Here's the report: (link (https://visionpanel.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/one-oregon-final-report-print-version2.pdf))
The report itself calls out US 97 as a freight alternative to I-5:
QuoteInvest in freight network alternatives: Invest in improved capacity and efficiency of rural highway corridors (Highway 97, etc.) that create freight network alternatives.
And the committee's co-chair says in the O part of that is because of earthquake resiliency!
"Product isn't going to go up I-5, it's going to go up 97," Kantor said. "Products you need to survive are going to be coming up and mobilizing in Central Oregon before it comes to the Valley."He's right — all of the staging for the Cascadia megathrust quake is set to happen at the Redmond Airport and Fairgrounds.
So then the question becomes, what good is a 4-lane US 97 through Oregon if it doesn't connect to anything outside the megathrust zone? Not saying this puts I-11 in Oregon anywhere beyond a 15% chance of ever happening, but that's up a nudge from a week ago.
I think it's far-fetched US 97 will become Interstate 11. Other than the corridors of Interstate 5 and 84, are there any other places in Oregon that would warrant a long-range Interstate Highway?
Building US 97 to full Interstate standards seems unlikely. My guess is that they would just twin it between Klamath Falls and Madras, and maybe try to get Caltrans to chip in for the stretch from the border to I-5. North of Madras, they might upgrade US 197, but that would require some pretty pricey bridge construction over the Deschutes, to bypass Maupin.
Why not just start with a 4-lane expressway configuration?...yeah this doesn't need an Interstate. I would imagine Caltrans would be game to chip in on the California side of things. Yes there is a trucking industry but we're still talking about largely rural areas. Personally I've never had much issue getting through US 97 in Oregon, I've always found the road to be adequate as is.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
Why not just start with a 4-lane expressway configuration?...yeah this doesn't need an Interstate. I would imagine Caltrans would be game to chip in on the California side of things. Yes there is a trucking industry but we're still talking about largely rural areas. Personally I've never had much issue getting through US 97 in Oregon, I've always found the road to be adequate as is.
It used to get pretty bad through Redmond before they bypassed it a decade or so ago.
I can see them adding more 4-lane stretches and passing lanes. I can't see them applying to call it I-11.
Quote from: opspe on May 27, 2016, 12:03:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
Why not just start with a 4-lane expressway configuration?...yeah this doesn't need an Interstate. I would imagine Caltrans would be game to chip in on the California side of things. Yes there is a trucking industry but we're still talking about largely rural areas. Personally I've never had much issue getting through US 97 in Oregon, I've always found the road to be adequate as is.
It used to get pretty bad through Redmond before they bypassed it a decade or so ago.
And problem solved by the bypass, more of a natural progression given the population boom in the area over the last 30 years. There are plenty of cities floating out there from the 25,000 something people to the 52,000 that you see in Bend without full freeways. The growth of US 97 should start with expressway configurations and bypass routes of cities that are growing rather than going full Interstate. I could see something like a US 101 from San Francisco to Eureka one day but gradually over time. Personally I would like to see something along the lines of the Klamath Falls US 97 bypass with 65 MPH zones.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2016, 12:15:08 AM
Quote from: opspe on May 27, 2016, 12:03:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
Why not just start with a 4-lane expressway configuration?...yeah this doesn't need an Interstate. I would imagine Caltrans would be game to chip in on the California side of things. Yes there is a trucking industry but we're still talking about largely rural areas. Personally I've never had much issue getting through US 97 in Oregon, I've always found the road to be adequate as is.
It used to get pretty bad through Redmond before they bypassed it a decade or so ago.
And problem solved by the bypass, more of a natural progression given the population boom in the area over the last 30 years. There are plenty of cities floating out there from the 25,000 something people to the 52,000 that you see in Bend without full freeways. The growth of US 97 should start with expressway configurations and bypass routes of cities that are growing rather than going full Interstate. I could see something like a US 101 from San Francisco to Eureka one day but gradually over time. Personally I would like to see something along the lines of the Klamath Falls US 97 bypass with 65 MPH zones.
Yeah, that's pretty much the ideal.
I remember when the Bend stretch of 97 opened, they made a big deal of it
not being a freeway, but rather a parkway. And when they were proposing the Rendmond bypass, there was a lot of opposition from local businesses, since it would route most traffic off the one-way couplet through downtown - typical story.
If it ever did get Interstate designation, I doubt it would be I-11; probably I-7 instead (assuming I-9 goes to California). If there was ever an extension to I-11 past Vegas, it would almost certainly connect to I-580 in Carson City, which would put it too far east, not to mention hundreds of miles south.
Quote from: kkt on May 27, 2016, 12:05:53 AM
I can see them adding more 4-lane stretches and passing lanes. I can't see them applying to call it I-11.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but, while I do see Washington and Oregon both dualling more roads in the future, I don't see either state applying for any interstate designations anytime soon, at least not on their own accords (a concerted effort by California, Oregon, and Washington to build the 97 into a freeway, some day in the future, would probably result in an interstate designation).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
I would imagine Caltrans would be game to chip in on the California side of things.
I wouldn't.
I have to believe that an interstate freeway in a part of the state that is that sparsely populated would be a very low priority. Besides, how would you propose connecting the currently planned I-11 tp US 97?
I think that in the 2030s, after I-11 has been extended from Las Vegas to Reno, there will be serious consideration of extending I-11 further north past Susanville, to Klamath Falls and up the US97 corridor to Yakima. I doubt it would be completed before about 2050.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 27, 2016, 02:33:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2016, 10:35:11 PM
I would imagine Caltrans would be game to chip in on the California side of things.
I wouldn't.
I have to believe that an interstate freeway in a part of the state that is that sparsely populated would be a very low priority. Besides, how would you propose connecting the currently planned I-11 tp US 97?
I wouldn't either, I'm not talking about an Interstate or I-11. I'm not even talking about a freeway, I'm talking a U.S. 101 style expressway or at least sections of US 97 with them. On the California side there are already several passing lanes near the Mount Shasta overlook, hard to believe Caltrans wouldn't at least do a study near Dorris and to CA 161 on the state line if Oregon is looking at making gradual improvements to US 97 on their side.. If US 199 can get a wide expressway portion in California why wouldn't US 97? There definitely doesn't need to be an Interstate running north/south in eastern Oregon, much less I-11 of all routes...
Hell hypothetically if there was ever a chance of an I-11 extension it would likely go to Reno and from there it would probably follow US 395 to Spokane. But I cant envision a scenario where a route like that would be needed since it's basically just open unpopulated desert out there. Hell nobody can even figure where the hell to terminate I-11 in Arizona much less where to put it in the Phoenix area. But then again...who knows what three to five decades might bring?
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 27, 2016, 02:33:53 AM
I have to believe that an interstate freeway in a part of the state that is that sparsely populated would be a very low priority. Besides, how would you propose connecting the currently planned I-11 tp US 97?
Via Susanville.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2016, 09:25:48 AM
Hell hypothetically if there was ever a chance of an I-11 extension it would likely go to Reno and from there it would probably follow US 395 to Spokane.
What would be the point of an Interstate from Reno to Spokane? Reno to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver seems to make vastly more sense.
Quote from: mcarling on May 28, 2016, 01:01:25 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 27, 2016, 02:33:53 AM
I have to believe that an interstate freeway in a part of the state that is that sparsely populated would be a very low priority. Besides, how would you propose connecting the currently planned I-11 tp US 97?
Via Susanville.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2016, 09:25:48 AM
Hell hypothetically if there was ever a chance of an I-11 extension it would likely go to Reno and from there it would probably follow US 395 to Spokane.
What would be the point of an Interstate from Reno to Spokane? Reno to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver seems to make vastly more sense.
Susanville and then where?...CA 139? US 395 is at or being built to Interstate standards in both Spokane and in Reno. Also don't forget that US 395 runs on parts of I-90, I-84 and I-82 already. So if there is serious need for a CANMEX corridor in the far flung future why not make the border alignment more direct? But that's not to say that I'm a total skeptic of I-11 expanding past Phoenix and Las Vegas anytime soon...maybe Reno one day but that's not to say US 95 is already completely adequate in that regard. We're talking places like Esmeralda and Harney Counties being included in all this...to me that's FritzOwl level of insanity for a full Interstate upgrade.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 01:17:25 AM
Quote from: mcarling on May 28, 2016, 01:01:25 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 27, 2016, 02:33:53 AM
I have to believe that an interstate freeway in a part of the state that is that sparsely populated would be a very low priority. Besides, how would you propose connecting the currently planned I-11 tp US 97?
Via Susanville.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2016, 09:25:48 AM
Hell hypothetically if there was ever a chance of an I-11 extension it would likely go to Reno and from there it would probably follow US 395 to Spokane.
What would be the point of an Interstate from Reno to Spokane? Reno to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver seems to make vastly more sense.
Susanville and then where?...CA 139? US 395 is at or being built to Interstate standards in both Spokane and in Reno. Also don't forget that US 395 runs on parts of I-90, I-84 and I-82 already. So if there is serious need for a CANMEX corridor in the far flung future why not make the border alignment more direct? But that's not to say that I'm a total skeptic of I-11 expanding past Phoenix and Las Vegas anytime soon...maybe Reno one day but that's not to say US 95 is already completely adequate in that regard. We're talking places like Esmeralda and Harney Counties being included in all this...to me that's FritzOwl level of insanity for a full Interstate upgrade.
There's also the issue of where to connect it on the Canadian side. US 97/BC 97 is the clear choice. But, I still think US 97 upgrades in Oregon would probably never link up with I-11.
If it was ever extended past Reno, I bet it would be along US 95 between Winnemucca and Caldwell/Boise. That would be a direct connection from a major ag region to all the ports in California.
Quote from: opspe on May 28, 2016, 01:41:57 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 01:17:25 AM
Quote from: mcarling on May 28, 2016, 01:01:25 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 27, 2016, 02:33:53 AM
I have to believe that an interstate freeway in a part of the state that is that sparsely populated would be a very low priority. Besides, how would you propose connecting the currently planned I-11 tp US 97?
Via Susanville.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 27, 2016, 09:25:48 AM
Hell hypothetically if there was ever a chance of an I-11 extension it would likely go to Reno and from there it would probably follow US 395 to Spokane.
What would be the point of an Interstate from Reno to Spokane? Reno to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver seems to make vastly more sense.
Susanville and then where?...CA 139? US 395 is at or being built to Interstate standards in both Spokane and in Reno. Also don't forget that US 395 runs on parts of I-90, I-84 and I-82 already. So if there is serious need for a CANMEX corridor in the far flung future why not make the border alignment more direct? But that's not to say that I'm a total skeptic of I-11 expanding past Phoenix and Las Vegas anytime soon...maybe Reno one day but that's not to say US 95 is already completely adequate in that regard. We're talking places like Esmeralda and Harney Counties being included in all this...to me that's FritzOwl level of insanity for a full Interstate upgrade.
There's also the issue of where to connect it on the Canadian side. US 97/BC 97 is the clear choice. But, I still think US 97 upgrades in Oregon would probably never link up with I-11.
If it was ever extended past Reno, I bet it would be along US 95 between Winnemucca and Caldwell/Boise. That would be a direct connection from a major ag region to all the ports in California.
In regards to I-11 there was talk during all the initial debating whether an extension to Reno on US 95 or Boise in proxy by Twin Falls on US 93 would be more warranted. Personally I would prefer the direct route on US 93 and I-84 if something like that ever came to pass. I would love to see the traffic numbers vs US 93 and US 95 in Nevada, it always felt US 93 had more traffic in general but I could be wrong.
Yeah, US 93 is probably a better option for I-11 heading north.
With the past upgrades to CA 14, CA 58, and US 395 in California, that would seem to be a more logical alignment for an interstate on the east side of the Sierras to Reno. And that would be better for the hypothetical US 95 alignment to Boise, especially since ITD seems intent on widening US 95 to four lanes for its entire length.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 09:55:52 AM
In regards to I-11 there was talk during all the initial debating whether an extension to Reno on US 95 or Boise in proxy by Twin Falls on US 93 would be more warranted. Personally I would prefer the direct route on US 93 and I-84 if something like that ever came to pass. I would love to see the traffic numbers vs US 93 and US 95 in Nevada, it always felt US 93 had more traffic in general but I could be wrong.
I took a quick look at NDOT's 2014 Annual Traffic Report. I looked for a point well north of, but roughly equal distance from, downtown Las Vegas on US 93 & US 95. Here are some AADT numbers from NDOT's automatic traffic recorder stations (permanent, constant count locations).
~170 miles north of Las Vegas
*US 93, 1.0 miles south of SR 319 (~166 miles north of Las Vegas, between Caliente & Pioche): 1350
*US 95, 12.6 miles north of Nye/Esmeralda county line (~175 miles north of Las Vegas, south of Goldfield): 2050
*Note: This distance somewhat disadvantages counts along US 93, as it's along the portion of the route where through traffic heading north would likely take the SR 318-US 6 route to Ely. This was the only distance I could quickly find using ATR stations that was comparable distance from Las Vegas on both routes.
Neither route is particularly Interstate worthy with these traffic numbers. By comparison, a station on I-80 roughly near the midpoint of its trek through Nevada (exit 212) has an AADT of 7000.
Quote from: roadfro on May 28, 2016, 12:47:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 09:55:52 AM
In regards to I-11 there was talk during all the initial debating whether an extension to Reno on US 95 or Boise in proxy by Twin Falls on US 93 would be more warranted. Personally I would prefer the direct route on US 93 and I-84 if something like that ever came to pass. I would love to see the traffic numbers vs US 93 and US 95 in Nevada, it always felt US 93 had more traffic in general but I could be wrong.
I took a quick look at NDOT's 2014 Annual Traffic Report. I looked for a point well north of, but roughly equal distance from, downtown Las Vegas on US 93 & US 95. Here are some AADT numbers from NDOT's automatic traffic recorder stations (permanent, constant count locations).
~170 miles north of Las Vegas
*US 93, 1.0 miles south of SR 319 (~166 miles north of Las Vegas, between Caliente & Pioche): 1350
*US 95, 12.6 miles north of Nye/Esmeralda county line (~175 miles north of Las Vegas, south of Goldfield): 2050
*Note: This distance somewhat disadvantages counts along US 93, as it's along the portion of the route where through traffic heading north would likely take the SR 318-US 6 route to Ely. This was the only distance I could quickly find using ATR stations that was comparable distance from Las Vegas on both routes.
Neither route is particularly Interstate worthy with these traffic numbers. By comparison, a station on I-80 roughly near the midpoint of its trek through Nevada (exit 212) has an AADT of 7000.
Oh I agree, neither one of them I could see being anything but a 2-lane route anytime in the near future. I actually find all US 95, US 6, US 93 and US 50 all through central Nevada to be extremely comfortable roads that have no congestion. Basically almost everything out in the boons usually 70 MPH anyways which makes passing extremely easy. I was just rolling through a couple months back heading down from Carson to Death Valley and didn't see another car heading south with me between Hawthorne and Tonopah. But for continuity sake...if I had an say in it would prefer I-11 just end at I-15 north of downtown Vegas or follow US 93. Basically those traffic counts makes things like FritzOwl suggesting Interstates on US 50 even more laughable...because I know it's far less than 93 and 95.
Good to have some numbers. However for either route to warrant an interstate, the situation would have to change so drastically it would be hard to predict which would be the busier route.
^ I can potentially see modest increases on the US 95 route as the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center continues to build out. That is where Tesla is building their factory. USA Parkway (SR 439) will connect to US 50 a short distance from US 95 Alt in Silver Springs, and freight shipments heading southward would take this to US 95 and likely pass through Las Vegas.
The US 93 route is no longer under consideration. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act adopted by Congress in December 2015 designated that I-11 would go to I-80 near Reno.
http://www.azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/12/04/interstate-11-receives-designation-in-federal-transportation-funding-bill
Quote from: mcarling on May 29, 2016, 07:54:09 AM
The US 93 route is no longer under consideration. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act adopted by Congress in December 2015 designated that I-11 would go to I-80 near Reno.
http://www.azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/12/04/interstate-11-receives-designation-in-federal-transportation-funding-bill
Interesting they are very specific "through Reno to I-80." That kind makes me assume that I-11 is going to hook up with US 395/I-580 near Carson by the way they worded that document. I suppose it could take a north east turn off US 95 along US 95A from the Walker Reservation and bypass Yerington completely with a direct line towards Dayton.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2016, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: mcarling on May 29, 2016, 07:54:09 AM
The US 93 route is no longer under consideration. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act adopted by Congress in December 2015 designated that I-11 would go to I-80 near Reno.
http://www.azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/12/04/interstate-11-receives-designation-in-federal-transportation-funding-bill
Interesting they are very specific "through Reno to I-80." That kind makes me assume that I-11 is going to hook up with US 395/I-580 near Carson by the way they worded that document. I suppose it could take a north east turn off US 95 along US 95A from the Walker Reservation and bypass Yerington completely with a direct line towards Dayton.
That would be a northwest turn off US 95.
I think this could be the general trend of the route. This would be getting the route close to the USA Parkway area I mentioned earlier.
Quote from: roadfro on May 30, 2016, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2016, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: mcarling on May 29, 2016, 07:54:09 AM
The US 93 route is no longer under consideration. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act adopted by Congress in December 2015 designated that I-11 would go to I-80 near Reno.
http://www.azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/12/04/interstate-11-receives-designation-in-federal-transportation-funding-bill
Interesting they are very specific "through Reno to I-80." That kind makes me assume that I-11 is going to hook up with US 395/I-580 near Carson by the way they worded that document. I suppose it could take a north east turn off US 95 along US 95A from the Walker Reservation and bypass Yerington completely with a direct line towards Dayton.
That would be a northwest turn off US 95.
I think this could be the general trend of the route. This would be getting the route close to the USA Parkway area I mentioned earlier.
If that's the goal to reach USA Parkway and the DCs then US 50A out of Fallon to I-80 is a better bet. I'm actually surprised that on the Arizona side there is such a huge push to put I-11 west of the White Tanks when the 303 just north of I-10 already has a ton of DC in place and being built. It always seemed like a waste to completely bypass the Phoenix area entirely for barren desert when US 50 north of Surprise is really all that would have to be upgraded.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 30, 2016, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: roadfro on May 30, 2016, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2016, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: mcarling on May 29, 2016, 07:54:09 AM
The US 93 route is no longer under consideration. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act adopted by Congress in December 2015 designated that I-11 would go to I-80 near Reno.
http://www.azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/12/04/interstate-11-receives-designation-in-federal-transportation-funding-bill
Interesting they are very specific "through Reno to I-80." That kind makes me assume that I-11 is going to hook up with US 395/I-580 near Carson by the way they worded that document. I suppose it could take a north east turn off US 95 along US 95A from the Walker Reservation and bypass Yerington completely with a direct line towards Dayton.
That would be a northwest turn off US 95.
I think this could be the general trend of the route. This would be getting the route close to the USA Parkway area I mentioned earlier.
If that's the goal to reach USA Parkway and the DCs then US 50A out of Fallon to I-80 is a better bet.
Well, my thought was to have I-11 reach USA Pkwy on the south end. A routing via Fallon and US 50/50A only makes more sense if I-11 reaches near USA Pkwy on the north end overlapping I-80–via the outskirts of Yerington and Silver Springs would reduce backtracking on a new I-11 route.
Quote from: roadfro on May 30, 2016, 07:05:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 30, 2016, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: roadfro on May 30, 2016, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2016, 09:53:36 AM
Quote from: mcarling on May 29, 2016, 07:54:09 AM
The US 93 route is no longer under consideration. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act adopted by Congress in December 2015 designated that I-11 would go to I-80 near Reno.
http://www.azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/12/04/interstate-11-receives-designation-in-federal-transportation-funding-bill
Interesting they are very specific "through Reno to I-80." That kind makes me assume that I-11 is going to hook up with US 395/I-580 near Carson by the way they worded that document. I suppose it could take a north east turn off US 95 along US 95A from the Walker Reservation and bypass Yerington completely with a direct line towards Dayton.
That would be a northwest turn off US 95.
I think this could be the general trend of the route. This would be getting the route close to the USA Parkway area I mentioned earlier.
If that's the goal to reach USA Parkway and the DCs then US 50A out of Fallon to I-80 is a better bet.
Well, my thought was to have I-11 reach USA Pkwy on the south end. A routing via Fallon and US 50/50A only makes more sense if I-11 reaches near USA Pkwy on the north end overlapping I-80–via the outskirts of Yerington and Silver Springs would reduce backtracking on a new I-11 route.
Actually the terrain through the Virginia Range doesn't appear to be too overwhelming that far east in Storey County and a dirt road looks like it already runs through there. That wouldn't be too bad since it would dump you right out at Clark via USA Parkway. It would weird to see urban growth spread out to Storey if I-11 bisected it. Makes you wonder if there would be some legislative changes...cough like Clark and Washoe already have in place if something like that happened. I'm in agreement through, that would be the best route. I can't ever see I-11 ever going north from there though which is perfectly fine with me.
I wouldn't be surprised if I-11 made it up to Portland by 2056, if they pushed it hard enough!
Quote from: Henry on May 31, 2016, 11:36:24 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if I-11 made it up to Portland by 2056, if they pushed it hard enough!
I would be very surprised. The population isn't anywhere near close to justifying it, and the intermountain west is likely to run out of water for additional population before it comes close. Mostly, I-11 is Arizona liking red white and blue shields more than black and white ones. Nevada's population is growing, but almost all in L.V. and Reno, not the northern part of the state.
Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2016, 04:02:28 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 31, 2016, 11:36:24 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if I-11 made it up to Portland by 2056, if they pushed it hard enough!
I would be very surprised. The population isn't anywhere near close to justifying it, and the intermountain west is likely to run out of water for additional population before it comes close. Mostly, I-11 is Arizona liking red white and blue shields more than black and white ones. Nevada's population is growing, but almost all in L.V. and Reno, not the northern part of the state.
If I-11 were to be extended north to Portland (or any other terminus via US 97) then Nevada's population north of Reno would not be very relevant as I-11 probably would follow the US 395 route out of Nevada.
It would make more sense just to designate an I-7 or I-9 if eastern Oregon ever got that large. I would find it far fetched that even by the 2050s that Bend would exceed more than 300,000...but then again it's slightly more than half that already....
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2016, 09:55:29 PM
It would make more sense just to designate an I-7 or I-9 if eastern Oregon ever got that large. I would find it far fetched that even by the 2050s that Bend would exceed more than 300,000...but then again it's slightly more than half that already....
Interstate service to Bend, Redmond, etc. are at most secondary reasons for I-11. Connecting Portland/Seattle/Vancouver in the north with Las Vegas/Phoenix in the south would be the primary reason to extend I-11 to the Pacific Northwest.
Quote from: mcarling on May 31, 2016, 11:37:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2016, 09:55:29 PM
It would make more sense just to designate an I-7 or I-9 if eastern Oregon ever got that large. I would find it far fetched that even by the 2050s that Bend would exceed more than 300,000...but then again it's slightly more than half that already....
Interstate service to Bend, Redmond, etc. are at most secondary reasons for I-11. Connecting Portland/Seattle/Vancouver in the north with Las Vegas/Phoenix in the south would be the primary reason to extend I-11 to the Pacific Northwest.
Well you saw the numbers in Nevada and they aren't looking too hot even for a Reno extension anytime soon. It still wouldn't make any sense to number a route from Reno to I-5 as I-11....that's one hell of a western job not to use either I-7 or I-9. If Bend is biggest thing between Reno and I-5 in a northwest direction that's not going to be enough for a long time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2016, 11:50:48 PMIt still wouldn't make any sense to number a route from Reno to I-5 as I-11.
Why would I-11 be routed to I-5? In my opinion, it would make more sense to route I-11 to Yakima along the US 97 corridor and terminate at I-82.
Quote from: mcarling on June 01, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2016, 11:50:48 PMIt still wouldn't make any sense to number a route from Reno to I-5 as I-11.
Why would I-11 be routed to I-5? In my opinion, it would make more sense to route I-11 to Yakima along the US 97 corridor and terminate at I-82.
Because you said connect to Portland/Vancouver/Seattle. I took what you said too literally.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 01, 2016, 01:02:10 PM
Because you said connect to Portland/Vancouver/Seattle. I took what you said too literally.
I didn't write "Portland/Vancouver/Seattle". I wrote "Portland/Seattle/Vancouver" which implies Vancouver BC. I don't know why you changed the ordering, unless to imply Vancouver, WA, which in my opinion is insignificant in this context. Since I-5 cannot literally go all the way to Vancouver BC, I did not expect anyone to take the idea of connecting cities to mean that it had to reach the city limits.
Quote from: mcarling on June 01, 2016, 02:06:57 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 01, 2016, 01:02:10 PM
Because you said connect to Portland/Vancouver/Seattle. I took what you said too literally.
I didn't write "Portland/Vancouver/Seattle". I wrote "Portland/Seattle/Vancouver" which implies Vancouver BC. I don't know why you changed the ordering, unless to imply Vancouver, WA, which in my opinion is insignificant in this context. Since I-5 cannot literally go all the way to Vancouver BC, I did not expect anyone to take the idea of connecting cities to mean that it had to reach the city limits.
I just typed it out manually and didn't copy paste. I really thought you meant Vancouever Washington and not British Columbia. I probably wouldn't have thought Washington if I didn't notice you had it listed as the location you live at on your profile.
Interstate 11 should have its northern terminus in Las Vegas or perhaps Reno. The thought of extending it any further than that seems like fantasy to me.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2016, 06:36:30 PM
Interstate 11 should have its northern terminus in Las Vegas or perhaps Reno. The thought of extending it any further than that seems like fantasy to me.
A combined nine million persons live in the greater Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver metro areas. Add the smaller places along the way like Susanville, Klamath Falls, Bend, Redmond, Yakima, etc. probably brings to ten million the population of the Pacific Northwest that would benefit from an I-11 extension to Yakima. Providing them with a reasonably direct Interstate route to Reno, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson makes sense to me. Of course, the residents and businesses of Reno, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson would gain Interstate access to the Pacific Northwest.
There are reasonably direct routes, and you can drive at 60+ mph on them almost all the time. They're just US highways.
Any possible extension of I-11 north of Reno is decades away. I expect the Las Vegas to Reno section of I-11 will be completed sometime in the 2030s. That may be optimistic.
IMHO, there are three cases for the completion of I-11:
- The I-5 reliever route, to help freight get to the 10 and 40 corridors to the Pacific Northwest. I mean, face it. There's no trucker on the planet that likes to pull on I-5 between Redding and Eugene.
- The imminent need for safety for drivers between Bend and Portland. Deschutes County is closing in on 200,000 residents, and is still connected to the rest of the world by 2-lane roads built for a community 15% as large.
- Reiterating the point of my original post, earthquake preparedness. Some day, and maybe it's 100 years from now but some day, that fault off the Oregon Coast is going to do its thing and we are going to be in a world of hurt. There's a reason that disaster planners picked Redmond, and not somewhere in the valley, as the supply staging area. The better the engineering is on the current US 97 corridor is to get freight to Redmond — and, in theory, over the Cascades into Portland — the quicker the area will recover.
I still think US 97 would never be connected to I-11. If it ever did get built to interstate standards it would be I-7 or something. That would be consistent with giving SR 99 the I-9 designation in California. But at most I bet it would get built up as an expressway.
As far as freight, US 395 is a better candidate for bringing that I-10/I-40 traffic up to Reno than a potential I-11 extension up US 95. It's already twinned a lot of the way and it connects to I-580. If trucks are coming up from Phoenix they would just head west on I-40 and bypass Vegas entirely. Now if that could ever be extended north of Reno, it could maybe connect to US 97, but that probably won't happen.
Quote from: opspe on June 05, 2016, 10:53:19 PM
I still think US 97 would never be connected to I-11. If it ever did get built to interstate standards it would be I-7 or something. That would be consistent with giving SR 99 the I-9 designation in California. But at most I bet it would get built up as an expressway.
As far as freight, US 395 is a better candidate for bringing that I-10/I-40 traffic up to Reno than a potential I-11 extension up US 95. It's already twinned a lot of the way and it connects to I-580. If trucks are coming up from Phoenix they would just head west on I-40 and bypass Vegas entirely. Now if that could ever be extended north of Reno, it could maybe connect to US 97, but that probably won't happen.
Right now, there's (surprisingly) not much of a mileage difference for Phoenix to Reno if you go via Las Vegas/US 95 (744 miles, via Fallon) or via US 395 (772 miles).
One thing though is that the US 395 corridor would not be as good of a freight route. It spends a good deal of time getting through the Sierra Nevada. There are parts of that that would be difficult to get to Interstate standard. A route via US 95 is primarily through valleys (in the 'basin and range' geological construct that composes most of Nevada), and has potential to be shortened in Northwestern Nevada (depending on alignment chosen).
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
Right now, there's (surprisingly) not much of a mileage difference for Phoenix to Reno if you go via Las Vegas/US 95 (744 miles, via Fallon) or via US 395 (772 miles).
28 miles is a huge difference when multiplied by thousands of vehicles per day.
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
Quote from: opspe on June 05, 2016, 10:53:19 PM
I still think US 97 would never be connected to I-11. If it ever did get built to interstate standards it would be I-7 or something. That would be consistent with giving SR 99 the I-9 designation in California. But at most I bet it would get built up as an expressway.
As far as freight, US 395 is a better candidate for bringing that I-10/I-40 traffic up to Reno than a potential I-11 extension up US 95. It's already twinned a lot of the way and it connects to I-580. If trucks are coming up from Phoenix they would just head west on I-40 and bypass Vegas entirely. Now if that could ever be extended north of Reno, it could maybe connect to US 97, but that probably won't happen.
I'll second that on the terrain, US 395 is way more difficult in the Sierras than US 95 is out in the Great Basin. Really as it stands right now there is much reason to go way out of the way and avoid Vegas since you get a pretty similar load of traffic with I-15/I-40/CA-58 all converging in Barstow. I'm not saying that US 395 doesn't have it's merit but it's a lot less of an all-weather/all-conditions route than US 95. That distance to Reno would probably be cut down even more if I-11 branched off-northwest via the rough alignment of US 95A north of Yerington.
Right now, there's (surprisingly) not much of a mileage difference for Phoenix to Reno if you go via Las Vegas/US 95 (744 miles, via Fallon) or via US 395 (772 miles).
One thing though is that the US 395 corridor would not be as good of a freight route. It spends a good deal of time getting through the Sierra Nevada. There are parts of that that would be difficult to get to Interstate standard. A route via US 95 is primarily through valleys (in the 'basin and range' geological construct that composes most of Nevada), and has potential to be shortened in Northwestern Nevada (depending on alignment chosen).
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
One thing though is that the US 395 corridor would not be as good of a freight route. It spends a good deal of time getting through the Sierra Nevada. There are parts of that that would be difficult to get to Interstate standard. A route via US 95 is primarily through valleys (in the 'basin and range' geological construct that composes most of Nevada), and has potential to be shortened in Northwestern Nevada (depending on alignment chosen).
Question — as NDOT looks at the potential I-11 alignment between Vegas and Reno, how seriously are they considering "cutting corners" to cut miles? For example, couldn't you lop off quite a few miles by heading directly northwest out of Goldfield toward Coaldale, bypassing Tonopah? (Sorry, Tonopah). Similarly, a new alignment off the east side of Walker Lake would not only cut miles, but probably engineering off building on the ledge of the Wassuk Range?
I get that there are some elevation challenges, but I remember every time I'd drive up US 95 in the past, looking longingly across the valley south/west of Tonopah and wishing I could just drive straight across it instead of going up the hill and down again.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 06, 2016, 05:05:07 PM
Question — as NDOT looks at the potential I-11 alignment between Vegas and Reno, how seriously are they considering "cutting corners" to cut miles?
No doubt there will be alternative alignments under consideration with opportunities for public comment. I would tend to favor the most direct route. I see no reason why I-11 should not follow an alignment nearer to Silver Peak than to Tonopah.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 06, 2016, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
One thing though is that the US 395 corridor would not be as good of a freight route. It spends a good deal of time getting through the Sierra Nevada. There are parts of that that would be difficult to get to Interstate standard. A route via US 95 is primarily through valleys (in the 'basin and range' geological construct that composes most of Nevada), and has potential to be shortened in Northwestern Nevada (depending on alignment chosen).
Question — as NDOT looks at the potential I-11 alignment between Vegas and Reno, how seriously are they considering "cutting corners" to cut miles? For example, couldn't you lop off quite a few miles by heading directly northwest out of Goldfield toward Coaldale, bypassing Tonopah? (Sorry, Tonopah). Similarly, a new alignment off the east side of Walker Lake would not only cut miles, but probably engineering off building on the ledge of the Wassuk Range?
I get that there are some elevation challenges, but I remember every time I'd drive up US 95 in the past, looking longingly across the valley south/west of Tonopah and wishing I could just drive straight across it instead of going up the hill and down again.
As nice as that would be there would need to be some new infrastructure development in Goldfield to support that. Basically Goldfield doesn't even have an active gas station much (I think, certainly not chain) an active hotel. Basically you'd have a 150 mile plus route from Beatty to Hawthrone with no services with that kind of alignment at present state. That would be kind of interesting though considering Goldfield for all intents and purposes is a ghost town.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 06, 2016, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
One thing though is that the US 395 corridor would not be as good of a freight route. It spends a good deal of time getting through the Sierra Nevada. There are parts of that that would be difficult to get to Interstate standard. A route via US 95 is primarily through valleys (in the 'basin and range' geological construct that composes most of Nevada), and has potential to be shortened in Northwestern Nevada (depending on alignment chosen).
Question — as NDOT looks at the potential I-11 alignment between Vegas and Reno, how seriously are they considering "cutting corners" to cut miles? For example, couldn't you lop off quite a few miles by heading directly northwest out of Goldfield toward Coaldale, bypassing Tonopah? (Sorry, Tonopah). Similarly, a new alignment off the east side of Walker Lake would not only cut miles, but probably engineering off building on the ledge of the Wassuk Range?
I get that there are some elevation challenges, but I remember every time I'd drive up US 95 in the past, looking longingly across the valley south/west of Tonopah and wishing I could just drive straight across it instead of going up the hill and down again.
Quote from: mcarling on June 06, 2016, 05:22:25 PM
No doubt there will be alternative alignments under consideration with opportunities for public comment. I would tend to favor the most direct route. I see no reason why I-11 should not follow an alignment nearer to Silver Peak than to Tonopah.
I don't have an answer for you on that. I imagine that NDOT would want to cut some mileage. But there's also the attractiveness of re-purposing existing road beds to use as one side of the interstate to make things easier to construct (this is what NDOT did when widening US 95 to divided highway south of Boulder City several years ago: old roadbed was mostly regraded as one set of lanes). That's also a lot of right of way to consider...but they would be getting most of it from the BLM. It's still really early to speculate too hard though.
I don't know that they'd completely cut away from Tonopah...it being the only real bit of civilization in west-central Nevada. That would leave virtually nothing in the way of decent services between Beatty and Hawthorne. Silver Peak isn't really inhabited.
There are some areas that they could make more direct without cutting that off. I've always despised the US 6-95 overlap as there's an unnecessary arc northward there.
Not sure that you could go straight northwest out of Goldfield. There's some mountains to go around. But yes, by current roads it is shorter to go through Silver Peak...part of that is not currently state highway, and I've never gone that way to see what it's like.
Maneuvering around Hawthorne and Walker Lake may get a bit tricky with just how much land around Hawthorne belongs to the Army Depot. The east side of the lake would be easier to build a freeway through, but that might not be shorter, depending on how you get around the depot.
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 11:56:05 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 06, 2016, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2016, 10:12:57 AM
One thing though is that the US 395 corridor would not be as good of a freight route. It spends a good deal of time getting through the Sierra Nevada. There are parts of that that would be difficult to get to Interstate standard. A route via US 95 is primarily through valleys (in the 'basin and range' geological construct that composes most of Nevada), and has potential to be shortened in Northwestern Nevada (depending on alignment chosen).
Question — as NDOT looks at the potential I-11 alignment between Vegas and Reno, how seriously are they considering "cutting corners" to cut miles? For example, couldn't you lop off quite a few miles by heading directly northwest out of Goldfield toward Coaldale, bypassing Tonopah? (Sorry, Tonopah). Similarly, a new alignment off the east side of Walker Lake would not only cut miles, but probably engineering off building on the ledge of the Wassuk Range?
I get that there are some elevation challenges, but I remember every time I'd drive up US 95 in the past, looking longingly across the valley south/west of Tonopah and wishing I could just drive straight across it instead of going up the hill and down again.
Quote from: mcarling on June 06, 2016, 05:22:25 PM
No doubt there will be alternative alignments under consideration with opportunities for public comment. I would tend to favor the most direct route. I see no reason why I-11 should not follow an alignment nearer to Silver Peak than to Tonopah.
I don't have an answer for you on that. I imagine that NDOT would want to cut some mileage. But there's also the attractiveness of re-purposing existing road beds to use as one side of the interstate to make things easier to construct (this is what NDOT did when widening US 95 to divided highway south of Boulder City several years ago: old roadbed was mostly regraded as one set of lanes). That's also a lot of right of way to consider...but they would be getting most of it from the BLM. It's still really early to speculate too hard though.
I don't know that they'd completely cut away from Tonopah...it being the only real bit of civilization in west-central Nevada. That would leave virtually nothing in the way of decent services between Beatty and Hawthorne. Silver Peak isn't really inhabited.
There are some areas that they could make more direct without cutting that off. I've always despised the US 6-95 overlap as there's an unnecessary arc northward there.
Not sure that you could go straight northwest out of Goldfield. There's some mountains to go around. But yes, by current roads it is shorter to go through Silver Peak...part of that is not currently state highway, and I've never gone that way to see what it's like.
Maneuvering around Hawthorne and Walker Lake may get a bit tricky with just how much land around Hawthorne belongs to the Army Depot. The east side of the lake would be easier to build a freeway through, but that might not be shorter, depending on how you get around the depot.
When I ran through a couple months back Silver Peak road was shut down for improvements. The last time I went out on the old roadway was probably back in 2011, it thought it was a decent grade for what it's worth. I'm honestly not sure what exactly the upgrades are but if I recall correct Silver Peak Road was supposed to reopen in October.
A bypass of the Hawthorne Army Depot is possible since the military reservation doesn't back up completely to back up to the mountains. Problem is that the arch that a road would have to take is well east of the city which would be too far even for bypass purposes. Personally I would like to see the I-11 bypass stick to the US 95 truck route since it would bring traffic closer to the city for a business loop type purpose.
Probably a better bypass of Tonopah would be just to the south west of the city limits. There is plenty of lower terrain in the valley below the city and it would still get traffic a decent sized population for services. Even Beatty and Hawthorne are kind of dicey in regards to modern services...hell Esmeralda County has less than 800 people left in an area that's larger than some eastern states, a slight jaunt back into Nye via Tonopah isn't going to hurt.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2016, 07:05:55 PM
As nice as that would be there would need to be some new infrastructure development in Goldfield to support that. Basically Goldfield doesn't even have an active gas station much (I think, certainly not chain) an active hotel. Basically you'd have a 150 mile plus route from Beatty to Hawthrone with no services with that kind of alignment at present state. That would be kind of interesting though considering Goldfield for all intents and purposes is a ghost town.
The people of Goldfield would no doubt be happy to provide whatever level of services the market would bear.
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:21:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2016, 07:05:55 PM
As nice as that would be there would need to be some new infrastructure development in Goldfield to support that. Basically Goldfield doesn't even have an active gas station much (I think, certainly not chain) an active hotel. Basically you'd have a 150 mile plus route from Beatty to Hawthrone with no services with that kind of alignment at present state. That would be kind of interesting though considering Goldfield for all intents and purposes is a ghost town.
The people of Goldfield would no doubt be happy to provide whatever level of services the market would bear.
Would they? There is no gas stations in Goldfield and no active hotels...I don't think people would want to stay at the Goldfield hotel with all those rumors about the ruins. :paranoid: :-D The city (which isn't technically a city anymore) is down from a peak of being the largest city in Nevada at something like 20,000 to 200 people...maybe less. The place is a cratered out wreck with blocks of abandoned buildings...like I said, it's a virtual ghost town. Hell they don't even have even have any active gas stations in Mina or Luna for that matter. There is a sign on US 95 leaving Hawthrone warning you that services are 94 miles away and another leaving Tonopah. I really think you can't avoid Tonopah or Hawthorne if you want an Interstate running through to Reno...but then again I'm probably making all the arguments against building I-11 past Vegas. Not to mention building a bypass through the mountains to Silver Peak would be drastically more expensive than a scaled down bypass of Tonopah following US 95 and US 95/6.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2016, 09:13:27 AM
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:21:21 AM
The people of Goldfield would no doubt be happy to provide whatever level of services the market would bear.
Would they?
Would people in a depressed town want jobs?
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:01:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2016, 09:13:27 AM
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:21:21 AM
The people of Goldfield would no doubt be happy to provide whatever level of services the market would bear.
Would they?
Would people in a depressed town want jobs?
I don't know if I would even call it a town at this point. I know it doesn't have an active charter despite being the county seat. Usually people who are that far out in the boons in rural Nevada are there by choice and/or are reclusive. The mines played out on Goldfield a long time ago much like a lot of Nevada towns. Tonopah actually has some industry that's still active not to mention the Nevada Test Site, a large solar plant and all the modern roadside gas stations/hotels. Personally I kind of put Goldifeld in the same league as a Bodie or Tombstone at this point, just a dead relic meant for tourism at best.
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:01:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2016, 09:13:27 AM
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:21:21 AM
The people of Goldfield would no doubt be happy to provide whatever level of services the market would bear.
Would they?
Would people in a depressed town want jobs?
The people who wanted jobs moved out a century ago.
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 02:32:00 PM
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:01:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2016, 09:13:27 AM
Quote from: mcarling on June 07, 2016, 02:21:21 AM
The people of Goldfield would no doubt be happy to provide whatever level of services the market would bear.
Would they?
Would people in a depressed town want jobs?
The people who wanted jobs moved out a century ago.
Ironically a lot of them ended up in Tonopah of all places. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2016, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 02:32:00 PM
The people who wanted jobs moved out a century ago.
Ironically a lot of them ended up in Tonopah of all places. :-D
Or Reno, or Oakland, or Los Angeles.
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 03:37:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2016, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 02:32:00 PM
The people who wanted jobs moved out a century ago.
Ironically a lot of them ended up in Tonopah of all places. :-D
Or Reno, or Oakland, or Los Angeles.
It's still one of my favorite ghost town stomping grounds due to how many buildings are left from the heyday. I think that I would get some morbid amusement seeing an Interstate run right by it on a bypass. Odd thing I never understood, it always felt like Rhyolite got more people going to see it. Maybe that has something to do with the tourist crowd heading to Hell's Gate?
Isn't Goldfield the desert town featured in "Vanishing Point" the 1971 cult film starring a 1970 Dodge Challenger??
Quote from: DJStephens on December 13, 2016, 09:06:19 PM
Isn't Goldfield the desert town featured in "Vanishing Point" the 1971 cult film starring a 1970 Dodge Challenger??
One of many ghost towns or quasi ghost towns. Goldfield was in the parts with Super Soul in them if I remember right. I know the end is filmed in Cisco, Utah on Old US 50/6 and even Thompson Springs west of there also pops up at one point. Wendover, Utah is also a filming location which is mostly known for Wendover Air Force base which had the Enola Gay hanger. Most people would know Wendover from the first Independence Day with the alien attack over Area 51.
KOWalski!
Personally, I think the prospect of Interstate 11 going beyond Reno, let alone through Oregon is a pipe dream that is unlikely to happen. Of course, I could be wrong.
I would agree that an extension of a proposed I-11 beyond the Reno area would be unlikely. Yes, you could make an argument that it would be a nice connection of the dots to put a connection (say on the US 95 path) between I-80 and I-84 to link Boise to the middle west coast, but for the cost to put an interstate through that terrain, how many people would you really be serving? There is not a real Canadian destination for traffic between Vancouver and Calgary, and that is already served with I-5 and I-15 respectively.
Even beyond Las Vegas is unlikely. There's no international traffic involved in I-11 anyway, it's all about the hope that people from Phoenix or El Paso will drive to Las Vegas to lose their money.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2016, 03:22:20 PM
Personally, I think the prospect of Interstate 11 going beyond Reno, let alone through Oregon is a pipe dream that is unlikely to happen. Of course, I could be wrong.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on December 14, 2016, 05:41:35 PM
I would agree that an extension of a proposed I-11 beyond the Reno area would be unlikely. Yes, you could make an argument that it would be a nice connection of the dots to put a connection (say on the US 95 path) between I-80 and I-84 to link Boise to the middle west coast, but for the cost to put an interstate through that terrain, how many people would you really be serving? There is not a real Canadian destination for traffic between Vancouver and Calgary, and that is already served with I-5 and I-15 respectively.
Basically agree with much of the train of thought here -- not enough traffic base east of the Cascades to warrant, at least at this time, any I-11 extension north of I-80 that uses either the US 395 or CA 139/US 97 corridors northward into and through Oregon. Boise and the adjacent Paradise Valley is another story, however. That region presently contains a population (this is including the Ontario, OR area as well) very close to 800K; at present growth rates, it's likely to exceed 1M by 2025. A corridor from Winnemucca, NV extending north/northeast along US 95 and ID 55, intersecting I-84 in the Nampa/Caldwell area would connect this growing population base with points to the southwest in NV and CA. Of all the north-of-I-80 extensions under discussion, this one seems to have the greatest potential to benefit the greatest number of people. Except for the area around Indian Valley, OR, the terrain doesn't pose too many issues for an Interstate-grade facility (OK, it'll need a bridge over the Snake River, but at least it's not in a deep canyon in the Nampa area). The major obstacle, though, lies in the political realm -- about 120 of the approximately 230 mile length of this corridor is in the state of Oregon, which has not in recent years been terribly hospitable to freeway construction. Compounding that issue is the simple fact that the corridor really doesn't provide much in the way of benefits to the state as a whole; it enters and leaves without encountering any significant populated areas. The sole "saving grace" to OR, as it were, is as an improved conduit feeding OR 78, which heads NW to Burns and, via westerly US 20, Bend and the more populated areas of central/western Oregon. The chances are that some sort of subsidy (increased federal portion and/or monetary participation from Idaho toward construction of the Oregon segment) would be required to make the corridor acceptable to the folks in Salem. It might not even be considered a direct extension of I-11 because of the 130-or-so-mile coincidence with I-80 from the Fernley area to Winnemucca (could be I-13 for that matter!).
Outside of the Wasatch Valley (Provo-Salt Lake-Ogden) extended Utah region, the Boise area is the largest and fastest-growing metro region in the intermountain West; an improved connection to California would be highly beneficial to the commercial and recreational viability of that area.
Quote from: sparker on December 16, 2016, 05:15:09 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2016, 03:22:20 PM
Personally, I think the prospect of Interstate 11 going beyond Reno, let alone through Oregon is a pipe dream that is unlikely to happen. Of course, I could be wrong.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on December 14, 2016, 05:41:35 PM
I would agree that an extension of a proposed I-11 beyond the Reno area would be unlikely. Yes, you could make an argument that it would be a nice connection of the dots to put a connection (say on the US 95 path) between I-80 and I-84 to link Boise to the middle west coast, but for the cost to put an interstate through that terrain, how many people would you really be serving? There is not a real Canadian destination for traffic between Vancouver and Calgary, and that is already served with I-5 and I-15 respectively.
Basically agree with much of the train of thought here -- not enough traffic base east of the Cascades to warrant, at least at this time, any I-11 extension north of I-80 that uses either the US 395 or CA 139/US 97 corridors northward into and through Oregon. Boise and the adjacent Paradise Valley is another story, however. That region presently contains a population (this is including the Ontario, OR area as well) very close to 800K; at present growth rates, it's likely to exceed 1M by 2025. A corridor from Winnemucca, NV extending north/northeast along US 95 and ID 55, intersecting I-84 in the Nampa/Caldwell area would connect this growing population base with points to the southwest in NV and CA. Of all the north-of-I-80 extensions under discussion, this one seems to have the greatest potential to benefit the greatest number of people. Except for the area around Indian Valley, OR, the terrain doesn't pose too many issues for an Interstate-grade facility (OK, it'll need a bridge over the Snake River, but at least it's not in a deep canyon in the Nampa area). The major obstacle, though, lies in the political realm -- about 120 of the approximately 230 mile length of this corridor is in the state of Oregon, which has not in recent years been terribly hospitable to freeway construction. Compounding that issue is the simple fact that the corridor really doesn't provide much in the way of benefits to the state as a whole; it enters and leaves without encountering any significant populated areas. The sole "saving grace" to OR, as it were, is as an improved conduit feeding OR 78, which heads NW to Burns and, via westerly US 20, Bend and the more populated areas of central/western Oregon. The chances are that some sort of subsidy (increased federal portion and/or monetary participation from Idaho toward construction of the Oregon segment) would be required to make the corridor acceptable to the folks in Salem. It might not even be considered a direct extension of I-11 because of the 130-or-so-mile coincidence with I-80 from the Fernley area to Winnemucca (could be I-13 for that matter!).
Outside of the Wasatch Valley (Provo-Salt Lake-Ogden) extended Utah region, the Boise area is the largest and fastest-growing metro region in the intermountain West; an improved connection to California would be highly beneficial to the commercial and recreational viability of that area.
Your arguments are solid, but US-95 is fine as is. It's a 65/70 MPH highway (basically) the whole way with not too much traffic (I don't have numbers, but it's certainly less than something like US-97 through Oregon) and the road geometry is already good for commercial traffic. I think if Oregon was ever going to create new regional freeway corridor, it would (and should) be along US-97.
ID-55 from Marsing to Nampa could use some serious upgrades though (luckily that's in progress, but I think it should be 4-5 lanes the whole stretch which it's not going to be).
Quote from: doorknob60 on December 19, 2016, 06:33:20 PM
Your arguments are solid, but US-95 is fine as is. It's a 65/70 MPH highway (basically) the whole way with not too much traffic (I don't have numbers, but it's certainly less than something like US-97 through Oregon) and the road geometry is already good for commercial traffic. I think if Oregon was ever going to create new regional freeway corridor, it would (and should) be along US-97.
ID-55 from Marsing to Nampa could use some serious upgrades though (luckily that's in progress, but I think it should be 4-5 lanes the whole stretch which it's not going to be).
Totally agree with you about the US 97 corridor; I just think that a more logical alignment for any potential Interstate along that route should utilize
all of US 97 in Oregon rather than attempt to connect to Reno or environs as an extension of the currently legislated I-11. There would be more of a traffic base coming to & from I-5 at Weed, CA than from any Nevada-based corridor. And, since 97 already hosts a considerable amount of truck traffic (mostly forest products), upgrades would be welcome from those truckers as well as the other traffic that has to share the road with them! But convincing ODOT that a freeway corridor is needed would be an uphill task; even with the improvements in and south of Bend, it's still a long way off from a full-length corridor upgrade program. Bend/Redmond/Prineville metro is about 225K population at present; if growth rates of that region continue as they have, another 100-125K will be there about 2030-2032. That may well be enough to incite the local political action necessary to at least plan a comprehensive US 97 corridor upgrade (whether to I-standards remains to be seen) -- and to offset the nominal bias against general capacity upgrades endemic to OR state politicos & agencies. In any case, the potential traffic base generated from points in CA reachable by I-5 would likely surpass any contribution from an I-11 extension; a US 97 corridor would likely be considered more feasible and necessary as a "feeder" to I-5.
Also agree that US 95 is probably adequate for current traffic levels; my projection re an Interstate-grade facility along that route is based upon expected population increases in the Boise/Paradise Valley metro region. I don't see any solid plans being made for the 95 corridor until well after 2030 or so -- and dependent upon not only a population increase but also an accompanying growth of the region's commercial/industrial sector. If that occurs, then a push for enhanced access would likely precede any corridor upgrades.
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2016, 04:43:01 AM
Boise/Paradise Valley metro region
For what it's worth, I think you're looking for "Treasure Valley". But yeah, US-95 is a very important corridor, connecting the fast growing Treasure Valley area with Nevada and California. Even if the traffic levels don't need it, the importance of the corridor (and the fact that in interstate terms, it's not
that long) alone could warrant an upgrade, sometime in the future, and I wouldn't oppose it. Though it seems like the economy of southern Idaho is more closely tied to Portland, Salt Lake City, and Seattle than it is to California or Nevada.
Quote from: doorknob60 on December 20, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2016, 04:43:01 AM
Boise/Paradise Valley metro region
For what it's worth, I think you're looking for "Treasure Valley". But yeah, US-95 is a very important corridor, connecting the fast growing Treasure Valley area with Nevada and California. Even if the traffic levels don't need it, the importance of the corridor (and the fact that in interstate terms, it's not that long) alone could warrant an upgrade, sometime in the future, and I wouldn't oppose it. Though it seems like the economy of southern Idaho is more closely tied to Portland, Salt Lake City, and Seattle than it is to California or Nevada.
My bad on the valley misnomer. :pan: And you're likely correct in that the Boise area economy tracks Northwest or Intermountain trends more than California or Nevada. But developing the US 95 corridor might have some effect on that equilibrium -- putting the Treasure (got it right that time) Valley a little closer (if only psychically) with activities emanating from the I-80 corridor. Just a thought!
With regard to the previous discussion on a no-services stretch of road: I would imagine if such a road were built, with otherwise unnecessary interchanges to local roads every so often, you would probably eventually get Pilot/Flying J/Loves type establishments moving in. A brand-new stretch of interstate with no competition would get some executive's attention, to be sure.
Another option would be to get a carve-out written into the I-11 funding bill to allow Nevada DOT to build and lease a commercial, turnpike-style service plaza, if it's felt that waiting for the "invisible hand" might take too long.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2016, 08:56:48 PM
With regard to the previous discussion on a no-services stretch of road: I would imagine if such a road were built, with otherwise unnecessary interchanges to local roads every so often, you would probably eventually get Pilot/Flying J/Loves type establishments moving in. A brand-new stretch of interstate with no competition would get some executive's attention, to be sure.
Another option would be to get a carve-out written into the I-11 funding bill to allow Nevada DOT to build and lease a commercial, turnpike-style service plaza, if it's felt that waiting for the "invisible hand" might take too long.
Given just the total lack of population in central Nevada a service plaza might be an interesting draw. Goldfield, Mina, and Luna are basically about as dead as they can be without being absolute 100% ghost towns. So long a potential I-11 doesn't bypass too far from Hawthorne, Beatty, or Tonopah really there shouldn't be a ton of issues with exit ramp stations. One thing that I neglected to mention was I-70 has a 100 mile stretch without services in Utah. I can't recall ever hearing of or seeing a commercial or passenger vehicle not making it from Salina to Green River because of an empty gas tank. On US 95 it seems to still be a somewhat common occurrence, especially with bikers.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2016, 09:42:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2016, 08:56:48 PM
With regard to the previous discussion on a no-services stretch of road: I would imagine if such a road were built, with otherwise unnecessary interchanges to local roads every so often, you would probably eventually get Pilot/Flying J/Loves type establishments moving in. A brand-new stretch of interstate with no competition would get some executive's attention, to be sure.
Another option would be to get a carve-out written into the I-11 funding bill to allow Nevada DOT to build and lease a commercial, turnpike-style service plaza, if it's felt that waiting for the "invisible hand" might take too long.
Given just the total lack of population in central Nevada a service plaza might be an interesting draw. Goldfield, Mina, and Luna are basically about as dead as they can be without being absolute 100% ghost towns. So long a potential I-11 doesn't bypass too far from Hawthorne, Beatty, or Tonopah really there shouldn't be a ton of issues with exit ramp stations. One thing that I neglected to mention was I-70 has a 100 mile stretch without services in Utah. I can't recall ever hearing of or seeing a commercial or passenger vehicle not making it from Salina to Green River because of an empty gas tank. On US 95 it seems to still be a somewhat common occurrence, especially with bikers.
We pulled into Green River running on fumes. The gas station was not signed from I-70 but we pulled off anyway because we hoped there would be a gas station, and even if there wasn't it would be better to run out of gas in a town instead of by the side of the freeway. But we made it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2016, 09:42:32 PM
I can't recall ever hearing of or seeing a commercial or passenger vehicle not making it from Salina to Green River because of an empty gas tank. On US 95 it seems to still be a somewhat common occurrence, especially with bikers.
At least on I-70 through the Swell one has actual posted notice regarding lack of services. A driver or biker on 95 will probably think, having quickly viewed a map and noting that there are several towns along the highway, that obtaining fuel or services will be a piece of cake. During the day that might even be true, but that stretch of road shuts down tighter than a drum at night -- getting either after 9 p.m. is a real problem. I remember my first trip up that road in the middle of the night some 33 years ago after exhibiting at the Vegas Consumer Electronic Show (CES); I thought much the same thing -- and considered myself fortunate to find
one gas station/convenience store open in Tonopah (and charging about 20% over the prevailing fuel cost). For a bit, I thought I was going to have to sleep in my vehicle behind a closed station until morning. Never made that mistake again; always filled up to the brim in LV before taking off.
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2016, 05:05:46 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2016, 09:42:32 PM
I can't recall ever hearing of or seeing a commercial or passenger vehicle not making it from Salina to Green River because of an empty gas tank. On US 95 it seems to still be a somewhat common occurrence, especially with bikers.
At least on I-70 through the Swell one has actual posted notice regarding lack of services. A driver or biker on 95 will probably think, having quickly viewed a map and noting that there are several towns along the highway, that obtaining fuel or services will be a piece of cake. During the day that might even be true, but that stretch of road shuts down tighter than a drum at night -- getting either after 9 p.m. is a real problem. I remember my first trip up that road in the middle of the night some 33 years ago after exhibiting at the Vegas Consumer Electronic Show (CES); I thought much the same thing -- and considered myself fortunate to find one gas station/convenience store open in Tonopah (and charging about 20% over the prevailing fuel cost). For a bit, I thought I was going to have to sleep in my vehicle behind a closed station until morning. Never made that mistake again; always filled up to the brim in LV before taking off.
I want to say the only station that is open all day in Tonopah is the one that has the Subway and Burger King in it on the west side of town. Part of the problem is that it is probably easy to look a map like you said but even the GSV now and see what appears to be "active" stations in the towns I mentioned above. I always find this an interesting topic to discuss when it comes up because I really don't think people understand how truly desolate Nevada can be. This is just conjecture on my part but I seem to recall someone putting out an article a couple years back which basically stated that if Clark County was taken out of the state that Nevada would only be behind Alaska for lowest population density. I certainly don't think that most people are expecting a waste land comparable to a Mad Max movie when they out on a gambling binge vacation between Reno and Vegas....or when when they casually look at a map then decide US 95 would be a great place for I-11.
Funny thing though, I've never seen the same volume of broke down cars on US 6 between Tonopah and Ely. It might be because of the map being pretty much as desolate as advertised coupled with traffic is likely more localized or in the know about the road....OR people see this it gets their attention:
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M68661eb8045d5ab8014708df11907076o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=214&h=169)