC's jurisdiction and would cost about $330 million to complete. It's on public land and wouldn't require right-of-way acquisitions.
One of the benefits of allowing tolling is that the bypass would be completed faster. Officials estimate that if tolling were allowed, the project could be completed by 2018 or 2019 with an accelerated construction schedule.
If tolling isn't allowed, the project would go on a list of future projects with an uncertain completion timetable. Because the route is part of the recently designated I-11 corridor, it would be completed eventually.

Quote from: lamsalfl on February 26, 2013, 03:39:29 PM
I'm at work and don't have time to sift through threads but I noticed google has I-11 signed from LV to and including parts of I-40. 

Quote
Routes through western Nevada that could become part of an Interstate 11 freeway corridor linking Mexico and Canada have made the first cut for future study, local officials and the public were told Wednesday by transportation officials studying the options.
Routes through central and eastern Nevada that would run to Elko or Wells did not make the final list of potential routes for the proposed Intermountain West Corridor, although one of the preferred alternatives would see the freeway head northeast from Fernley to Winnemucca and then on to Idaho close by Boise ....
An Intermountain West Corridor is being evaluated as part of the proposed Interstate 11 project that would connect Phoenix and Las Vegas, but it is years away from reality.
The top-rated route north from Las Vegas would follow U.S. Highway 95 to Fernley, head west to Reno then up U.S. Highway 395 into southern Oregon.
The second option would follow U.S. 95 to Fernley, but then head northeast through Winnemucca to Idaho.
The third option closely mirrors the first but would depart from U.S. 95 at Tonopah, heading west to U.S. 395 in California and running through Douglas County and Carson City before moving through Reno north into southern Oregon ....

Quote from: KEK Inc. on October 17, 2013, 04:04:10 PM
Would I-11 ultimately replace US-395 up to Spokane?

Quote from: tidecat on January 26, 2014, 10:25:23 PM
[snipped taking a silly question seriously]

Quote from: emory on January 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PMCA 11 freeway they're currently building

Quote from: emory on January 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PM
If I-11 goes through California, CalTrans will have to renumber the CA 11 freeway they're currently building down near the border in San Diego.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2014, 08:23:14 PM

Quote from: emory on January 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PMCA 11 freeway they're currently building

ha.  the 125/905 intersection is as antiquated and counterintuitive as it always has been.

Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
I keep wondering where they plan to put that thing.  There doesn't appear to be anywhere you could put in even a trumpet (ignoring CA 11, since it makes everything harder to fathom) without being way too close to another ramp..  Given that it's only two years old, I can't imagine that CalTrans is going to rebuild interchanges just to fit CA 11 in there.

Quote from: polarscribe on January 27, 2014, 05:11:03 AM
Bahahahahahaha... US 395 in Northern California as an interstate? Whoever wrote that paper is smoking meth.

In the 560 miles of US 395 between Reno, Nevada and Pendleton, Oregon.... the biggest city is Susanville, California - micropolitan area population of ~32,000 and change. There is nobody, absolutely nobody living in northeastern California and southeastern Oregon. They are the emptiest corners of their respective states. You could pitch a tent in the middle of the highway north of Alturas - AADT is just 720 vehicles per day at the state line.

If that was ever built (and it has not the slightest chance of being built), it would be the most ridiculously wasteful use of transportation dollars in the history of the known universe.

However, if it is built, they need to add an I-311 spur to Quincy and an I-411 beltway of Alturas. For great justice.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 27, 2014, 09:35:26 PM
An Alaskan Interstate would be more of a waste.  :bigass:

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 12, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
Having sat in traffic in downtown Anchorage where the Glenn and Seward Highways stop short of interchanging with each other as freeways, I don't really consider an Alaska Interstate a joke.  Alaska is part of the Great White North with the fourth-smallest US state population in a territory equal to about one-fifth the total land area of the continental US, but when you combine extreme population anisotropy with a very hectic summer driving season, it is no wonder Anchorage is so congested.

Quote from: Bickendan on February 02, 2014, 05:00:19 PM
"Los Anchorage", lol

QuoteArizona and Nevada transportation officials will hold a series of meetings this month to inform the public of progress on a proposed new interstate highway that would run west of Surprise, linking Las Vegas and Phoenix. Interstate 11 would mark one of the last remaining connections between major Western U.S. cities in the nation's highway system. Meetings are slated June 18 in Tucson, June 25 in Buckeye and June 26 in Las Vegas. In addition, a virtual public meeting will be hosted June 18 through July 18 on the project website, www.i11study.com.

Quoten a recent update on the status of the I-11 project, members of the Regional Transportation Commission were told that some of the public comment has been evaluated and the I-11 corridor through Las Vegas is becoming more defined.

There's one more big public meeting for local residents to weigh in on the I-11 routing. It will be later this month on June 26 from 4-7 p.m. with a 5:30 p.m. presentation at the Historic Fifth Street School, 401 S. Fourth St.

Several prospective routes were narrowed to three that would go around or through the city. The prospective routes that have won the most public support:

■ From the point where the northern end of the Boulder City bypass would end – near the Railroad Pass casino – the route, designated Option Y, would use U.S. Highway 95 north to the 215 Beltway, west to approximately Ann Road where a new section of freeway would be built, and north to join U.S. 95 near state Route 157 to Kyle Canyon.

■ A route designated as Option Z would put the route on already existing highways. From Boulder City, it would use U.S. 95 all the way through town. That's a cheap alternative, since all that wold be required would be to plant a bunch of I-11 signs along the route. But city officials have concerns about routing any new truck traffic through the notoriously congested Spaghetti Bowl.

■ A route that presents the most heartburn to residents of Henderson and the greatest expense, Option BB-QQ, would cut north from U.S. 95 on a new right of way east of Frenchman Mountain all the way to Interstate 15 near Nellis Air Force Base. From there, the route runs south on I-15 to the future Beltway interchange, using the Beltway west to U.S. 95. That's about 20 miles of new highway and a route that passes through Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Engineers would analyze the impact of traffic on the Beltway-U.S. 95 interchange which will soon be designed.

I-11 is years, maybe decades, from becoming a reality.

QuoteAll roads don't lead to Tesla, but Interstate 11 apparently will.

The Nevada Department of Transportation board voted Monday to designate U.S. Highway 95 as the proposed route for the future interstate between Las Vegas and I-80.

State transportation leaders said they were picking U.S. 95 over U.S. 93 in part because of growing industrial development in northwestern Nevada, including Tesla battery factory announced last week.

Another big factor in the decision is where the interstate is likely to go after it leaves Nevada. Following U.S. 95 directs I-11 toward "megapolitan regions"  of California and the Pacific Northwest, said Sondra Rosenberg, who is heading up NDOT's work on the project.

By contrast, an eastern route along U.S. 93 could steer I-11 through small cities in Idaho and Montana on its way to what one audience member bluntly called "nowhere Canada."

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.

Quote from: roadfro on September 13, 2014, 08:00:34 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.

There's towns along there already. Whether there's a whole lot of people in some of them is another question.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 08:52:22 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 13, 2014, 08:00:34 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.

There's towns along there already. Whether there's a whole lot of people in some of them is another question.

I have honestly only driven the part concurrent with US-6.  Apart from Tonopah, the only named place I recall looked like the inhabitants had walked away at least a decade prior. So I'm extrapolating off that somewhat limited experience, perhaps incorrectly.

Quote from: andy3175 on September 13, 2014, 01:03:49 AM
I found this article: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/nevada-board-picks-us-95-i-11-corridor

QuoteAll roads don't lead to Tesla, but Interstate 11 apparently will.

The Nevada Department of Transportation board voted Monday to designate U.S. Highway 95 as the proposed route for the future interstate between Las Vegas and I-80.

State transportation leaders said they were picking U.S. 95 over U.S. 93 in part because of growing industrial development in northwestern Nevada, including Tesla battery factory announced last week.

Another big factor in the decision is where the interstate is likely to go after it leaves Nevada. Following U.S. 95 directs I-11 toward "megapolitan regions"  of California and the Pacific Northwest, said Sondra Rosenberg, who is heading up NDOT's work on the project.

By contrast, an eastern route along U.S. 93 could steer I-11 through small cities in Idaho and Montana on its way to what one audience member bluntly called "nowhere Canada."

Quote from: english si on September 15, 2014, 12:53:53 PM
Go via Yerrington and Wellington - a little twisty, perhaps, but avoids the need for CA to get involved.

Quote from: kkt on September 15, 2014, 02:23:41 PMVia Yerington, Lahontan Reservoir, and US 50 is 434 miles.  Via Yerington and Wellington is 442 miles.  So via Lahontan Reservoir requires less construction, a faster trip LV-CC, and a faster trip LV-Reno compared to via Wellington.  Even if you built I-11 via Wellington, people wouldn't take it; the 2-lane roads are about as fast as interstates in rural Nevada, so they'd take the shorter road.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 12:30:36 PM
I'm going to back this up just a bit and ask for some helpful input from those with more insight than myself. What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?

Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 11:53:40 PM
This (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=las+vegas&daddr=36.5894898,-117.1673779+to:37.8163474,-119.9295741+to:carson+city&hl=en&ll=37.657732,-117.960205&spn=6.21718,12.689209&sll=36.438961,-117.575684&sspn=3.159453,6.344604&geocode=FdXoJwIdChsj-SnRffWkgre-gDGjebPV5tXMOg%3BFbFPLgId7yoE-SnxGX4w21LHgDHqRwyWqFgj7Q%3BFRsIQQIdGgXa-CnnNRvIfNmWgDEfe8tuqTEqyg%3BFZaXVQIdlX7c-ClxtN74oQqZgDEoOOK9gmyc9w&t=p&gl=us&mra=dvme&mrsp=1&sz=8&via=1,2&z=7) seems to avoid the worst terrain.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 12:30:36 PM
What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?

Quote from: gonealookin on September 16, 2014, 07:55:18 PMA four-lane highway with just a few grade separations at places like Hawthorne and Tonopah ought to be sufficient, though.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 12:30:36 PM
... What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?

Quote from: gonealookin on September 16, 2014, 07:55:18 PM
... A four-lane highway with just a few grade separations at places like Hawthorne and Tonopah ought to be sufficient, though.

The notion that a freeway from Reno to, say, Pendleton OR would ever be built is ludicrous.  If there is one corridor north of Reno where an upgrade makes sense, it would be the route up US 395 to Susanville, then following CA 36, 44 and 89 to link up with I-5 at Mt. Shasta City.  Any route east of there in northeastern California or northern Nevada can be served adequately by two-lane highways, forever.

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2014, 02:58:02 AM
Even before the I-11 study began and extending that route north of Las Vegas was a concept for the Fictional Highways board, I frequently stated that a freeway north from Las Vegas along the US 95 corridor is wildly unnecessary. Even with I-11 gaining traction, I'm still skeptical of the need. Roughly half of the Vegas to Reno route probably sees traffic volumes of less than 10,000 vehicles per day, so it's really hard to justify even four-laning the route, much less making it a full-fledged freeway.

Quote from: andy3175 on September 19, 2014, 11:29:42 PM
Would freight handlers move from the I-5 corridor to I-11 to get items from Mexico to the Pacific Northwest? That remains to be seen. First someone has to find the money to build it!

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
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).

Quote from: LM117 on January 27, 2017, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
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.

Quote from: sparker on January 29, 2017, 09:29:59 PM

Quote from: LM117 on January 27, 2017, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
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. 

Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
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 :)

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 31, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
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.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:53:54 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
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.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 06:13:15 PM
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.

Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
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.

Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2017, 10:38:51 PM

Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
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.

Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 11:17:09 PM

Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2017, 10:38:51 PM

Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
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?"

Quote from: roadfro on February 02, 2017, 11:20:45 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 11:17:09 PM

Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2017, 10:38:51 PM

Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
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).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
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.

Quote from: roadfro on February 01, 2017, 11:01:45 AM

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 31, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
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.

Quote from: dfwmapperAs 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.

Quote from: abqtravelerTrue, 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.

Quote from: dfwmapper on February 05, 2017, 04:58:46 PM

Quote from: roadfro on February 01, 2017, 11:01:45 AM

Quote from: dfwmapper on January 31, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
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.

Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2017, 03:07:32 PM
The mountainous route to get to the south end of Carson City would be a problem.  Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, occassional winter closures.  I'd look at bypassing Fallon on the east side, between the warehouses and big box stores.  It'd probably hit I-84 around Caldwell, Idaho.

However, still doubtful that building north of Las Vegas will be undertaken in the next 40 years or so.  Arizona is enthusiastic about building new interstates, Nevada wants to see a favorable cost-benefit analysis first.

Quote from: jwolfer on February 12, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects

Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2017, 11:39:27 PM

Quote from: jwolfer on February 12, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects

Reno.

Low tax state, so they're not rolling in money for projects that aren't clearly necessary.

Quote from: Henry on February 13, 2017, 09:14:59 AM
Reno and Vegas could use an Interstate connection between them, cost be damned.

Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Based on what?  The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic.  Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what?  Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements.  Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?

• West Coast freight needs an I-5 reliever route. If you think of I-11 as a phased approach to providing that, then the Vegas to Reno segment is the second phase with an eventual connection to the Northwest ports as a third phase.
• Induced demand. People will make the trip because they can do it at 80 mph when they couldn't at 70 mph. It may only be a few hundred a day, but it will happen.
• The most expensive part of the project would be coupling — which is probably justified anyway — not the interchanges. We're talking, what, two-dozen interchanges needed between Las Vegas and Fernley?
  
• Depending on route selection, NDOT could cut considerable mileage off the Vegas to Reno drive by realigning I-11 off US 95 — depending on how aggressive they wanted to be with re-routing (and bypassing existing communities), up to 75 miles.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 13, 2017, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Based on what?  The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic.  Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what?  Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements.  Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?

I'm usually the first to say "Let's be careful spending what limited transportation funding we have right now," but I disagree with you on I-11, for a few reasons:

• West Coast freight needs an I-5 reliever route. If you think of I-11 as a phased approach to providing that, then the Vegas to Reno segment is the second phase with an eventual connection to the Northwest ports as a third phase.

Quote

• Induced demand. People will make the trip because they can do it at 80 mph when they couldn't at 70 mph. It may only be a few hundred a day, but it will happen.

Quote

• The most expensive part of the project would be coupling — which is probably justified anyway — not the interchanges. We're talking, what, two-dozen interchanges needed between Las Vegas and Fernley?
  
• Depending on route selection, NDOT could cut considerable mileage off the Vegas to Reno drive by realigning I-11 off US 95 — depending on how aggressive they wanted to be with re-routing (and bypassing existing communities), up to 75 miles.

Quote
Now, would I rather see Vegas and Reno connected by true high speed rail, that blazed past US 95 motorists at 200 mph and connected the two cities in two hours w/ no airport hassle? Sure. But that's not a political reality we live in. The next best option to cut pollution, save time and make the corridor safer is a coupling with the option of building the limited number of interchanges needed to justify an 80 mph speed limit.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 13, 2017, 04:29:17 PM
The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.

For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 13, 2017, 04:29:17 PM
The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.

For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.

Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 10:45:55 PM
I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.

Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 15, 2017, 12:01:22 AM

Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 10:45:55 PM
I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.

Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.

US 395 is very different. Like you mention, it's already almost completely 4-lane and divided. Additionally, the freeway bypass of Olancha is already under construction. For comparison's sake, the traffic counts for 395 also show a very different roadway in comparison to US 95 in Nevada: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d9/planning/docs/d9_aadt_count_data_1992to2015.pdf

There are always vulnerable towns that will be easily killed by any sort of change in the roadway. The "town" of Little Lake was killed off by a bypass of 395 around the middle of the last century. But places like Bishop, Lone Pine and Independence I think have a low chance of dying. The fact is that they're more reliant on the tourist traffic that comes through as opposed to the actual long-distance highway traffic, and them offering the few services that they do will keep them around. Plus, 395 is almost a freeway right now anyway, so you're not looking at significant speed limit changes so the story of the interstate killing the small town when it bypassed the two-lane blue highway would not really be repeated.

Quote from: Quillz on February 15, 2017, 12:04:21 AM
A freeway would kill those speed traps through Lone Pine and Independence, though. The cops love those towns.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 15, 2017, 11:14:19 AM
And this segues into a return to I-11. I think the most practical way to improve the Vegas-Reno corridor would be to just do these sort of selected bypasses. I'd say Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne.

Quote from: coatimundiEvery time I've driven east of Reno though, the traffic has been sparse, to say the least. And it's even sparser on US 95. Add some road improvements, including some widening and intersection improvements, and you have all you need. You don't need an interstate.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 16, 2017, 02:48:12 PM
In spite of its failings, I-10 to I-5 is generally the preferred long-haul truck and trailer route from the Southwest to the Northwest, especially in the winter, simply because it avoids a lot of the problematic mountainous terrain. This is why most on this board seem to understand the importance of completing the SR 58 segment west of Barstow to I-5: Tehachapi Pass is annoying, but it's got nothing on Donner, so its viability as an alternative to the LA routing becomes all the more important if you think about that sort of inter-regional traffic.

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

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

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

Quote from: kkt on February 16, 2017, 03:50:37 PM
And if Donner Pass is bad, then Siskiyou Pass probably is too.  If the weather is rotten and you have to head from Phoenix to Seattle, your best bet is US 93 to Twin Falls, I-84 to Portland, I-5 to Seattle.  But even in winter there's a pretty good chance of getting through those passes without any problem.

Quote from: sparker on February 16, 2017, 04:51:34 PM
To this end I'm suggesting an alignment extending north of Reno following US 395 to CA 36 east of Susanville, then CA 36 west to CA 44, CA 44 northwest to CA 89, and CA 89 north and west to I-5 at Mt. Shasta.  This route mostly uses a "saddle" across the mountains; it's functionally along the dividing line between the Cascades and the Sierra -- and has the added advantage of posing the least difficult crossing of the mountains, requiring some enlargement of the CA 44 segment over the Old Station escarpment

Quote from: coatimundi on February 16, 2017, 08:34:11 PM
So we're making the leap from fictional - where I-11 gets north of I-80 - to fantastical? 44 to 89? Plow through Lassen NF and right through the backyard of Lassen Volcanic NP? It's hard enough to build new roads in the state, anything like this would require a near-catastrophic event, or I-5 through the Sacramento Valley becoming a parking lot.
And, really, why does the interstate have to get dumped into CA? Is there that much Vegas-Redding traffic out there that I'm just not that aware of?
Dumping more traffic onto I-5 in Oregon is not the solution. If you build something on the east side of the Cascades, it needs to continue north until it reaches an existing east-west interstate. Susanville - Bend - Madras - The Dalles - Yakima? I think that's more likely to happen than anything crossing the mountains into Jefferson.

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

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 16, 2017, 07:28:25 PM
Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?

Quote from: roadfro on February 17, 2017, 11:02:53 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 16, 2017, 07:28:25 PM
Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?

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

Quote from: sparker on February 17, 2017, 04:22:34 AM
I figured I'd get some flack about this concept -- but it's actually based on several interlocking realities.

Quote from: Quillz on February 17, 2017, 07:22:03 PM
It's kind of a shame that I-15 was built directly over US-91. That stretch from Barstow to Vegas might have been a good example of where maintaining a parallel US highway (not necessarily a frontage road, however) might have been useful. If nothing else, at least could provide a decent backup when the 15 is crowded.

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:09:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:09:30 PM

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane.

Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2017, 05:56:46 AM
The CA 89/CA 44 combination features plenty of truck traffic, largely dominated by finished lumber shipments out of southern Oregon heading toward Reno and/or Vegas.  It's also the "cutoff of choice" for recreational traffic from the more populated NW areas toward Reno and Tahoe.  The eastern section of CA 44 is a fast route with the typical characteristics of a CA 2-lane expressway.  And there's no real reason to give Lassen Peak a wider berth than the 89/44 routing presently does; the corridor hardly impinges on the park, skirting it well to the north. 

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.

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

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.

Quote from: coatimundi on February 21, 2017, 12:02:00 PM
Okanogan Valley. I-11 would make my cherries and apples cheaper. It's a little absurd what we pay for cherries here, even when they're in season.

Quote from: inkyatari on February 21, 2017, 02:32:25 PM
I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.

Quote from: roadfro on February 21, 2017, 03:48:50 PM

Quote from: inkyatari on February 21, 2017, 02:32:25 PM
I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.

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

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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2017, 02:18:50 PM
Since certain politicians are using links between military bases as a means of selling I-14 projects why not try the same thing with I-11?

There is a number of military installations in Nevada. Some of them would be along or near what could be the I-11 corridor (Nellis AFB, Creech AFB, Hawthorne Army Depot, Reno-Tahoe AFB, Fallon Station NAS). Sierra Army Depot is North of Reno just across the border into California. Klamath Falls, OR shares its airport with Kingsley Field AFB.

Let's not forget about installations in Arizona. Luke AFB is near Phoenix. Gila Bend has an Air Force auxiliary field. Davis-Monthan AFB is in Tucson. There's a huge Air Force range in Southern AZ.

Quote from: Mark68 on March 21, 2017, 02:10:45 PM
If there were to be a possible I-11 north of Reno, I could see it along the US 395 corridor toward Susanville, cutting the corner south of Susanville (maybe Janesville-Standish to parallel 395 at a more gradual angle than 395 takes from CA 36 east). Then it would follow 395 north to around Likely (just north of the hills) and cut NW to catch CA 139 at Canby. Then it would follow CA 139 then OR 39 to Klamath Falls, then US 97 through Bend to north of Madras, then either follow US 197 straight north to The Dalles or NNE to Biggs Jct. Either of these points would be on I-84, so some traffic would go through the Gorge to Portland, some would head north to Yakima (via US 97), some would head east to I-82, then to the Tri-Cities and Spokane, and some would continue east on I-84 to Pendleton and Boise.

It would be a feeder route between Reno and the Pacific Northwest, and a (relatively) quick route and all-weather route from Seattle to Reno (depending on Snoqualmie Pass, of course). It would serve the growing city of Bend and some other small cities in Klamath Falls, Alturas (via US 395) and Susanville (via CA 36). This would be similar to I-70 in Utah...not necessary to serve local populations, but a good long-distance feeder route between far-flung metro areas (Seattle/Tacoma/Portland and Reno/Las Vegas on I-11, Denver and Salt Lake/Las Vegas on I-70).

Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2017, 07:09:43 PM
I've been along several of those roads in the last few years and never seen any reason they should be freeways.  Maybe US 97 should have more 4-lane stretches, but certainly doesn't need limited access.  It would be right up there with I-15 north of Helena for a useless waste of concrete.  Putting thick red lines where there weren't any before may feel like we're accomplishing something, but a better use of actual construction money would be additional lanes and geometric improvements in congested areas.  I-5, CA 99.  Not new freeway routes.

Quote from: compdude787 on March 22, 2017, 12:39:57 AM

Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2017, 07:09:43 PM
I've been along several of those roads in the last few years and never seen any reason they should be freeways.  Maybe US 97 should have more 4-lane stretches, but certainly doesn't need limited access.  It would be right up there with I-15 north of Helena for a useless waste of concrete.  Putting thick red lines where there weren't any before may feel like we're accomplishing something, but a better use of actual construction money would be additional lanes and geometric improvements in congested areas.  I-5, CA 99.  Not new freeway routes.

Agreed. I really have never understood the point of extending I-11 north of Reno since there aren't really any major cities (or even lots of small towns) that it could connect to.

Quote from: Henry on March 23, 2017, 09:29:43 AM
Sure, and then from Boise you could just hop onto I-84 west to Portland.

Quote from: Henry on March 23, 2017, 09:29:43 AM
Sure, and then from Boise you could just hop onto I-84 west to Portland.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2017, 04:52:18 PM
Does Interstate 11 beyond Interstate 15 really need to be an Interstate highway? How much traffic uses the US 95 corridor between Las Vegas and Interstate 80 near Fallon, anyway?

Quote from: kkt on October 12, 2017, 07:06:12 PM
Nevada should work on reserving rights-of-way through Fallon for bypass US 95 and US 50, whether they're called I-11 or not.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2017, 04:14:05 PM
I just wish there was a more direct path, practical and possible, between Carson City and Las Vegas. Between all the rows of mountains and certain small towns (like Tonopah) that would dry up and die if bypassed it would be very costly and quite an engineering achievement to build a road that spanned between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area directly. Fallon is 60 miles East of Reno and Carson City.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2017, 04:14:05 PM
I just wish there was a more direct path, practical and possible, between Carson City and Las Vegas. Between all the rows of mountains and certain small towns (like Tonopah) that would dry up and die if bypassed it would be very costly and quite an engineering achievement to build a road that spanned between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area directly. Fallon is 60 miles East of Reno and Carson City.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2017, 05:24:46 PM
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 05:31:59 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2017, 05:24:46 PM
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?

Not likely -- this isn't China!

Quote from: kkt on October 13, 2017, 07:42:25 PM

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 05:31:59 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2017, 05:24:46 PM
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?

Not likely -- this isn't China!

Not to shave half an hour off the drive from Reno to Vegas.

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 04:31:03 PM
Blame Mother Nature for all the problems in the vicinity with the plethora of towering N-S oriented mountain ranges from that area all across NV; the geological term is horst und graben (after the German, obviously!), meaning "mountain and valley", used to denote a repeating pattern of this type.  Granite and/or basalt mountain ranges interspersed with alluvial valleys -- if they didn't exist, the premise for the exceptionally entertaining film "Tremors" (the 1990 original, not the substandard sequels!) would be moot!   

Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM

Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

Quote from: mgk920 on October 14, 2017, 11:05:44 AM

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM

Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

As I suggested several pages upthread, how workable would a crossover between US 95 in the Walker Lake area south of Schurz and NV 208 a short distance south of Yerington, then past Smith and Wellington to US 395 at Topaz Lake be?

Mike

Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2017, 01:59:07 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on October 14, 2017, 11:05:44 AM

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM

Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

As I suggested several pages upthread, how workable would a crossover between US 95 in the Walker Lake area south of Schurz and NV 208 a short distance south of Yerington, then past Smith and Wellington to US 395 at Topaz Lake be?

Mike

Well, there's a substantial mountain range running N-S west of Walker Lake and Walker River.  There is decommissioned Nevada route 2C over a pass, but it's pretty high, climbing from 4100 feet elevation at US 95 up to 6200 feet at the pass.  Could be built but would defeat the purpose of a faster or easier route between Reno and L.V.

Alt US 95 goes around the north end of that mountain range. That route has only a slight rise of a few hundred feet.  But if you zig north on Alt US 95 around that mountain range, you have to zag south to follow NV 208 around the south end of the next mountain range, west of Smith Valley.  You'd end up with a longer route from L.V. to Reno, not shorter.

Quote from: 3467 on December 08, 2012, 06:11:17 PM
What are the current volumes on these roads now(395,95,93)?
rom what I can see they all are well built and have good shoulders. It would make sense to start with passing lanes

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2017, 01:32:50 AM
Progress is going to be slow going for I-11 unless the federal government gets a wild hair up its butt and decides big highways are important again.

Chances on that are slim unfortunately. The right wing is only thinking in terms of spending cuts (bad for freeways) and the left wing is only thinking in terms of people riding bicycles and walking to every destination no matter how far away and remote it might be (also bad for freeways and highways in general).

If the decision was up to me I would route I-11 along current I-515 thru Las Vegas and on out NW of town as far as the freeway ran (who cares if it ends at a US highway or not?). The loop around Las Vegas has long been recognized with the 215 designation, partially with an Interstate designation and the rest with a county designation. I think the whole damned thing just needs to be I-215. That's what will be best for everyone in the 'Vegas metro. There's businesses and other stuff along the 215 loop that are used to calling it the 215 loop, particularly in their advertising. There is nothing at all to be gained changing that to I-11. They just need to finish upgrading the entire loop to Interstate highway standards and call the entire thing I-215. They're not far away from being able to do that now.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2017, 01:32:50 AM
If the decision was up to me I would route I-11 along current I-515 thru Las Vegas and on out NW of town as far as the freeway ran (who cares if it ends at a US highway or not?). The loop around Las Vegas has long been recognized with the 215 designation, partially with an Interstate designation and the rest with a county designation. I think the whole damned thing just needs to be I-215. That's what will be best for everyone in the 'Vegas metro. There's businesses and other stuff along the 215 loop that are used to calling it the 215 loop, particularly in their advertising. There is nothing at all to be gained changing that to I-11. They just need to finish upgrading the entire loop to Interstate highway standards and call the entire thing I-215. They're not far away from being able to do that now.

Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM

Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

Quote from: roadfroBoth the through-town (US 95) routing and the south/west bypass (CC-215) routing have merits, depending on what I-11 traffic patterns are desired. It's about two miles longer via 215, factoring in that I-11 would take a straight shot north towards US 95 from the northwest corner of 215. But traffic would likely be less congested along 215.

Quote from: sparkerFortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.

Quote from: sparker on December 31, 2017, 12:25:48 AM
There will always be calls to shift the I-11 alignment west to place the corridor through the growing Gardnerville-Carson City area, obviously entailing some mountainous new-terrain mileage.  However, since the actual route planning will fall to NDOT, an agency by its public nature responsive to state citizenry -- and the perpetual need to economize to stave off public-expenditure naysayers (this is the West, and those tend to reside -- or re-settle -- in the mountain states).  While most armchair planners look to deploy a "connect-the-dots" approach regarding population centers -- and the relatively dense US 395 corridor south of Reno certainly qualifies as an atypical part of the usually sparse NV idiom -- attempting to include that corridor in I-11 plans may be that proverbial "bridge (although tunnel might be a more appropriate term here!) too far" simply because of the N-S orientation of most NV mountain ranges.  Besides, the Fallon area is growing at a rate similar to that of the Carson-Minden-Gardnerville composite area; selecting a markedly more costly corridor alignment bypassing Fallon and vicinity might well result in some political backlash.  The argument would likely cite the presence of I-580 -- and the possibility that it might at some point be extended south to serve the valley south of Carson City (which wouldn't require mountain crossings) -- as providing sufficient egress for that area; and that I-11, as an interregional connector, can't be expected to be all things to all areas.  Once north of Walker Lake, the remainder of the path to I-80, be it via US 95 or Alternate US 50 via Hazen and Fernley, is one of the more benign segments of the entire corridor re construction costs.  That will weigh on the minds of NDOT -- whether to pursue the "perfect" path and spend the considerable $$$ to get I-11 through Carson and vicinity -- or settle for the reasonably efficient "doable" plan via the Fallon flatlands.  If I were to place a bet on the final selection, it would be on the US 95/Fallon option.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2017, 11:14:50 PM
I-215/CC-215 may be a newer highway, but it doesn't follow along the direct path of I-11 like the thru-town routing along US-95/I-515 would. If I-11 is routed along 215 what happens with the segment of 215 past the US-95 interchange on the North side of Vegas? Another little I-215 segment like the existing one?

It's kind of a traditional thing to route 2di Interstate routes thru the center of a city while routing the 3 digit Interstate routes around it. I-11 is initally going to exist as an excruciatingly short Interstate highway stub. Routing it through the middle of Las Vegas would at least give the highway more visibility (which is kind of important for politics).

I'm also not a fan of highways that are going one direction but just change their number past a certain exit while the freeway keeps going. Put I-11 on the 215 loop and there will be a lot of that. It would be more simple and more direct for all routes involved assigning the I-11 designation to US-95/I-515.

Quote from: Bobby5280
And repeating what I said earlier, I think I-11 should be signed as far North as the freeway runs. If the freeway gets up to Creech AFB or even Mercury Highway it should be signed that far.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2017, 04:53:13 PM
A pretty significant amount of mileage can be shaved off an I-11 route to the Reno area with some controversial town bypass choices. I mentioned Tonopah earlier. Beatty could be bypassed as well. You could end up with a fairly direct route from Vegas to Reno with some creative highway engineering. US-95 between Vegas and Fernely has a pretty crooked path because it's mostly just a 2-lane highway built to a certain cost saving standard.

Quote from: michravera on December 31, 2017, 11:12:19 AM
So, I will call the two options "Stay East" along US-95 and "Go West" along US-395/I-580.

The Stay East option, in effect, says that we are going to build I-11 to Boise and we aren't letting a little thing like regional convenience get in our way. It would be far cheaper and we would see the results much sooner, if we just limited access along US-95 and bypassed a few crosswalks.
The Go West option basically says that we already have US-95. If we are going to build anything at all, we may as well build something that recognizes our current and near future need for a route from Reno and Carson City to Las Vegas. Why build anything that doesn't do that for which we perceive the need?

I have, in effect, driven both routes several times. I am not sure what is possible around Walker Lake, but it sure seems to me that, if costs could be contained properly, that the western route going near but around Carson Valley and Minden would have been the greatest convenience.

The biggest problem with US-95 further south is that trucks and small vehicles must share a single lane and that small vehicles traveling in opposite directions get blown off the road by trucks travelling at or just above the legal 70 MPH speed. Divide the road and let everyone legally go 80 or 85 MPH and most of that trouble is over and it won't much matter on the route (as long as it doesn't run right through town in Hawthorne, Nellis, or Tonopah). Easy enough to have an exit that puts you on "Business 11" at each end of town. If you need gas, food, entertainment, to take a dump, or the old in-out, go ahead and drive through town.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2017, 04:53:13 PM
US-95 up to Boise is not a high traffic corridor. And it doesn't take anything resembling a direct path to Boise either. The city of Boise has around 220,000 residents. Reno has more people within its city limits and the Reno-Carson City MSA is larger than Boise's MSA.

As it is US-95 doesn't have a lot of traffic on it between Las Vegas and towns like Fallon and Fernley either. There's just no good, direct path between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area. If there was a more direct path I think it would draw quite a bit more traffic and development along the corridor.

Fallon, NV may be growing, but it's still a small town of less than 10,000 people. Fernley is about double that size. I can maybe see some four-laning upgrades on various roads in that area. But it's hardly worth spending the money on an Interstate upgrade if the Interstate ends up serving a very sparse number of people. A pretty significant amount of mileage can be shaved off an I-11 route to the Reno area with some controversial town bypass choices. I mentioned Tonopah earlier. Beatty could be bypassed as well. You could end up with a fairly direct route from Vegas to Reno with some creative highway engineering. US-95 between Vegas and Fernely has a pretty crooked path because it's mostly just a 2-lane highway built to a certain cost saving standard.

Quote from: roadfroCurrently, the US 95 freeway section ends at the SR 156 junction, which is at the northwest urban limits of Las Vegas. The SR 156/Kyle Canyon Road junction is an at grade intersection. This junction will be converted to an interchange in the not-too-distant future, but that only extends the freeway north to the Snow Mountain interchange at the Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation. There are several other at grade intersections between there and Mercury.

QuoteIf it was easy to make a direct alignment between Las Vegas and Carson City/Reno, they would have built at least a 2-lane road that way ages ago.  The bends in the direct path are mostly there so they can go on level ground around mountain ranges.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 03:36:17 AM

QuoteIf it was easy to make a direct alignment between Las Vegas and Carson City/Reno, they would have built at least a 2-lane road that way ages ago.  The bends in the direct path are mostly there so they can go on level ground around mountain ranges.

The current alignment of US-95 in Nevada was built on a pretty crooked alignment. It doubles up with US-6 from Tonopah to Coaldale for 40 miles. Farther North US-95 doubles up with I-80, going the opposite direction for 95 miles to Winnemucca. The 2-lane route was built how it is, with all its multiplexes, turns and what not to save money. It would have been totally possible for them to build US-95 or another 2-lane route more direct to the Reno-Carson City area. They just didn't want to spend the money that it would have required to go through difficult terrain. And to minimize any political fallout they made sure to connect US-95 to as many little towns along the way. Interstate highways aren't really meant to do that. They're supposed to be more direct, efficient paths between destinations of greater significance.

Quote from: roadfro on January 01, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
Also note that 95 was extended through Nevada at a time where much of the state highway network (particularly through central Nevada) had yet to be paved, so that routing of US 95 was the best improved alignment upon which the route could be routed (it was the only paved route north/south in that part of the state at the time). It wasn’t really a matter of not wanting to spend money...the state was still completing its highway network (a task not substantially completed until the 1970s) and didn’t really have the money to be spending on forging highways through mountains.

QuoteAlso note that 95 was extended through Nevada at a time where much of the state highway network (particularly through central Nevada) had yet to be paved, so that routing of US 95 was the best improved alignment upon which the route could be routed (it was the only paved route north/south in that part of the state at the time). It wasn't really a matter of not wanting to spend money...the state was still completing its highway network (a task not substantially completed until the 1970s) and didn't really have the money to be spending on forging highways through mountains.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 01:10:15 PM
The conceptual route I described is not a big "S" curve. It's about as straight a route that can be managed between Vegas and Reno without hitting park land, tribal reservation land and military land. It's certainly far less crooked than the existing US-95 alignment. But it would be politically controversial for the towns it would bypass.

One problem with routing I-11 on the East side of Walker Lake is it would require I-11 to cut through secure areas of the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot and then the Walker Indian Reservation on the North side of the lake. The reservation could be a really difficult political obstacle. Going around the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake would force a lot of out of the way back-tracking. Routing I-11 along Alt US-95 to Yerrington would add over 30 miles to the route by the time I-11 got back down to Wellington for a South approach into Carson City. That's opposed to pushing I-11 West through the mountains next to Walker Lake directly over to Wellington.

Quote from: roadguy2 on January 01, 2018, 03:08:56 PM

Quote from: roadfro on January 01, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
Also note that 95 was extended through Nevada at a time where much of the state highway network (particularly through central Nevada) had yet to be paved, so that routing of US 95 was the best improved alignment upon which the route could be routed (it was the only paved route north/south in that part of the state at the time). It wasn't really a matter of not wanting to spend money...the state was still completing its highway network (a task not substantially completed until the 1970s) and didn't really have the money to be spending on forging highways through mountains.

Is that also why US 93 goes through Caliente and Pioche instead of being routed on NV 318?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 12:07:20 AM
For I-11 to get into Carson City, Minden and Gardnerville from the South via the US-395 corridor pushing I-11 through the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake is the key. It can't happen otherwise. Bypasses of other towns along US-95 in order to further straighten the route would be additional make or break factors.

At this point it's not even clear where the powers that be want I-11 to go in the Northwestern US. I suppose a corridor up to Boise is a possibility, but as an Interstate getting to Boise from Vegas would work a whole lot better and faster via US-93 on the East side of Nevada rather than going West and doing hundreds upon hundreds of miles worth of NE bound back-tracking just to get to Boise.

IMHO, I-11 was envisioned as an alternate major NAFTA highway serving coastal states. It would bypass the traffic clusterf*** in California, serve the growing metro regions in Nevada and serve cities in Oregon and Washington state far bigger than Boise, Idaho. If the choice was up to me I'd have I-11 follow US-395 into Northern California and then follow one of a few possible routes at dove-tailing into the I-5 corridor.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 12:07:20 AM
For I-11 to get into Carson City, Minden and Gardnerville from the South via the US-395 corridor pushing I-11 through the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake is the key. It can't happen otherwise. Bypasses of other towns along US-95 in order to further straighten the route would be additional make or break factors.

At this point it's not even clear where the powers that be want I-11 to go in the Northwestern US. I suppose a corridor up to Boise is a possibility, but as an Interstate getting to Boise from Vegas would work a whole lot better and faster via US-93 on the East side of Nevada rather than going West and doing hundreds upon hundreds of miles worth of NE bound back-tracking just to get to Boise.

IMHO, I-11 was envisioned as an alternate major NAFTA highway serving coastal states. It would bypass the traffic clusterf*** in California, serve the growing metro regions in Nevada and serve cities in Oregon and Washington state far bigger than Boise, Idaho. If the choice was up to me I'd have I-11 follow US-395 into Northern California and then follow one of a few possible routes at dove-tailing into the I-5 corridor.

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:02:31 AM
As far as being a NAFTA corridor, I-11 could just go as far as Las Vegas and stop.  Traffic for Portland, Seattle, Hanford, Spokane, Bend, etc., could take I-15 to Salt Lake City and then I-84.  That would usually be an easier route than being dumped on I-5 through the Siskiyous and southern Oregon -- less direct, but much less traffic and less likely to get delayed by snow.

• The 26/97 Oregon corridor is increasingly important, and ODOT at some point needs to look into twinning it from Sandy to Klamath Falls.
• Las Vegas to Portland is 1,184 miles via 15/84. Las Vegas to Seattle is 1,258 miles via 15/84/82/90.
• Las Vegas to Portland is 988 miles via Reno, Klamath Falls, Bend and Government Camp.
• Blue Box Pass on 26 is 4,024 feet and, aside from the Columbia River, is the lowest pass on the Western Cordillera between Snoqualmie and Tehachapi.
• When the Cascadia earthquake happens, Redmond is the established staging area for relief. That stuff needs good, new infrastructure to get there — and to get people out.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 02, 2018, 11:05:23 AM

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:02:31 AM
As far as being a NAFTA corridor, I-11 could just go as far as Las Vegas and stop.  Traffic for Portland, Seattle, Hanford, Spokane, Bend, etc., could take I-15 to Salt Lake City and then I-84.  That would usually be an easier route than being dumped on I-5 through the Siskiyous and southern Oregon -- less direct, but much less traffic and less likely to get delayed by snow.

I disagree with this, for reasons that I've debated elsewhere but love to rehash:

• The 26/97 Oregon corridor is increasingly important, and ODOT at some point needs to look into twinning it from Sandy to Klamath Falls.
• Las Vegas to Portland is 1,184 miles via 15/84. Las Vegas to Seattle is 1,258 miles via 15/84/82/90.
• Las Vegas to Portland is 988 miles via Reno, Klamath Falls, Bend and Government Camp.
• Blue Box Pass on 26 is 4,024 feet and, aside from the Columbia River, is the lowest pass on the Western Cordillera between Snoqualmie and Tehachapi.
• When the Cascadia earthquake happens, Redmond is the established staging area for relief. That stuff needs good, new infrastructure to get there – and to get people out.

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:17:03 PM
I see the desire for a 4-way expressway along US 97 from Weed to Madras.  I don't think it warrants a freeway, however.  There are a lot of driveways and at-grade interchanges that would be very expensive to separate, and there's not the amount of traffic that would justify it.

Quote from: doorknob60 on January 02, 2018, 01:46:23 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:17:03 PM
I see the desire for a 4-way expressway along US 97 from Weed to Madras.  I don't think it warrants a freeway, however.  There are a lot of driveways and at-grade interchanges that would be very expensive to separate, and there's not the amount of traffic that would justify it.

I don't disagree, but I think US-97 justifies it more than US-95 through Nevada does.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 01:55:19 PM
Las Vegas to Phoenix has to be the top priority for I-11 development. Other possible parts of the corridor should simply be identified and maybe some ROW bought and reserved for future use once an alignment was chosen.

I don't mind seeing I-11 simply end at I-80 if it ever gets built up that far. But if it had to terminate at another Interstate beyond I-80 I'd rather see it go over to I-5 in Oregon, but to Southern Oregon in the Medford area. Over 200,000 people live in the Medford-Grants Pass MSA. From there I-5 could be widened. I-11 could come near Klamath Falls, skirting the South side going over to Medford. US-97 is on a pretty narrow ROW North of Klamath Falls. It would be difficult enough just building that road 4-lane undivided.

Redding, CA is another possible option for a North terminus of I-11, partly since CA-44 is a freeway in Redding and on a freeway wide ROW East of Redding. Unfortunately the trip between Redding and Susanville pretty mountainous and not truck friendly. That would be a really expensive stretch of road to build.

Quote from: sparkerSince it was the first section out of the blocks, I don't think anyone would quibble with prioritizing Phoenix-Vegas; my guess is that there won't even be any studies on anything north of LV until at least Vegas-Kingman is completed as a full freeway and a Phoenix alignment has been selected.  But considering the NV corridor routing controversy in this thread alone, I'm certain interests in Gardnerville, Fallon, and other interim points will be pressing for the corridor to come their way, which will stretch out the decision process.

Quote from: doorknob60 on January 02, 2018, 04:18:24 PM
I think that if I-11 gets extended north of I-80 (I'm not saying it should, I'm just saying what I think would be best if it did hypothetically), the best option would be to follow US-395 N from Reno (if it's coming from Fernley, maybe a northern bypass of Reno would be a good fit), going through/near Susanville, roughly following CA-139 to Klamath Falls. From there, extend over US-97 to Madras, and US-26 to Portland. This provides better access to the growing Bend area, especially the crucial link to Portland, as well as a bypass of I-5 and the Siskiyou pass (while the US-97 corridor is higher, it is often drier, and US-26 is not bad for a cross-Cascades highway).

Other options would be to follow US-97 from Madras to Yakima (which would provide a long term bypass of the Portland/Salem area for people traveling between California and Seattle, though at about 40 miles longer that's a bit of a stretch), but US-26 gets a lot more traffic so I'd prefer that. Now, this is fictional territory at this point and I'm not saying any of this should happen any time remotely soon.

Extending to Boise doesn't make sense because it's 624 miles from Boise to Las Vegas via US-93/NV-318 through Twin Falls and Ely. Simply following the existing US-95 (and ID-55), it is 771 miles. Totally not worth it, especially since if you require a full freeway, I-84 to I-15 is 759 miles. Routing I-11 to Boise simply makes no sense (unless you're routing it along US-93, but nobody, including me, would suggest that; it's even lower traffic than US-95 and goes nowhere near Reno, which is the main goal of extending it to I-80).

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 11:33:19 PM
I just don't see an Interstate upgrade along US-26 going into Portland being feasible at all. There's too much development all over the US-26 corridor on the East side of Portland. US-26 twists and turns around the base of Mount Hood. Bypassing Portland to the South to connect into I-5 is one idea. But splitting off from East of Sandy what route do you take without still kicking a political hornet's nest?

If US-97 was to get the Interstate treatment through Klamath Falls, Bend and Redmond (which would not be easy or cheap at all) you might as well run the freeway along US-197 up to The Dalles. Routing it along US-97 up to Yakima, WA is another idea. But all that extra Interstate mileage would cost a fortune. And for how much benefit? It might be just as good to push I-11 into Medford.

As for pushing I-11 up US-95 to Boise, that's another thing I just don't see. Very little of US-95 between Winnemucca and the Boise area is just a dinky 2-lane route, and one that is extremely crooked at that. Jeez, the 100+ degree turn at Jordan Valley epitomizes the nature of that route. That's not the kind of thing fitting for an Interstate.

Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
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.

Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM

Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
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!

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM

Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
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...)

Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 04:51:49 PM
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.

Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!).  Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion?  Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.

Quote from: roadguy2 on January 05, 2018, 05:36:38 PM

Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!).  Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion?  Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.

Just throwing in my two cents: I feel like Vegas-Idaho traffic would rather take I-15 and/or I-84. US 93 goes through some pretty big service deserts, but at least I-15 passes through plenty of cities and towns. That said, if there was enough demand for an upgraded north-south highway in eastern Nevada, I would recommend moving US 93 onto NV 318.

Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!).  Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion?  Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.

Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2018, 12:46:19 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).

Quote from: kkt on January 06, 2018, 02:05:16 PM

Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2018, 12:46:19 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."

Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2018, 12:46:19 PM
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.)

Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 04:51:49 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM

Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 03:53:43 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.

Quote from: skluth on January 08, 2018, 06:36:47 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.

Quote from: sparkerThe 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.

Quote from: sparkerStarting 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.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 09, 2018, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: sparkerStarting 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).

QuoteThe 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).

Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM

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!

Quote from: sparker 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).

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.

• 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

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2018, 12:29:31 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.

Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2018, 03:49:34 AM
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).

Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2018, 03:49:34 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2018, 12:29:31 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?

Quote from: inkyatari 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.

Quote from: Mark68Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C?

Quote from: inkyatari on March 21, 2018, 01:00:44 PM
Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.

Quote from: skluth on March 21, 2018, 01:41:40 PM

Quote from: inkyatari on March 21, 2018, 01:00:44 PM
Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.

I hadn't noticed the NV 439 corridor before. It's on the press release as the USA Parkway between Sparks and Silver Springs. I don't see the actual roadbed on imagery. But it shows as a divided roadway in Google Maps so I wonder if it would be possible to reuse the ROW for a freeway. It works best with B3, but B1 could also be used with a freeway from Silver Spring to a point about 5-10 miles south of Salt Wells then south to Tonopah. This is almost 20 miles shorter than the B3 option and doesn't need to squeeze around Walker Lake.

The NV 439 corridor has the advantage of crossing US 50 near where the four lane section to Carson City is already built. I agree this should be one of the options.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2018, 01:03:33 PM

Quote from: Mark68Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C?

Not necessarily. US-95 and then later US-95A travels another 20+ miles to the north before finally going around the moutain range that sits on the West side of Walker Lake. Then it goes SSW into Yerington. From there the road has to go roughly 20 miles back down south (not counting all the miles going West) to get into the Smith Valley & Wellington areas. We're talking a really long, time/distance wasting "S" shape path.

Punching a highway directly through a mountain pass, even building tunnels, sure isn't cheap or easy. But there is serious cost involved with adding lots of miles to a highway just to get around an obstacle like mountains. Then there's all the extra burden of time and fuel cost added to drivers dealing with way way around routing option rather than traveling on something with a more direct path.

There are other things to consider with including Carson City in the I-11 "B4" option. The Reno-Sparks area is growing significantly, especially with big tech companies building out East of Sparks. But there is also growth going on in Carson City and a bunch of communities south of there along the US-395 corridor. Not to mention Lake Tahoe is directly West of Minden & Gardnerville. A fair amount of car and commercial traffic comes up from California on US-395. Even if I-11 were never to be built, or never built coming into Carson City from the South, it looks likely that region growth would force some serious upgrades to US-395 from Carson City down to the NV/CA border.

Quote from: roadfro on March 29, 2018, 09:40:40 AM
NDOT's traveling public meetings concluded last night in Reno. I went to the meeting just to see what was said.

I didn't learn too much new information. Much of what was presented I had already seen on the I-11 website as they had posted the meeting presentation and materials prior to all the meetings.

Public comment was a mixed bag. There seemed to be comments in favor of all alignments, some against B1 & B4. One gentleman was vehemently opposed to B1 as it could limit/remove access to public lands. Another favored B4 with potential to make connections to Pacific NW region. A man from Hawthorne was against B1 and favored B2/B3 due to Hawthorne depot and potential negative effects on the town of Schurz and the Walker River Reservation community.

I did ask a question during public comment about ultimate purpose and likely extension paths north from I-80. The response I got was that NDOT would be focusing on what is in their locus of control currently. With the federal designations currently only specifying I-11 shall reach I-80, it seems that there is not a strong desire to initiate any I-11 planning in other potentially-effected states–therefore, NDOT is not currently beholden to other future paths in determining the specific location where I-11 connects to I-80.

The current high-level planning scoping should produce an initial report by the end of June.


Local news coverage of the meeting (guess who was interviewed :D)
http://www.ktvn.com/story/37834850/ndot-hears-from-renosparks-residents-on-interstate-11

Quote from: sparkerI am somewhat surprised that concerns from the Walker River Native American reserve haven't been expressed -- at least publicly -- to date (if this were AZ, there would have been several news conferences or at least press releases emanating from that quarter by now!).

Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.

Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.

Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:36:12 AM

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.

Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy.   That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic.   215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 24, 2018, 01:10:08 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:36:12 AM

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy.   That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic.   215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.

Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.

Quote
Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?

Quote from: roadfro on April 24, 2018, 03:12:40 PM

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 24, 2018, 01:10:08 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:36:12 AM

Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM

Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.

Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.

The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.

So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.

Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy.   That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic.   215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.

Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.

Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.

From what I've seen, it appears that if the 215 option is taken, a full system interchange would not be constructed at I-11 and 215–it would just be the ramps needed to facilitate the new north/south I-11 segment. A system interchange at that location would not really be necessary, given the proximity of Durango Drive (currently signed SB as "TO CC-215") and the US 95/215 interchange. Similarly, you could likely get away with a directional interchange between I-11 and US 95, and possibly only a half interchange with I-11 and SR 157 (to/from the south). This alignment would veer out slightly to make use of currently empty land west of Providence, so as to not plow through that area (much of that land is BLM or part of the Humboldt-Toyabi National Forest land surrounding the Mount Charleston area, so it would be relatively easy to transfer that over for NDOT use.

Quote
Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?

No problem, it happens frequently with that thread. I've split discussion off like this a couple times.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 04:23:47 PM
I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.

Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 04:31:29 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 04:23:47 PM
I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.

That alternative was discussed earlier; it would probably work if configured strictly as an elongated ramp between NB 215 near Ann Rd. and US 95 due north via the alignment you mention; other movements between 215 and northward US 95/I-11 would be made at the current 95/215 crossing site.  Picture the function of IN's I-865 turned on its side and applied to this situation -- and that's essentially what would have to happen here to make the interchange with 215 practical in that area.

Quote
For a second time this year, the Nevada Department of Transportation is going on a road trip to discuss the future of Interstate 11.

Its seven-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.
<...>
State and local officials are still figuring out how I-11 should go through – or around – the Las Vegas Valley.

However, state officials already envision I-11 leaving northwest Las Vegas, running along an upgraded version of the current U.S. Highway 95 to Tonopah. From there, NDOT is reviewing four options that call for the use of a mix of existing roads and new traffic lanes leading up to Interstate 80:

– A westward swing toward Carson City and Reno.
– Running up through Silver Springs and Fernley.
– A path through Fallon.
– An eastern route that would go through Salt Wells.

Those four options were discussed during a series of meetings held across the state in March, NDOT spokesman Tony Illia said. After gathering input, department officials evaluated and ranked each of those choices in an attempt to narrow down their options and streamline the environmental review process.

The results of that evaluation will be presented during the next round of meetings, Illia said.
<...>
Interstate 11 meetings

July 24, 2 p.m.: NDOT Headquarters, third-floor conference room, 1263 S. Stewart St., Carson City, with video conference available at the NDOT district offices in Las Vegas, Elko and Winnemucca.
July 25, 4 p.m.: Idlewild Park, California Building, 75 Cowan Drive, Reno.
July 26, 11 a.m.: Fernley High School, 1300 U.S. 95A, Fernley.
July 26, 4 p.m.: Fallon Convention Center, 100 Campus Way, Fallon.
Aug. 7, 4 p.m.: Hawthorne Convention Center, 923 E St., Hawthorne.
Aug. 8, 4 p.m.: Tonopah Convention Center, 301 Brougher Ave., Tonopah.
Aug. 9, 4 p.m.: Santa Fe Station, 4949 N. Rancho Drive, Las Vegas.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 16, 2018, 03:51:01 PM
They should have Interstate 11 follow the Interstate 515-US 95 corridor through Las Vegas. That's been my opinion for the get-go. After leaving the Las Vegas area, I have no opinion on which alignment it should take from there to Interstate 80.

Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2018, 02:25:09 PM
Noticed that all of the meetings are held on weekdays during standard working hours. That sort of schedule often results in overrepresentation of retirees (or those on more flexible work schedules) at such conferences -- at least in my own experience with such things.  In that area, which is increasingly becoming a retirement "mecca", you may find an increased NIMBY factor expressed during the presentations -- particularly in Fernley & Fallon, "ground zero", along with Silver Spring to the southwest, for new "55+" development (just peruse the real-estate sections of Bay Area newspapers; they're rife with listings for such tracts in northern NV).  That might also have some bearing on the so-called "western" loop via Carson City & Reno; while obviously planning on using I-580 between those two cities, it would impinge on the area south of Carson City (Minden, Gardnerville and environs) that has long been a magnet for both retirees and CA housing-cost "refugees".  It should be interesting to not only get a report of at least one of the conferences but also the audience response to the various corridor iterations.

Quote from: roadfro on July 17, 2018, 10:40:50 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2018, 02:25:09 PM
Noticed that all of the meetings are held on weekdays during standard working hours. That sort of schedule often results in overrepresentation of retirees (or those on more flexible work schedules) at such conferences -- at least in my own experience with such things.  In that area, which is increasingly becoming a retirement "mecca", you may find an increased NIMBY factor expressed during the presentations -- particularly in Fernley & Fallon, "ground zero", along with Silver Spring to the southwest, for new "55+" development (just peruse the real-estate sections of Bay Area newspapers; they're rife with listings for such tracts in northern NV).  That might also have some bearing on the so-called "western" loop via Carson City & Reno; while obviously planning on using I-580 between those two cities, it would impinge on the area south of Carson City (Minden, Gardnerville and environs) that has long been a magnet for both retirees and CA housing-cost "refugees".  It should be interesting to not only get a report of at least one of the conferences but also the audience response to the various corridor iterations.

Most NDOT public hearings are held in the "open house with presentation" format, where the people can browse display boards and talk with representatives for about an hour or so before the formal presentation and public comment period begins. This is not explicitly stated in the linked article, but the summer 2018 meeting notice (PDF) (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14319) on NDOT's project page indicates that all the 4pm meetings will have formal presentations begin at 5:30pm (and questions/comment on public record are usually taken after the presentation).

Quote from: flaroads on July 27, 2018, 06:17:54 PM
One of the other questions I asked was how I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas. According to NDOT, that is still very much up for debate. From this meeting, and from a local RTS engineer that I spoke with during my recent trip to Las Vegas and CA, all options are still on the table, including the eastern bypass. In the meantime, though approved by AASHTO, NDOT has no plans of signing I-11 north of the Wagonwheel Drive interchange (Exit 56A). So that means for the foreseeable future I-515 will remain signed as is. Remember, I only spoke with one individual in person, so this information could change.

The representative during the online meeting did not give any indication that they would sign I-11 through Las Vegas at this time either, other than the part of U.S. 95 north of the Centennial Bowl exchange (with Clark County 215) in the northwest. NDOT might post signs once the interchange with Nevada 157 is complete two/three years from now.

Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2018, 03:02:23 PM
Not at all surprised that the Carson City option was eliminated in the initial stages; the cost of constructing that routing would have been exorbitant.  But I'm also surprised that the option through Fallon and up US 95 from there is still on the table; that should make Reno-area promoters a bit uneasy.  Still think that Fernley or environs will be the eventual I-80 junction; it more or less would satisfy most area needs by providing bi-directional access to I-80 -- not everyone gets what they want, but at least one can "get there from here" for the most part.

Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2018, 03:02:23 PM
Not at all surprised that the Carson City option was eliminated in the initial stages; the cost of constructing that routing would have been exorbitant.  But I'm also surprised that the option through Fallon and up US 95 from there is still on the table; that should make Reno-area promoters a bit uneasy.  Still think that Fernley or environs will be the eventual I-80 junction; it more or less would satisfy most area needs by providing bi-directional access to I-80 -- not everyone gets what they want, but at least one can "get there from here" for the most part.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
The I-11 route through Vegas is not a formal part of this study, as this process is examining from Vegas north to I-80.

Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
Interesting that they said NDOT has no plans to sign I-11 north of Wagonwheel... The STIP indicates there is a planned I-11 resigning project (https://estip.nevadadot.com/project_info?project_id=1012620&version=4&view_type=AWP&fromPage=order%5Fby%3D%26order%5Forder%3D%26order%5Fold%5Fby%3D%26COUNTY%3DCLARK%257CClark%26project%5Ftype%3DRd%2520Sign%252FSignal%257CRd%2520Sign%252FSignal%26view%5Ftype%3DAWP%26IS%5FFROM%5FFULL%3DTrue%26p%5Ftype%3D%26%5F%3D1532813779103%26end_page=) for FY 2018...

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 29, 2018, 07:08:54 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

26 and 95 are pretty rural...

when 73 and 95 have an interchange one day that will also be buried in the swamp

Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.

Quote from: US 89 on July 30, 2018, 12:52:49 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.

I wouldn't call the north 15/84 remote. That split happens in Tremonton, which is a town of 8000 people. By western standards, that's not remote at all, and nowhere close to the remoteness of places like 15/70 and 10/20, where there is absolutely no civilization for miles.

Also: Plutonic Panda was asking only about full interchanges, not Ys. Of the interchanges that have been named, all but 26/95 and 10/75 have been only three-way interchanges.

Quote from: SSR_317 on July 28, 2018, 09:54:34 PM
By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).

Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!

Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2018, 09:30:27 AM
but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.

Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2018, 09:30:27 AM

Quote from: SSR_317 on July 28, 2018, 09:54:34 PM
By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).

Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!

Agreed on both counts. Also, this would be totally counterintuitive of the original purpose of the Interstate system, which is to connect major cities to each other. Even the current system has its flaws (I-80 needs to go from Paterson to NEW YORK, not Hackensack! I-65 needs to go from Indianapolis to CHICAGO, not Gary!), but then again, we can't always get what we want. I can see why B4 was eliminated (rough terrain and high cost), but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.

Quote from: US 89 on July 30, 2018, 12:52:49 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.

I wouldn't call the north 15/84 remote. That split happens in Tremonton, which is a town of 8000 people. By western standards, that's not remote at all, and nowhere close to the remoteness of places like 15/70 and 10/20, where there is absolutely no civilization for miles.

Also: Plutonic Panda was asking only about full interchanges, not Ys. Of the interchanges that have been named, all but 26/95 and 10/75 have been only three-way interchanges.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM


I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2018, 11:03:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM


I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."  

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2018, 11:03:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."

Quote from: Mark68 on July 31, 2018, 11:35:48 AM
I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 31, 2018, 03:58:12 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2018, 11:03:27 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.

ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build"  or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."

Hmmm... efficient use of our tax dollars when it comes to building roads has to mean something.  If a more cost-effective alternative exists (which is the case with the northern routing of I-11) while providing a similar benefit to motorists, that option should be selected.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 03:01:09 AM
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2018, 09:24:38 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 03:01:09 AM
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you.  There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well!  If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 02:16:04 PM

Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2018, 09:24:38 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 03:01:09 AM
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.

Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you.  There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well!  If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!

Can you go back in time and warn my past self? LOL. I ran out of gas twice in that area before. Once going from Yosemite onto US 95 and then another time driving from Reno to Vegas. I was with a girl so it wasn't all bad haha. Little embarrassing on my part. Good times anyways!

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 01, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

Quote from: nexus73 on August 01, 2018, 06:48:15 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 01, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

Bring back the 2-lane Interstate.  US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH.  SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets.  One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange.  Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges.  Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.

Will it happen?  Is it needed?  Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.

Rick

Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2018, 07:58:00 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on August 01, 2018, 06:48:15 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 01, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.

Bring back the 2-lane Interstate.  US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH.  SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets.  One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange.  Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges.  Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.

Will it happen?  Is it needed?  Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.

Rick

The Boise/Treasure Valley area of SW Idaho has yet to hit "critical mass" regarding commercial access; right now, what's on the ground seems to be adequate.  But if (a) the metro population hits somewhere around 1.25M (as projected for about 2025) and (b) there's continued corporate "migration" into the area seeking a lower tax base and a land market that, while increasing somewhat, has yet to elevate above the "bargain" category (and if that situation persists for the next decade), more efficient access to points not readily accessible via I-84 is likely to be sought.  For all intents and purposes, that's limited to two southward corridors:  US 95 (likely with an eastward divergence at its northern end toward Nampa) and the NV 225/ID 51 composite corridor intersecting I-84 near Mountain Home.  If the US 95 corridor is placed "in play", it's almost certain that the section through Oregon would need to be heavily subsidized, either at the federal level via specific legislation attached to the corridor definition, or through a cooperative of the other states, particularly Idaho, which would reap the majority of the benefits although having the least in-state mileage to build and maintain.  The only section of US 95 that would provide even minimal benefit to Oregon would be from the NV state line to OR 78, as an alternate trucking route/shortcut from I-80 to US 20 toward the Bend area.  Oregon might be convinced to kick in a nominal amount of funding toward that portion of the overall corridor; north from there the route would require maximal subsidization from outside.  The saving grace of US 95 is that most of the route traverses relatively benign "high desert"; the more difficult terrain occurs around Jordan Valley on the northern section of Oregon's US 95 (there's a reason for the sharp alignment change there -- it's to get around some nasty escarpments).  Once in Idaho, the main issue will be a Snake River bridge plus acquisition of farmland and suburban parcels.  If arrangements that don't piss off (at least fatally!) the various parties involved can be reached, then such a corridor is doable.  From a political standpoint, the Elko-Mountain Home corridor (I-13, anyone?) would be considerably simpler to plan, since NV seems to be willing to follow through with Interstate development in their hinterlands (unless it gets too expensive; see the rejection of I-11's B4 option) and Idaho and its economy stands to benefit -- but the plain fact is that it's way out of the way for commercial traffic from CA and Reno-area distribution centers to Boise-area destinations -- and SLC-based traffic from the east already has the optimally efficient 15>84 routing in place.  It's just not a practical option given the almost certainty that I-11 will hit I-80 near Fernley. 

So one is pretty much stuck with funneling extra $$ to ODOT to make US 95 a feasible Interstate corridor.  That means if the Treasure Valley projections come to pass, the parties standing to benefit from such a corridor's development have seven or eight years to ponder just how to accomplish the process.  In reality, such a routing would be its own "SIU" rather than a simple I-11 extension; it's likely more commercial traffic using that corridor would have a SW endpoint in Northern California (via I-80, of course) rather than a continuous run up I-11 from Las Vegas.  Thus the timetable for this corridor might be independent of that for the I-11 development to the south and more in line with the situation in Idaho.   

   

Quote from: doorknob60 on August 02, 2018, 03:31:48 PM
An Elko to Mountain Home corridor doesn't really make sense to me. Any fictional N/S freeway east of Boise should follow US-93 (bypassing Twin Falls with a new Snake River bridge to the west, hitting I-84 just west of Jerome). I can't think of any scenario where a Mountain Home to Elko freeway would work where this option would not work just as well or better. US-93 is already the most direct route between Boise and Las Vegas. That said, traffic levels on this highway are currently quite low so I don't see a need for this (except maybe the bridge west of Twin Falls, that would be nice), probably ever. Any situation where you may need an all freeway connector between the two, I-15 is only ~90 miles longer.

I could definitely see US-95 being upgraded though, as you said. But it would be mostly to serve traffic Boise to/from California and Reno, not Las Vegas (not that it's a problem, just pointing it out; might make the I-11 number not make the most sense though; maybe I-13 or an I-x80).

QuoteA top-ranking route for the future Interstate 11 to connect the Las Vegas valley with Northern Nevada and beyond eclipses the eastern segment of the state and spends more taxpayer money than necessary.

That was the message that Richard Howe, chairman of the White Pine County Board of Commissioners, presented to his Elko County counterparts at their Aug. 1 meeting. He is traveling around the state to garner support of I-11 following Highway 93 rather than Highway 95 through Nevada.

... Howe also proposed that building I-11 in eastern Nevada would help mobilize a marginalized segment of the state. The rest of the state's "total disregard for eastern Nevada is obvious,"  he said. We contribute many, many dollars that they don't give us credit for."

Quote from: Kniwt on August 05, 2018, 09:29:44 PM
To add another voice to the crowd, here's the chairman of the White Pine County (NV) Board of Commissioners calling for I-11 to follow US 93, not US 95:

https://elkodaily.com/news/white-pine-official-wants-interstate-to-go-through-eastern-nevada/article_652015de-99b0-5f96-8404-fc7fc3f59abf.html

(White Pine County includes Ely.)

QuoteA top-ranking route for the future Interstate 11 to connect the Las Vegas valley with Northern Nevada and beyond eclipses the eastern segment of the state and spends more taxpayer money than necessary.

That was the message that Richard Howe, chairman of the White Pine County Board of Commissioners, presented to his Elko County counterparts at their Aug. 1 meeting. He is traveling around the state to garner support of I-11 following Highway 93 rather than Highway 95 through Nevada.

... Howe also proposed that building I-11 in eastern Nevada would help mobilize a marginalized segment of the state. The rest of the state's "total disregard for eastern Nevada is obvious,"  he said. We contribute many, many dollars that they don't give us credit for."

Quote from: Mark68 on July 31, 2018, 11:35:48 AM
I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?

Quote from: ilpt4u on July 29, 2018, 01:53:45 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

Excluding Y/T or Trumpet style connections, where 2 Freeways become 1?

Western KY Parkway and Pennyrile Parkway/I-69 and future I-169?

Or perhaps I-79 and I-80 in Western PA?

Indiana Toll Road/I-80/90 and I-69 in NE IN?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 06, 2018, 04:33:28 PM
Mr. Howe could also wait for a bit and then push upgrades to US 93 corridor that are practical rather than turning it into a full blown interstate if it doesn't need it.

Quote from: english si on August 26, 2018, 02:57:58 PM
Because some enterprising local developers want the I-11 brand to help build the eastern loop!

Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?

Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?

VS988

Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 01:56:48 AM

Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?

VS988

I would prefer it to take 515 north. Seems like a much simpler route, and it can just continue straight onto the US 95 freeway past the interchange with I-15 and then go all the way up to Reno.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal

Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 04:09:19 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal

Whyyyyyyy????

Quote from: sparker on August 27, 2018, 06:45:03 PM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 04:09:19 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal

Whyyyyyyy????

I think we have the Vegas version of the notorious "Hypotenuse" here! -- complete with the abject lack of rationality endemic to that Chicago "concept"!

Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 07:10:48 PM
What's the Hypotenuse, may I ask?

Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2018, 08:32:29 PM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 07:10:48 PM
What's the Hypotenuse, may I ask?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0

Quote from: roadfro on August 27, 2018, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?

They simply haven't finished the corridor study yet.

Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:28:33 AM

Quote from: roadfro on August 27, 2018, 12:30:34 AM

Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?

They simply haven't finished the corridor study yet.

Question:  is there at least an approximate/projected completion date for said corridor study?  Just hope it's not just a "kick-the-can-down-the-freeway" delaying tactic (pardon my cynicism, but I've seen projects "studied" to death!).

Quote from: kdk on August 27, 2018, 06:35:51 PM
As far as the routing through Las Vegas, I find it interesting if they do go with the eastern loop alignment (which I would support), nearly all of the "first stretch of I-11" would actually not even be included in the final route, as the interstate would likely turn NB right after the state line.

Quote from: roadfro on August 28, 2018, 10:39:23 AM
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.

Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2018, 09:09:15 PM

Quote from: roadfro on August 28, 2018, 10:39:23 AM
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.

Isn't there a signage contract to truncate I-515 to I-215 and resign it as I-11, including changed exit numbers?

Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2018, 12:24:59 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2018, 09:09:15 PM

Quote from: roadfro on August 28, 2018, 10:39:23 AM
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.

Isn't there a signage contract to truncate I-515 to I-215 and resign it as I-11, including changed exit numbers?

Since the option of the east side bypass remains on the table pending the results of the alignment study -- and it departs the existing alignment just north of Railroad Pass in order to avoid housing on that side of the metro area -- it's likely such a contract has been put on hold pending those findings.

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

That's new... And definitely an error.

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

That's new... And definitely an error.

Certainly an error for now

But also, perhaps foresight!

Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 05, 2018, 10:00:24 PM

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

That's new... And definitely an error.

Certainly an error for now

But also, perhaps foresight!

And yet I've been trying to get a new interchange in Wisconsin to show up on Google Maps for over a month :-/

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

That's new... And definitely an error.

Certainly an error for now

But also, perhaps foresight!

Quote from: Henry on September 06, 2018, 10:04:54 AM

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

That's new... And definitely an error.

Certainly an error for now

But also, perhaps foresight!

I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually I-11's route in Las Vegas; it certainly would provide a straight shot through there on its way to Reno.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2018, 12:41:36 PM
The primary 2-digit routes would take the most direct route through the city while the 3-digit routes functioned as bypasses around the city (or odd-numbered spurs to other parts of that immediate region).

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 07, 2018, 03:15:41 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2018, 12:41:36 PM
The primary 2-digit routes would take the most direct route through the city while the 3-digit routes functioned as bypasses around the city (or odd-numbered spurs to other parts of that immediate region).

That stopped being a truism decades ago.  San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego on the 15 alone are examples of that being abandoned as a policy.  We could probably start a whole other thread on how many primary interstates bypass the major city along them with a 3di being the direct route through that city.

Quote from: WR of USA on September 08, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on September 06, 2018, 08:34:50 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 05, 2018, 10:00:24 PM

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas.  :confused:

That's new... And definitely an error.

Certainly an error for now

But also, perhaps foresight!

And yet I've been trying to get a new interchange in Wisconsin to show up on Google Maps for over a month :-/

Which one?

Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2018, 05:47:53 PM

Quote from: WR of USA on September 08, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.

Assuming I-11 is routed through the city on US 95 (as it should be, IMO) if the eastern loop winds up actually getting built, it's more likely to be numbered 215 to go along with the rest of the beltway -- whether that's I-215, CC 215, or even SR 215 (though that would break Nevada's route numbering scheme).

I suppose if 11 gets routed onto an eastern loop, then US 95 between there and the Spaghetti Bowl could become I-711, though I'd rather see an even x11 for that, replacing I-515 as well.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for 711. Although we're getting into fictional territory here, maybe 711 could be used for a spur to Reno or Carson City?

Quote from: WR of USA on September 08, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.

Quote from: mapman1071 on September 10, 2018, 11:49:36 PM
Resign I-515/US 95 as I-11/US 95 as far north as Mercury and possibly resign I-215/CC215 as I-211

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 09, 2018, 01:10:40 PM
And, just to be clear: That eastern loop is not going to survive any EIS.

Quote from: inkyatari on September 11, 2018, 09:16:23 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 09, 2018, 01:10:40 PM
And, just to be clear: That eastern loop is not going to survive any EIS.

I don't see it happening from a logistical perspective, let alone an environmental one.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 11, 2018, 04:00:44 PM
I think the Eastern Corridor concept is do-able. But it could take at least 10-20 years to build under the current US "model" of highway development and funding. It could be built significantly faster as a toll road -but the currently proposed path (skirting the East edge of Henderson, following E Lake Mead Pkwy through a mountain pass and then looping East of all the mountains South of Nellis AFB) would be a clear invitation to shun-pike. The Eastern Corridor is still an easy to justify highway project. But it's silly to require I-11 to run on it. We would be waiting still 2040 for the thing to get finished.

I-11 could be signed on US-95 up thru the NW outskirts of Las Vegas to the NV-157 intersection right now.

Quote from: sparker on September 11, 2018, 05:03:32 AM

Quote from: mapman1071 on September 10, 2018, 11:49:36 PM
Resign I-515/US 95 as I-11/US 95 as far north as Mercury and possibly resign I-215/CC215 as I-211

Doubt whether a redesignation of 215 would happen; that number has now been in service for well over 20 years and is pretty much entrenched in the local lexicon.  And it'll intersect I-15 at two points, so the numbering is both technically and practically valid.  The only section that would be renumbered would be between US 95 NW of town and the northern I-15 junction -- and only if I-11 by some fluke were to be routed over the eastern loop!  But the sentiment expressed a couple of posts ago is probably accurate -- running an Interstate-grade freeway through NPS territory (here, the Lake Mead rec area) would likely be stopped in its tracks by an EIS -- or at least slowed down to the point that it is no longer a viable alternative. 

There's a few at-grade crossings to eliminate before I-11 could be signed all the way out to Mercury; however, the alignment does utilize Interstate-grade geometrics -- so it's a matter of separating the facilities in the few places that come into play. 

Quote from: sparker on September 11, 2018, 05:52:34 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 11, 2018, 04:00:44 PM
I think the Eastern Corridor concept is do-able. But it could take at least 10-20 years to build under the current US "model" of highway development and funding. It could be built significantly faster as a toll road -but the currently proposed path (skirting the East edge of Henderson, following E Lake Mead Pkwy through a mountain pass and then looping East of all the mountains South of Nellis AFB) would be a clear invitation to shun-pike. The Eastern Corridor is still an easy to justify highway project. But it's silly to require I-11 to run on it. We would be waiting still 2040 for the thing to get finished.

I-11 could be signed on US-95 up thru the NW outskirts of Las Vegas to the NV-157 intersection right now.

In agreement -- although to date NV has taken little interest in toll facilities, so eastside construction as a tolled road would be a bit of a stretch.  And while NDOT could, at least technically, sign I-11 over both the remainder of I-515 and US 95 north out of town to NV 157, they'll probably not do so until the alignment study previously mentioned has been completed.  Although others might have more up-to-date information, IIRC that study was to be completed by late 2019. 

Being NV, I wonder if any of the establishments who do that sort of thing have set odds regarding the finalization of a I-11 alignment choice through town?  I'd sure put a few bucks on the US 95 through-town routing!  :biggrin:

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)

Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 14, 2018, 01:16:59 AM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)

A faster route from Oakland to Las Vegas would be I-580 to I-5 to CA-58 to I-15 north.

Quote from: mgk920 on September 14, 2018, 10:29:46 AM
Weekend traffic on I-15, OTOH....

:wow:

Mike

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)

Quote from: Mark68 on September 14, 2018, 02:11:19 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)

I'm sure by the time I-11 is built to I-80, the Raiders will have abandoned Vegas to go back to Oakland. That's their modus operandi, after all.

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)

NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay

Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 14, 2018, 07:37:14 PM

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)

NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay

The fastest route from Green Bay to the Twin Cities would take WIS 29 to I-94 several miles west of Eau Claire.

Quote from: sparkerIf Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points).  San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had.   But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management).  But we shall see.  Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!

Quote from: sparker on September 14, 2018, 04:17:52 PM
If Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points).  San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had.   But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management).  But we shall see.  Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 10:36:35 PM
I'm sure the craze to replace '90s era stadiums will only pick up before it dies down. It's gotten to a point that we'd rather start over with something new than keep something old going. I mean, look at Lambeau Field for instance. It opened in the '60s and the Packers make it better all the time; ditto on the Superdome. Now, to get the thread back on topic, I still think it would be cheaper and easier to make I-515 I-11 through Vegas, and route it along US 95 as much as possible to Carson City and Reno.

Quote from: sparker on September 15, 2018, 02:09:28 AM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 10:36:35 PM
I'm sure the craze to replace '90s era stadiums will only pick up before it dies down. It's gotten to a point that we'd rather start over with something new than keep something old going. I mean, look at Lambeau Field for instance. It opened in the '60s and the Packers make it better all the time; ditto on the Superdome. Now, to get the thread back on topic, I still think it would be cheaper and easier to make I-515 I-11 through Vegas, and route it along US 95 as much as possible to Carson City and Reno.

Check upthread; Carson City's no longer in the mix.  Odds are I-11 will intersect I-80 within 3-4 miles of Fernley -- which makes sense, since that optimizes bidirectional dispersal of NB traffic -- west to Reno and northeast to Idaho.  Since the "classic" Reno-Vegas route was Fernley-Fallon then south on US 95, the remaining options as selected by NDOT planners essentially mimic that function.   

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)

NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay

AFC East only needs I-95 and I-90...granted it's a long haul on I-95 from Boston to Miami...and very soon it will even be continuous!

Quote from: Mark68 on September 17, 2018, 02:10:03 PM

Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)

NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay

AFC East only needs I-95 and I-90...granted it's a long haul on I-95 from Boston to Miami...and very soon it will even be continuous!

What? Are they (finally) closing that gap in NJ?

Quote from: sparker on September 17, 2018, 04:04:57 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on September 17, 2018, 02:10:03 PM
What? Are they (finally) closing that gap in NJ?

Yeah -- but they're doing it in PA!  Long thread in Northeast about this, supposed to open in a week or so!

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 14, 2018, 09:47:16 PM

Quote from: sparkerIf Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points).  San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had.   But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management).  But we shall see.  Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!

I have a feeling the Raiders will be right at home in Las Vegas. Seems kind of fitting too, given the team name and all the casinos "raiding" tourist wallets.

Even if the Raiders don't stay in Vegas for the long term I think chances are good the San Antonio-Austin area will snare an NFL team before the Raiders are able to make another move. I'd give it within the next 5 to 10 years. Buffalo, Charlotte and Jacksonville are on the bubble. The Bills, Panthers and Jaguars all want brand new, state of the art stadiums, which currently come with price tags topping well above $1 billion. I strongly doubt the taxpayers of all 3 of those cities would agree to shouldering that cost.

The Panthers' stadium (currently "Bank of America" stadium) opened in 1996. The Jaguars' stadium (aka TIAA Bank Field) opened in 1995. The Bills' stadium (now called New Era Field) opened in 1973. The Bill's field is pretty old and outdated in terms of NFL stadiums. The stadiums for the Panthers and Jaguars are not really old at all. But just like the Georgia Dome, those 1990's era stadiums are not in the same class as the current generation of new stadiums. Cowboys Stadium got this whole billion dollar stadium trend started.

If I had to bet on which team would relocate first I'd say the Bills. The metro population is 1.1 million (2010 census). The Bills' 2018 season has started off badly; the organization shed some of its best (and most expensive) players. The locals may not be too keen on paying a fortune for a new stadium if the team is not winning. Charlotte is a bigger city than Buffalo (800,000 in the city limits, 2.4 million MSA). Jacksonville has around 800,000 residents within its city limits and a 1.3 million MSA.

A new NFL stadium located in the vicinity of New Braunfels or San Marcos would be in one of the most rapidly growing areas of the US. Austin's MSA is over 2 million with a city limits population at the edge of 1 million. San Antonio's city limits population is above 1 million, with a MSA over 2 million. There's about 4.5 million people living in that region along I-35. And there's some big money there. I think if Mark Davis had any plans to move the Raiders to Texas he blew the one shot he had. If he wants to move the team out of Vegas 10 years from now he'll have to look at other cities like maybe San Diego!
:D

Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 18, 2018, 09:39:29 AM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 14, 2018, 09:47:16 PM

Quote from: sparkerIf Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points).  San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had.   But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management).  But we shall see.  Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!

I have a feeling the Raiders will be right at home in Las Vegas. Seems kind of fitting too, given the team name and all the casinos "raiding" tourist wallets.

Even if the Raiders don't stay in Vegas for the long term I think chances are good the San Antonio-Austin area will snare an NFL team before the Raiders are able to make another move. I'd give it within the next 5 to 10 years. Buffalo, Charlotte and Jacksonville are on the bubble. The Bills, Panthers and Jaguars all want brand new, state of the art stadiums, which currently come with price tags topping well above $1 billion. I strongly doubt the taxpayers of all 3 of those cities would agree to shouldering that cost.

The Panthers' stadium (currently "Bank of America" stadium) opened in 1996. The Jaguars' stadium (aka TIAA Bank Field) opened in 1995. The Bills' stadium (now called New Era Field) opened in 1973. The Bill's field is pretty old and outdated in terms of NFL stadiums. The stadiums for the Panthers and Jaguars are not really old at all. But just like the Georgia Dome, those 1990's era stadiums are not in the same class as the current generation of new stadiums. Cowboys Stadium got this whole billion dollar stadium trend started.

If I had to bet on which team would relocate first I'd say the Bills. The metro population is 1.1 million (2010 census). The Bills' 2018 season has started off badly; the organization shed some of its best (and most expensive) players. The locals may not be too keen on paying a fortune for a new stadium if the team is not winning. Charlotte is a bigger city than Buffalo (800,000 in the city limits, 2.4 million MSA). Jacksonville has around 800,000 residents within its city limits and a 1.3 million MSA.

A new NFL stadium located in the vicinity of New Braunfels or San Marcos would be in one of the most rapidly growing areas of the US. Austin's MSA is over 2 million with a city limits population at the edge of 1 million. San Antonio's city limits population is above 1 million, with a MSA over 2 million. There's about 4.5 million people living in that region along I-35. And there's some big money there. I think if Mark Davis had any plans to move the Raiders to Texas he blew the one shot he had. If he wants to move the team out of Vegas 10 years from now he'll have to look at other cities like maybe San Diego!
:D

Jerrah Jones can barely stand the Houston Texans giving his Cowboys competition. No way in HELL he allows any team to move to San Antonio.

The last actual threat of such a move was after the 2005 season, after New Orleans was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Louisiana Superdome (now branded by Mercedes Benz) back then served as a staging area for Katrina evacuees, with all the disastrous results. The Saints had to move their front offices to San Antonio, and even play some home games at the Alamodome (as well as LSU's Tiger Stadium). There was some thought that Tom Benson, the former owner of the Saints, would consider a permanent move to San Antonio, but ultimately that was nixed by then commish Paul Tagliabue. Apparently, the NFL brass didn't want to miss out on those French Quarter Super Bowls. They ultimately convinced Old Man Benson to keep the team in NOLA in exchange for extra cash to renovate the Superdome. It turned out to be the best decision NFL and Benson made; next to hiring Sean Payton as head coach and locking up Drew Brees as their QB at the end of that season.

Anyways, even if San Antonio/Austin did have enough population to support an NFL franchise, Jerrah's the major stumbling block.

Quote from: abqtraveler on September 18, 2018, 12:14:35 PM
It'd be an interesting bet.  Who would get an NFL team first:  San Antonio or Albuquerque?

Quote from: sparker on September 18, 2018, 04:49:11 PM
^^^^^^^
Hate to be the one to throw cold water on all the sports talk, but there is a whole sub-section ("Sports") in Off-Topic where all this Raiders talk would be more appropriate (regardless of the fact that for at least a while they'll be in the vicinity of I-11!).  To get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city.  IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area. 

If the likely scenarios prevail at both ends of the Vegas-I-80 corridor (in LV, the direct US 95 route, and at the north end, the option skirting the west side of Fallon), it's likely when construction does commence it will do so from both ends toward the middle; particularly if the growing Fallon/Fernley corridor is in the mix -- stake out a ROW before the developers grab it all, and let the initially completed portions serve as a SIU, connecting I-80 and Reno to the center of development.

Quote from: sparker on September 18, 2018, 04:49:11 PM
^^^^^^^
Hate to be the one to throw cold water on all the sports talk, but there is a whole sub-section ("Sports") in Off-Topic where all this Raiders talk would be more appropriate (regardless of the fact that for at least a while they'll be in the vicinity of I-11!).  To get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city.  IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area. 

If the likely scenarios prevail at both ends of the Vegas-I-80 corridor (in LV, the direct US 95 route, and at the north end, the option skirting the west side of Fallon), it's likely when construction does commence it will do so from both ends toward the middle; particularly if the growing Fallon/Fernley corridor is in the mix -- stake out a ROW before the developers grab it all, and let the initially completed portions serve as a SIU, connecting I-80 and Reno to the center of development.

Quote from: Anthony_JKJerrah Jones can barely stand the Houston Texans giving his Cowboys competition. No way in HELL he allows any team to move to San Antonio.

Quote from: abqtravelerIt'd be an interesting bet.  Who would get an NFL team first:  San Antonio or Albuquerque?

Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteI kind of think Albuquerque would be an awesome, Green Bay-esque market. Not sure it has the corporate support you'd need to make a team work from a financial sense, but being the only game in town, rivalries vs. Vegas, Denver and Dallas (oh, and Arizona too, suppose)... I think folks would pack the house for a team there.

Quote from: sparkerTo get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city.  IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 19, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
The drive to Vegas is already long enough as it is and current plans for this Interstate won't make the drive any faster. The new route is not shaving off any mileage.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 19, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
Green Bay only still has the Packers because the City of Green Bay owns the team. It's the only non-profit pro sports team in the United States. The city owns Lambeau Field (which has a very storied history) and is within reasonable driving distance of Milwaukee. The franchise is one of the oldest in the NFL, dating back to a time when a few other small cities had pro football teams. Green Bay is the last of such cities.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2018, 01:46:02 PM
I have a question: I've read somewhere on here that I-11 is by law to be built from Mexico to Canada per NAFTA. As you may know a new agreement was reached. Assuming that this was really was included in NAFTA, will the recent changes affect this at all? I haven't read the new agreement/revision to see if this interstate is included in it.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 01, 2018, 01:50:34 PM
Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 02, 2018, 12:34:40 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 01, 2018, 01:50:34 PM
Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.

Quote from: sparker on October 02, 2018, 04:38:37 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 02, 2018, 12:34:40 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.

That's one hell of a long way around to get to Portland from Fernley, the most likely place where I-11 from LV will intersect I-80.  Reno-Klamath Falls is a logical next step if Oregon is set as the ultimate destination; how it gets to I-5 from there (my suggestion has always been to simply head west on OR 140 to I-5 just north of Medford) is yet TBD.  If such an Oregon-based alignment is suggested, then a Winnemucca-Idaho corridor up US 95 could become I-13.

Quote from: sparker on October 02, 2018, 04:38:37 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 02, 2018, 12:34:40 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.

That's one hell of a long way around to get to Portland from Fernley, the most likely place where I-11 from LV will intersect I-80.  Reno-Klamath Falls is a logical next step if Oregon is set as the ultimate destination; how it gets to I-5 from there (my suggestion has always been to simply head west on OR 140 to I-5 just north of Medford) is yet TBD.  If such an Oregon-based alignment is suggested, then a Winnemucca-Idaho corridor up US 95 could become I-13.

Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2018, 03:18:59 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2018, 01:46:02 PM
I have a question: I've read somewhere on here that I-11 is by law to be built from Mexico to Canada per NAFTA. As you may know a new agreement was reached. Assuming that this was really was included in NAFTA, will the recent changes affect this at all? I haven't read the new agreement/revision to see if this interstate is included in it.

The NAFTA connection, also used in the I-69 descriptions, is just one of the more common "McGuffins" employed in the initial promotion of long interregional corridors.  The corridors aren't demanded or commissioned within any NAFTA trade legislation, but their promoters certainly haven't hesitated to use such agreements as a rationale for corridor development.  The real "force" driving such routes is localized lobbying groups at both state and national levels who are attempting to use the presence of the corridors as an enticement for corporations to site manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution facilities in particular areas served by these nascent freeways.  In the case of I-11 and its extension to Northern Nevada, Reno -- and the area to the east -- has been attempting to position itself as a major mountain states distribution center -- with a lower cost structure than facilities closer to the West Coast (or in CA in general).  I-11 simply provides a commercial egress facility to Las Vegas and Phoenix, "mountain state" metro areas with population in the millions.

Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2018, 02:37:02 AM
I figured there was more preventing a highway across the Cascades than just the engineering concerns. It's probably no more difficult than I-70 west of Denver which I drove on my move to California.

Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.

Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.

Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 03:40:48 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.

That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility.  North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago.  Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.

If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).         

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 03, 2018, 03:38:14 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.

I don't think anyone would go all the way up US 97 to go east on I-82 or I-84 to Boise. If you were leaving from Bend, for example, it would make more sense to take US 20.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 03, 2018, 04:12:54 PM

Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 03:40:48 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.

That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility.  North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago.  Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.

If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).         

That actually sounds like a good idea. I would also extend it all the way to I-90 to facilitate traffic going to Seattle.

Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 07:19:44 PM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 03, 2018, 04:12:54 PM

Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 03:40:48 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.

That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility.  North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago.  Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.

If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).         

That actually sounds like a good idea. I would also extend it all the way to I-90 to facilitate traffic going to Seattle.

Actually, a corridor up US 97 over the river into WA would terminate at I-82 south of Yakima, as I-82 follows the US 97 corridor north of there to I-90 near Ellensburg.  A more likely scenario would be termination at I-84, with an additional corridor along US 395 from I-82 at Kennewick to I-90 at Ritzville; north of Pasco it is either a freeway or upgradeable expressway; the main issue would be the connection from there to I-82.   However, if the N-S corridor through OR along US 97 would, as suggested earlier, perform "double duty" as a CA-Spokane "cutoff" as well as an outlet for I-11, the extension north on US 97 to I-82 has quite a bit of merit, as it allows a more efficient path to Seattle and environs than simply jogging west on I-84 into PDX, which itself poses a congestion obstacle (not to mention "backtracking" through Olympia and Tacoma on I-5).  It would all depend upon the projected commercial traffic volume regarding whether that northern extension in WA would be warranted. 

Ideally, the corridor would split somewhere in the Bend-to-Madras area, with the east branch heading directly toward the Tri-Cities area and the west one to either PDX or possibly the Salem area.  But Oregon topography and politics mitigate against that idea; if any new Interstate corridor is deployed anywhere in the state in the next 25-30 years it'll be a minor miracle, likely prompted by Bend-area development.

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 04, 2018, 04:30:34 AM
Would you have I-11 connect to I-5 then?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2018, 03:55:04 PM
The #1 priority for I-11, by a very wide margin, should be linking Las Vegas to Phoenix. In Arizona, the plans of pushing it farther down to Tucson and ultimately to Nogales is a whole lot of wishful thinking.

Likewise, linking the Reno area and Vegas directly using I-11 is another tall order. America is literally pricing itself out of building any major tunnels, even though nations like Japan and China don't seem to have remotely near the trouble as we do getting a tunnel project moving -be it for a highway, rail line or subway. America's tunnel building capability is quite the laughable joke now. We suck at it. Not going to sugar coat that fact at all. Currently here in America it's impossible to punch a highway through a couple sets of mountains using a combination of tunnels, bridges and mountain pass road. We used to be able to do that. But we can't anymore. Other countries have no problem getting the job done. We're just happy proposing a major superhighway end up an hour's drive freaking East of where it really should end.

My feeling is if I-11 can't really get directly into the Reno-Carson City area it's not worth building I-11 up there at all. If the road has to go through Fallon and then maybe terminate at Fernley, or just keep going straight North to the current US-95 exit on I-80 in the middle of bum-f*** nowhere, it's not going to attract traffic counts to make it worth building in the first place. The current road works just fine as an ordinary 2 lane highway.

With the current situation of developing and building new Interstate highways being so stupidly ridiculous it would probably be best if I-11 development North of Las Vegas proceed at a glacier slow pace. Over the next 10 or so years perhaps US-95 can be upgraded to Interstate quality from the NW corner of Vegas up thru Indian Springs and maybe as far as Amargosa Valley. From Beatty on North all sorts of difficulties and controversies become present. Maybe in another 20-30 years we'll have some break-through advancements in highway engineering technology to make things like building tunnels or even just a straight highway not seem so damned impossible.

Regarding I-11 in Oregon, that's another situation with tough choices (thanks in part to our lack of tunnel building prowess). One option is pushing I-11 up to the Klamath Falls area and then sending it West to hit I-5 in the Ashland-Medford area. That might be the easiest route to build politically speaking. But which corridor do you upgrade? OR-66 into Asland or OR-140 into White City? I could see pushing I-11 up farther North to reach Bend, OR. But how do you get the highway diagonally thru the mountains over to I-5 to reach cities like Salem and Portland? If the road has to go clear up to The Dalles and I-84 then it's like the same silly situation as the Fallon-Fernley crap way East of Reno & Carson City. If the road can only be built way over there then little bits of freeway upgrade should only happen here and there as needed rather than blowing billions of dollars on a full upgrade.

I've heard a good bit about the freeway revolts roughly 50 years ago. Today it seems like highway building is bogged down far worse. Protests aren't blocking the roads. It's just extreme high cost, extreme red tape and extremes in politics.

Quote from: doorknob60 on October 04, 2018, 07:07:25 PM
I'm wondering if a hypothetical I-11 between Madras and I-84 head a bit northwest near Warm Springs, then start heading more straight north, effectively splitting the difference between US-197 and OR-35. Hitting I-84 somewhere around Mosier. The terrain may not be the easiest, and the Indian reservation probably makes it a political challenge, but it may be easier than going over the Cascades and routing through western Oregon/greater Portland. Maybe a compromise could meet back up with US-197 around Tygh Valley, avoiding some of the eastern backtrack and Maupin bottleneck (getting across the Deschutes seems easier around Warm Springs than Maupin).

It would also make a great winter route between Bend and Portland at times, avoiding the major mountain passes and sticking to the drier eastern side of the Cascades (until the gorge, but then you're at least at low altitude). Already some traffic takes US-197 to I-84 instead of the more direct US-26, and despite the "Maupin hole" and backtracking a bit to the east from Madras, it's often a good option.

Quote from: sparker on October 04, 2018, 09:16:49 PM
If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84.  The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary.  This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX.  Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials).  Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible. 

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 05, 2018, 11:00:11 AM

Quote from: sparker on October 04, 2018, 09:16:49 PM
If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84.  The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary.  This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX.  Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials).  Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible. 

Because AADT counts range from 10,000 at Rhodedendron to 6,100 just south of the OR 35 split.

Because the main currency in Oregon for transportation improvements is safety, not speed or freight mobility, and a divided highway between the state's largest city & its favorite getaway (and a city of 180,000 people in its own right) can be sold as a safety improvement.

Because Government Camp is 55 miles from Portland via 26 and 105 miles via 84/35.

Because direct access to Portland would benefit the Warm Springs confederation and the Madras area as a potential logistics / economic development opportunity.

Because the staging location for Oregon emergency operations for the Cascadia earthquake is Redmond Airport.

Quote from: sparkerI-11 from Vegas to I-80 is, for all intents & purposes, a fait accompli; the state of Nevada wants to do it and appears to be willing to spend the funds to do so (the tourist/gambling revenues must be up considerably from their recession nadir).

Quote from: sparkerThe Carson City public hearings about the alignment eliminated any Carson Valley routing because of (a) construction costs and (b) the fact that such an alignment would leave out the Fallon Valley, which is positioning itself as a low-cost housing and warehousing area, anchored by Tesla's developments in the vicinity of Fernley -- and which figures prominently in Nevada's long-range economic development plans.

QuoteThe Carson Valley, teeming with California "refugees", has been deemed to be taking care of itself just fine without depending upon Interstate access to the south part of the state; its economic well-being is derived from residents and the growth of those -- it's not dependent on the sort of tourist income that a long Interstate corridor would supply.  Likewise, Reno doesn't need to be tethered to Las Vegas by a singular direct corridor; that metro area is growing quite well "as is" -- but some sort of efficient (read: freeway) corridor linking it to the state's other attraction has been sought for quite some time both in and out of state government.

Quote from: sparkerSo one has to take I-80 east 30 miles to reach I-11?  No big whoop -- just do it!

QuoteThe public can visit i11study.com to review and comment on the draft document. All comments must be submitted before Nov. 8, 2018 via email to kverre@dot.nv.gov or by mail to 1263 South Stewart Street, Carson City, NV 89712 ATTN: Kevin Verre, room 205.

Quote from: mgk920 on October 11, 2018, 11:34:13 AM
Could 'B4' eventually evolve into an 'even' 3DI from this?  I can also see a more major connection between I-580 and US 395 (south) in California developing as part of this.

Mike

Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2018, 05:46:04 PM

If Caltrans and its political handlers can be convinced to upgrade all of US 395 north from metro L.A. to the NV line at Topaz Lake to at least the standards seen in the Owens Valley, that might be more useful/valuable to Carson Valley residents, many of them CA "refugees", than a direct path to Las Vegas.  If they want to get to I-11, it's simply a matter of heading east on US 50 (itself being gradually improved, largely because of growth in the Silver Spring area).       

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.

Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 02:13:58 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.

I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.

Quote from: Bruce on October 12, 2018, 02:58:26 AM
ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf

Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:22:43 AM

Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 02:13:58 AM

Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.

I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.

Bout damn time. I reported that error at least twice...  :pan:

Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 05:38:04 PM

Quote from: Bruce on October 12, 2018, 02:58:26 AM
ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf

I perused that document at the PSU library shortly after it was published; ironically, on the way up from CA I used US 97 (97/58 was always my NB route of choice except in winter) and dodged a substantial number of logging trucks (and wishing the damn thing was at least 2+2 divided!).  At the time -- based on projections formulated prior to 2001 -- the conclusions were reasonably valid.  In regard to any US 395 alignment, in all probability they still are.  However, the growth of the Bend/Redmond area in the 17+ years since the release of the document -- while not rivaling in numbers or percentage such "boom" areas like the Boise/Treasure Valley region of Idaho -- is still significant -- and any transportation planning efforts should revisit at least the US 97 corridor concepts if the results of the 2020 census bear out the area's growth rate. 

That being said -- if it is decided to continue the I-11 corridor up into Oregon, aiming it at I-5 in the Rogue Valley, IMO, remains the most feasible way to "shunt" traffic from the main NW population areas over to the I-11 "shortcut" to Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.  The level of commercial traffic on US 97 -- at least as far north as Madras and the US 26 junction -- warrants at least a 4-lane expressway; a fully-Interstate-grade facility might be appropriate in the future; but for the present providing a divided expressway (possibly of the "Midwest" type, with short freeway segments around populated areas) to expedite the mix of commercial and recreational traffic would be sufficient (it could be upgraded if warranted down the line).   

QuoteRoute B4

This alternative received a high level of negative public sentiment. Concerns with Route B4 were centered on traffic impacts to the already congested Reno/Sparks and Carson Valley areas. Many respondents felt this alternative would negatively impact the region's traffic congestion. Another major concern included the difficulty in implementing a connection between Mason Valley and Carson Valley due to topographical constraints.

B4 is considered "not accepted."

Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 14, 2018, 02:35:24 PM
So the B4 option won't happen?

I wonder if Carson City and Reno would prefer to have that so they have a Major Interstate running through both of them.

Quote from: gonealookin on October 14, 2018, 05:49:56 PM
The "Community Acceptance" section of the report says the comments received in the NDOT meetings were more negative in regard to B4 than to any of the alternatives.

QuoteRoute B4

This alternative received a high level of negative public sentiment. Concerns with Route B4 were centered on traffic impacts to the already congested Reno/Sparks and Carson Valley areas. Many respondents felt this alternative would negatively impact the region's traffic congestion. Another major concern included the difficulty in implementing a connection between Mason Valley and Carson Valley due to topographical constraints.

B4 is considered "not accepted."

I live in Douglas County, where Minden and Gardnerville are located.  The loudest voices in the community tend to be very anti-growth, wanting to preserve the agricultural character of Carson Valley.  I think there's also an undercurrent of resentment against more Californians moving in, which would be the likely result of growth, especially since Californians tend to be liberal politically and Douglas County has a very high ratio of GOP registered voters to Democrat registered voters.  All local elected officials are Republicans.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.

Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the
contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but... it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.

Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:33:58 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.

Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the
contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but... it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.

That is interesting -- I'm wondering if the plans for such I-11 signage that far north are in any way related to the original signage contract that was to replace I-515 shields south of the I-215 interchange with those of I-11.  IIRC, that contract was suspended until the through-town study was to be completed early next year.  If these are more recent plans -- and signed off by NDOT, then that's a bit of a "tell" regarding their conclusions.   Perhaps the US 95 routing is more of a "given" than has been let on so far, and the alternate alignments are simply posited to obfuscate the fact that NDOT intends to overlay I-11 on US 95 unless there's a massive outcry for something else -- just the agency pulling a CYA maneuver (wouldn't be the first time a DOT did something like this!).

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 06, 2018, 05:08:52 PM
Mildly less interesting update: The plans for the US 95 / 157 interchange also have the I-11 shield ordered on the signs, and covered with a green square.

Quote from: roadfro on October 31, 2018, 10:28:29 AM

Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:33:58 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.

Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the
contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but… it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.

That is interesting -- I'm wondering if the plans for such I-11 signage that far north are in any way related to the original signage contract that was to replace I-515 shields south of the I-215 interchange with those of I-11.  IIRC, that contract was suspended until the through-town study was to be completed early next year.  If these are more recent plans -- and signed off by NDOT, then that's a bit of a "tell" regarding their conclusions.   Perhaps the US 95 routing is more of a "given" than has been let on so far, and the alternate alignments are simply posited to obfuscate the fact that NDOT intends to overlay I-11 on US 95 unless there's a massive outcry for something else -- just the agency pulling a CYA maneuver (wouldn't be the first time a DOT did something like this!).

Sub-Urbanite: Where did you get the plans? I'm interested to take a look.

Sparker: Doubtful that the signage in this project was in any way related to the original I-515/I-11 signage contract...  Despite my insistence that NDOT hasn't made any formal decisions about I-11's Vegas routing, I've always kinda suspected that they'd favor the US 95 option. We had a "hint" mentioned previously—recent I-15 SB to US 95 NB/MLK ramp sign replacement wide enough to accommodate a future I-11 shield (Original (https://goo.gl/maps/zfhXaiqx82D2) vs April 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/uH4ZHfThgkQ2), although note the entire sign structure was changed/moved). Another thing I just thought of is that either of the options using portions of the 215 would, at least currently, put I-11 on a non-NDOT roadway...as far as I know, it's still planned to turn CC-215 over to NDOT, but who knows...

Quote from: sparker on November 08, 2018, 02:57:43 AM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 06, 2018, 05:08:52 PM
Mildly less interesting update: The plans for the US 95 / 157 interchange also have the I-11 shield ordered on the signs, and covered with a green square.

Yet another indication that NV is really intent on rolling forward with I-11 "north".  That brings up another issue:  The planning map (see reply #458 above) indicates that a new-terrain bypass of Indian Springs is in the works; my question is why?  The present US 95 expressway through town has no private access; the town's streets parallel to that facility function as effective frontage roads, and there are terrain issues to the south and Creech AFB's runway facilities to the north.  Why not just erect overpasses and/or put I-11 on a berm through town?  If as I suspect the initial foray NW of LV will be an upgrading of the already divided US 95 out to Mercury, it would seem that the more direct approach would expedite any such plans.

Quote from: sparker on November 08, 2018, 02:57:43 AM
Yet another indication that NV is really intent on rolling forward with I-11 "north".  That brings up another issue:  The planning map (see reply #458 above) indicates that a new-terrain bypass of Indian Springs is in the works; my question is why?  The present US 95 expressway through town has no private access; the town's streets parallel to that facility function as effective frontage roads, and there are terrain issues to the south and Creech AFB's runway facilities to the north.  Why not just erect overpasses and/or put I-11 on a berm through town?  If as I suspect the initial foray NW of LV will be an upgrading of the already divided US 95 out to Mercury, it would seem that the more direct approach would expedite any such plans.

Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2018, 01:13:37 PM
The question is, where would it go?  Between the town and the air force base, anything but an in-place upgrade is blocked along that corridor; the detour to go around would make the detour around Boulder City look like nothing.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 09, 2018, 12:46:36 PM
If the people in Indian Springs and Creech AFB want I-11 to bypass the town I sure hope they understand the consequences of that choice. By the way, they'll be lumping Cactus Springs into that scenario.

A new terrain bypass to the South along the utility alignment would put most of the roadside businesses along present day US-95 out of business. Then there would just be Creech AFB and a few residences outside of it. That's all. It would suck for any civilians living there who didn't have access to the AFB. They would have to drive 30 miles back to Las Vegas just to get fuel, groceries, etc. Perhaps new gas stations, convenience stores and fast food joints would pop up along the bypass merge points of US-95 & I-11 several miles East & West of Indian Springs. But that's no guarantee.

IMHO, it would be better for existing US-95 to be upgraded through Indian Springs. There is plenty of room to accomplish it. I don't buy the diesel fuel angle as the reason for a bypass. All kinds of diesel trucks routinely travel through any business district, whether they're passing through or making deliveries. Living on or next door to an Air Force Base isn't an environmentalist paradise either.

I'm wondering if it would be actually be cheaper to build a new terrain bypass around Indian Springs. An upgrade thru Indian Springs wouldn't require new ROW. But it's a given the pavement would likely be completely re-done along that stretch. And at least a couple or so new freeway exits would be required. Compare that to just building a bypass to the South with no exits, little if any utility relocation, etc.

Quote from: sparker on November 09, 2018, 05:17:29 PM
^^^^^^^^
I suppose they could trench I-11 along the existing US 95 alignment; that would keep curious eyes out of USAF territory  at its nearest point; what there is of roadside business could be arrayed along the frontage streets.  Either option -- in-town or southern bypass -- the life of that town won't be the same.   

Quote from: Tarkus on November 11, 2018, 03:18:51 AM
The road is already configured as a wide expressway through town, which is built to the same sort of width standards as the free-flowing portions of US-95 on either side, and there are already frontage roads on each side.  Provided NDOT can determine a solution that is acceptable to the Air Force, they may well be able to use the existing ROW.  There would probably be room for a tight diamond at the MacFarland intersection--the main at-grade one in town--if the prospect of an elevated roadway isn't going to compromise anything at Creech.  If not, then the southern bypass would likely be in play.

Quote from: Tarkus on November 11, 2018, 03:18:51 AM
Creech AFB is the Air Force's big drone development facility, and has been expanding quite a bit in recent years.  That expansion has actually taken out some of the business--compare 2015 Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5779741,-115.6699082,3a,75y,89.05h,80.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNrlJVyDIOJl5_cYQOaOeDg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to 2018 Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5779782,-115.6699258,3a,75y,89.05h,80.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7aJ4N0cbEB6XtcKD7Jv84w!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656).  The area where the Chevron station, the RV park, and the casino/liquor store was in 2015 is now fenced off and part of the base. 

It's also worth noting that in 2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5778525,-115.6649182,3a,75y,254.95h,83.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBSfpjN4Hnwo0cjDhZ8fY5Q!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656), there was also a 35mph zone on US-95 through Indian Springs.  Having driven through in 2017, and confirming through 2018 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5778557,-115.6649516,3a,75y,275.89h,76.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJdp2-eJSeLDH8IwwcwfuwA!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) (the "Speed Limit 35" signs are gone), it's now 45mph all the way through town.

My feeling is that the Air Force will probably want to expand Creech even more in the coming years, and it's clear from the speed limit increase that NDOT is noting Indian Springs' dwindling population and activity levels, and allowing quicker travel as a result.  The state patrol might be a bit disappointed in that their speed trap revenue there will be going down--and will really go down once I-11 goes in--but the Air Force is likely going to be in favor of the upgrade, as long as it meshes with whatever they plan to do with the base going forward.

The road is already configured as a wide expressway through town, which is built to the same sort of width standards as the free-flowing portions of US-95 on either side, and there are already frontage roads on each side.  Provided NDOT can determine a solution that is acceptable to the Air Force, they may well be able to use the existing ROW.  There would probably be room for a tight diamond at the MacFarland intersection--the main at-grade one in town--if the prospect of an elevated roadway isn't going to compromise anything at Creech.  If not, then the southern bypass would likely be in play.

Quote from: sparker on November 11, 2018, 04:38:20 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of a trench per my prior post -- with the possiblility of an extended diamond interchange utilizing the parallel frontage roads as effective ramp extensions, with the actual ramps NB off/SB on at th end of the several-block segment and the SB off/NB on at the NW end of the below-ground I-11 segment.  An arrangement like that should satisfy the security needs around Creech while avoiding a relatively costly new-terrain segment. 

Alternately -- if as stated above Creech is the USAF's "drone central", so to speak -- there might be the possibility that a defense aerospace contractor is looking to locate a design and/or production facility adjacent to the base itself -- which could possibly account for the southern bypass concept, as such a facility might well occupy the land used presently for US 95 -- and the commensurate housing development as support might be factored into any bypass decision.   

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.

Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.

Quote from: michravera on November 12, 2018, 12:29:55 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.

Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.

If they, for any reason, drop the speed limit below the state maximum, there is no reason to build the road. The current US-95 (even the 2-lane portion) is posted for 70MPH except around Walker Lake and through town. If they can't post the new freeway 80+MPH all of the way to I-80, why would they even build it?
I wonder if Nevada will ever bring back "dereg", which was effectively the speed limit before 1974. The state has gotten a little bit more pro-reg over the last 45 years, but once east of the shadow of the Sierras, I don't really see the point of speed limits outside of towns. Outside of the built up areas, why bother with a speed limit. I got popped for 85/70 by Officer Donahue back in 1997 on the two-lane portion in Nye County. It was perfectly safe even on the existing road.

Quote from: sparker on November 12, 2018, 12:59:21 PM

Quote from: michravera on November 12, 2018, 12:29:55 PM

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.

Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.

If they, for any reason, drop the speed limit below the state maximum, there is no reason to build the road. The current US-95 (even the 2-lane portion) is posted for 70MPH except around Walker Lake and through town. If they can't post the new freeway 80+MPH all of the way to I-80, why would they even build it?
I wonder if Nevada will ever bring back "dereg", which was effectively the speed limit before 1974. The state has gotten a little bit more pro-reg over the last 45 years, but once east of the shadow of the Sierras, I don't really see the point of speed limits outside of towns. Outside of the built up areas, why bother with a speed limit. I got popped for 85/70 by Officer Donahue back in 1997 on the two-lane portion in Nye County. It was perfectly safe even on the existing road.

They could conceivably drop an I-11 speed from 70 down to 60 if a through-town routing was configured as a narrower-than-usual alignment (e.g. I-5 through Arbuckle, CA on the original 1958 bypass); that would be more of an inconvenience than an obstacle.  But if that's offered as an option when the final plans for the route through the town are being considered, it may make the southern bypass more desirable.

I remembered driving to Vegas back in 1969 on spring break -- with a new 327 engine in my old Chevy (and a transmission upgrade as well) I got up into the mid-100's on I-15 near Jean under the old "reasonable and prudent" law (not that doing 150 on any Interstate is either reasonable or prudent -- you do dumb shit when you're 19).  I suppose NV could conceivably bring back that standard -- but, like with prostitution, they'd probably leave it up to the individual counties -- and Clark County, being increasingly "civilized" over the past several decades, would in all likelihood opt to maintain the current limit system.  The rural/desert counties?  Probably some of them would lift the limits -- it all depends upon who's running them if and when the decision is made.

Quote from: pdx-wanderer on November 14, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 14, 2018, 07:34:44 PM

Quote from: pdx-wanderer on November 14, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!

I don't think anyone is getting any tickets on I-15 between Vegas and Primm for going 75. Or for going 80. There are enough idiots going 100+ in that stretch to keep NHP busy. Going 100 in a 75 is a $215 fine, going 100 in a 70 is a $305 fine, and if you're dumb enough to go 100 in that busy stretch of freeway, you deserve every bit of that extra $90.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 14, 2018, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 14, 2018, 07:34:44 PM

Quote from: pdx-wanderer on November 14, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!

I don't think anyone is getting any tickets on I-15 between Vegas and Primm for going 75. Or for going 80. There are enough idiots going 100+ in that stretch to keep NHP busy. Going 100 in a 75 is a $215 fine, going 100 in a 70 is a $305 fine, and if you're dumb enough to go 100 in that busy stretch of freeway, you deserve every bit of that extra $90.

call me whatever you want but i routinely do 100MPH or so sometimes faster and have no issue with police. I've even passed one doing 105 and all he did was flash his lights. That stretch of freeway often has the passing lane clear and I'll cruise it the whole way unless someone wants to go faster than me which happens every once in awhile.

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?

Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 12:51:34 PM

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?

Technically, NDOT's still doing a study regarding the alignment of I-11 through the center of LV Metro: stay on US 95, use the 215 bypass west of town, or construct a new alignment well to the east of development.  Practically, from most indications they've actually selected the direct/95 route; there are spaces on newer BGS's for I-11 shields; there's a contract for signage (although those have been delayed before) for I-11 north of the 215 interchange north of town -- and AFAIK there have been no formal proposals for a "cutoff" between the NW corner of the 215 bypass and US 95 near the NV 157 interchange -- which would render the western bypass a minimally feasible through Interstate corridor.  Odds are that the study is a formality and that I-11 signage will be placed along US 95 by 2020.  As far as any AZ signage is concerned, that may go in a different direction.  I-11 signage probably won't occur, at least on the stretch NW of Kingman, until (a) the Kingman bypass/connector is let and under construction, and (b) work commences on upgrading/converting US 93 to Interstate standards along that corridor segment.

Quote from: roadfro on December 18, 2018, 10:06:44 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 12:51:34 PM

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?

Technically, NDOT's still doing a study regarding the alignment of I-11 through the center of LV Metro: stay on US 95, use the 215 bypass west of town, or construct a new alignment well to the east of development.  Practically, from most indications they've actually selected the direct/95 route; there are spaces on newer BGS's for I-11 shields; there's a contract for signage (although those have been delayed before) for I-11 north of the 215 interchange north of town -- and AFAIK there have been no formal proposals for a "cutoff" between the NW corner of the 215 bypass and US 95 near the NV 157 interchange -- which would render the western bypass a minimally feasible through Interstate corridor.  Odds are that the study is a formality and that I-11 signage will be placed along US 95 by 2020.  As far as any AZ signage is concerned, that may go in a different direction.  I-11 signage probably won't occur, at least on the stretch NW of Kingman, until (a) the Kingman bypass/connector is let and under construction, and (b) work commences on upgrading/converting US 93 to Interstate standards along that corridor segment.

Theoretically, assuming NDOT were to choose the US 95 alignment through Vegas, then you could see I-11 signed that far. Practically, I don't think NDOT would sign it any further north than the NW 215 interchange in the short term, and I don't know that it would be signed any further south than the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona until other improvements happen

Actually, that signage project was for I-515 south of the Henderson Spaghetti Bowl 215 interchange. It was in the STIP for 2017 or 2018, but I don't think NDOT ever put that out to bid...

Quote from: Kniwt on January 09, 2019, 09:21:12 PM
Apologies for not getting pics of this; it took me by surprise when I passed through today.

The ramp from southbound 515/93/95 to westbound 215 was recently reconfigured, and new signage was erected. All of the exit tabs, plus the gore point sign, now call it EXIT 23, which is consistent with the I-11 numbering. No other exits were renumbered, and the ramp from northbound 515/93/95 wasn't re-signed, either.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
I hope the east bypass is dismissed. If it were to be built, it should be part of Interstate 215 (or some other number, X-11 or X-15), not part of mainline Interstate 11. That should be on Interstate 515 and US 95.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 10, 2019, 05:32:28 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
I hope the east bypass is dismissed. If it were to be built, it should be part of Interstate 215 (or some other number, X-11 or X-15), not part of mainline Interstate 11. That should be on Interstate 515 and US 95.

Does anyone know if Nevada would do a full beltway with the same number (like the Capital Beltway), or are they inclined to change numbers for an eastern beltway like California does?  I think that would affect the likelihood of whether they'd run I-11 up a new leg of the beltway.

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 24, 2019, 11:59:02 AM
It's interesting to me that NDOT still hasn't put up any pull-through or reassurance signs for I-11 Southbound at the BUS 93 and US 95 interchanges. It just seems so obvious and necessary, to have an "I-11 / US 93 - 95 South - Searchlight / Phoenix" overhead at the 93 Business interchange.

Quote from: Mark68 on February 14, 2019, 06:44:22 PM
Ha! It's raining in the desert!

Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2019, 07:07:33 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on February 14, 2019, 06:44:22 PM
Ha! It's raining in the desert!

It's raining all over the place out here; driving to work today was like driving through a waterfall.  Even our normally-dry Guadalupe River is starting to come close to the top of its gully; adjacent houses have been sandbagging their perimeters. 

But getting back to LV -- prior to the upgrade of Paradise Road in the late '80's, one time during C.E.S. a few years prior to that the original alignment, which was the main drag from downtown and the northern part of the Strip to the airport, dipped through a couple of gullies -- which were "flash-flooded" (this was in early January) and thus useless as airport access; one had to head down I-15 and backtrack on NV 146 to get to McCarran Airport.  But they've applied a heavy dose of flood-control to the area since that time, so it's vastly improved in that regard -- and Paradise crosses over the drainage channels on bridges, so access to the airport from the north isn't prone to interruption even with heavy rainstorms -- or at least hasn't been in the times I've been there since.     

Quote from: Mark68 on February 15, 2019, 11:02:13 AM

Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2019, 07:07:33 PM

Quote from: Mark68 on February 14, 2019, 06:44:22 PM
Ha! It's raining in the desert!

It's raining all over the place out here; driving to work today was like driving through a waterfall.  Even our normally-dry Guadalupe River is starting to come close to the top of its gully; adjacent houses have been sandbagging their perimeters. 

But getting back to LV -- prior to the upgrade of Paradise Road in the late '80's, one time during C.E.S. a few years prior to that the original alignment, which was the main drag from downtown and the northern part of the Strip to the airport, dipped through a couple of gullies -- which were "flash-flooded" (this was in early January) and thus useless as airport access; one had to head down I-15 and backtrack on NV 146 to get to McCarran Airport.  But they've applied a heavy dose of flood-control to the area since that time, so it's vastly improved in that regard -- and Paradise crosses over the drainage channels on bridges, so access to the airport from the north isn't prone to interruption even with heavy rainstorms -- or at least hasn't been in the times I've been there since.     

Of course, my comment above was tongue-in-cheek.

One of the most intense rainstorms I've ever experienced while driving was on 4th of July weekend in the early 90s. I was driving from SoCal to Vegas and stopped for lunch in Primm. As soon as I got back on I-15, I drove into a rainstorm so hard I could barely see 10 feet in front of my car. I had to pull over for a few minutes to let the storm pass.