Interstate 11

[texaskdog]

I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!

The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty!  But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition.  It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!

I think Interstates should go around cities for the through traffic and the spurs should be the alternate numbers

[Anthony_JK]

I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!

The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty!  But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition.  It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!

I think Interstates should go around cities for the through traffic and the spurs should be the alternate numbers

I'm fundamentally the opposite: Interstates need to access the central cores of inner cities in order to serve the inner neighborhoods and downtowns. Let the suburban loops be the alternatives.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ I agree!

[jakeroot]

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

[Bobby5280]

It depends on the time of day and the city's highway layout. If you're not passing through the city during rush hour (such as moving through later at night) you'll probably save time and distance staying on the main route rather than taking the loop highway around.

I've driven East-West through Indianapolis a few times. In that case it was nearly the same distance to leave I-70 and take I-465/I-74 around the South side and reconnect with I-70 on the other side. But that's only because I-70 takes a very crooked path through Indianapolis.

Then there's cities like Houston where I-610 can get just as badly jammed with traffic as I-10 or I-45.

[sparker]

The one thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion of I-11 as a bypass or a city-bound route is that Las Vegas really isn't like most other cities; tourists rarely need access to the city center (since nobody downtown seems to deal single-deck blackjack anymore, I certainly don't!); the current I-15/I-215 junction west of the airport is closer to the major hotels than the I-515/US 95 through-town route.  I'm sure that particular point will be made by Strip interests when the corridor decision is debated -- i.e., "route I-11 where the action is!"

[howlincoyote2k1]

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.

[sparker]

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.

The original 2012 legislation that authorized I-11 over a portion of High Priority Corridor #26 was only between Phoenix and Las Vegas.  In 2016 the I-11 designation was legislatively extended north along US 95 to I-80 in Northern Nevada via the co-designation of High Priority Corridor #68 (itself dating from 2005) as an I-11 extension.  So the present "official" corridor extends from the Phoenix area to I-80 somewhere in the vicinity of Reno.  Now whether one considers the extension past LV to be unnecessary, foolish, stupid, or any otherwise dismissive term, it's there and is garnering some attention if not immediate prioritization.  Past I-80: that's anybody's guess.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

Well to be fair that's what bypasses are for.

But for me, I enjoy going through cities. Better food options usually and I simply enjoy driving and seeing cities from freeways.

[jakeroot]

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

Well to be fair that's what bypasses are for.

Right. But as a driver, it's easier to follow (eg) I-70, than I-70 to I-270 to I-70. Most through traffic, not really knowing if a 3di will take them back to their 2di, will just stay on the 2di to be safe. During rush hour, this can mix them up with commuter traffic, and create headaches where there doesn't necessarily need to be one.

But for me, I enjoy going through cities. Better food options usually and I simply enjoy driving and seeing cities from freeways.

I'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center. Through traffic is not interested in the sights and sounds of a city. They're just trying to get through. And the residents of the city will appreciate traffic staying away, as it's just that many fewer cars on their road.

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.

I don't think the point is to connect the strip to downtown Phoenix. It's to connect those major metro areas. You can do that without plowing through an urban area.

[sparker]

Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.

Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.

Oh....this poster was referring to Tonopah, AZ; not Tonopah, NV; must be referring to the Hassayampa routing variant in greater PHX.  Well, as the late great Gilda Radner's character Emily Litella would say: never mind!. 

[Bobby5280]

The one thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion of I-11 as a bypass or a city-bound route is that Las Vegas really isn't like most other cities; tourists rarely need access to the city center (since nobody downtown seems to deal single-deck blackjack anymore, I certainly don't!); the current I-15/I-215 junction west of the airport is closer to the major hotels than the I-515/US 95 through-town route.  I'm sure that particular point will be made by Strip interests when the corridor decision is debated -- i.e., "route I-11 where the action is!"

Las Vegas is a large enough city that it is more than just a place for gambling tourists. There are more traffic generators than just McCarran aiport and the big hotels on the Southern part of the Strip. Summerlin on the NW side of the metro is growing rapidly. Henderson on the SE side of the metro is also growing rapidly. US-95/I-515 is the most direct route between those two booming suburbs. If more of the tourist traffic is moving farther South along I-215 & I-15 that's even better for both the locals and long distance traffic using the route.

Most of the gamling traffic arriving by car to Vegas is coming in from California via I-15. Not nearly as much will be using I-11. In terms of highway network logic, it makes far more sense to establish I-215 along all of the 215 loop rather than mixing various route numbers along it. It also makes more sense for US-95 and I-11 to share the same route through Vegas.

I'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center.

The United States is a car-centric culture. Most people move from point a to point b using automobiles. That's not going to change any time soon. If you have to sit through dozens of traffic lights to reach a downtown destination chances are strong you'll find similar destinations in bustling suburbs far easier to reach. Elminating freeways inside of a city's loop highway would be bad for downtown business.

Most of our nation's cities are not nearly as densely packed as very old cities in Europe. Between that and the insane construction price inflation of things like subways and light rail it's very difficult for mass transit to fully serve American urban populations. Most people will still be stuck driving at least some distance of their trip. Riding buses and trains is a time draining activity. I wonder just how much "strap-hanging" some of these new urbanists have actually done. I did years of it living in New York City. I don't romanticize that experience at all.

[silverback1065]

The one thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion of I-11 as a bypass or a city-bound route is that Las Vegas really isn't like most other cities; tourists rarely need access to the city center (since nobody downtown seems to deal single-deck blackjack anymore, I certainly don't!); the current I-15/I-215 junction west of the airport is closer to the major hotels than the I-515/US 95 through-town route.  I'm sure that particular point will be made by Strip interests when the corridor decision is debated -- i.e., "route I-11 where the action is!"

Las Vegas is a large enough city that it is more than just a place for gambling tourists. There are more traffic generators than just McCarran aiport and the big hotels on the Southern part of the Strip. Summerlin on the NW side of the metro is growing rapidly. Henderson on the SE side of the metro is also growing rapidly. US-95/I-515 is the most direct route between those two booming suburbs. If more of the tourist traffic is moving farther South along I-215 & I-15 that's even better for both the locals and long distance traffic using the route.

Most of the gamling traffic arriving by car to Vegas is coming in from California via I-15. Not nearly as much will be using I-11. In terms of highway network logic, it makes far more sense to establish I-215 along all of the 215 loop rather than mixing various route numbers along it. It also makes more sense for US-95 and I-11 to share the same route through Vegas.

I'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center.

The United States is a car-centric culture. Most people move from point a to point b using automobiles. That's not going to change any time soon. If you have to sit through dozens of traffic lights to reach a downtown destination chances are strong you'll find similar destinations in bustling suburbs far easier to reach. Elminating freeways inside of a city's loop highway would be bad for downtown business.

Most of our nation's cities are not nearly as densely packed as very old cities in Europe. Between that and the insane construction price inflation of things like subways and light rail it's very difficult to for mass transit to fully serve American urban populations. Most people will still be stuck driving at least some distance of their trip. Riding buses and trains is a time draining activity. I wonder just how much "strap-hanging" some of these new urbanists have actually done. I did years of it living in New York City. I don't romanticize that experience at all.

tell that to the "new urbanists"

[Plutonic Panda]

New urbanist don't really care about cars vs. transit thing as some might think. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but new urbanism specifically addresses cars while "old"  urbanism ignores them because they didn't exists in many older cities. There was obviously some guideline on how to develop cities given that many in Europe are alike in their grids and blocks centering around transit as US cities are more centered around the car. It also seems as BRIC countries are starting to invest more and more into roads and car centric infrastructure.

The problem I have with new urbanist is they want to reduce size is the cities land mass to be what they view as more functional and practical which seems true. That's doesnt stop me from preferring cars though. They are newer and offer more comfort and privacy than transit that also take you way more places any transit can. What my problem with then boils down to is that they want to alter the lifestyle people live.

Though they're not outright telling people they can't drive, they are in a sense punishing people who drive, by making traffic horrible to the point of misery. Portland is a prime example of this. A city it's size shouldn't have traffic issues like it does. Likewise with California as of late.

[jakeroot]

I'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center.

The United States is a car-centric culture Most people move from point a to point b using automobiles. That's not going to change any time soon. If you have to sit through dozens of traffic lights to reach a downtown destination chances are strong you'll find similar destinations in bustling suburbs far easier to reach. Eliminating freeways inside of a city's loop highway would be bad for downtown business.

Most of our nation's cities are not nearly as densely packed as very old cities in Europe. Between that and the insane construction price inflation of things like subways and light rail it's very difficult to for mass transit to fully serve American urban populations. Most people will still be stuck driving at least some distance of their trip. Riding buses and trains is a time draining activity. I wonder just how much "strap-hanging" some of these new urbanists have actually done. I did years of it living in New York City. I don't romanticize that experience at all.

The part that I've bolded is the key point here. Our cities are not as dense as those in Europe.

Has it ever occurred to those who are opposed to urban planning that our cities are still growing? I honestly get the feeling that people look at cities like Indianapolis, St Louis, or Houston, and say "right, let's build a road network to fit what we have". It doesn't seem to occur to them that these cities, no matter how apparent it may be at first glance, are growing. And unless a terrible economic situation hits, like in Detroit, they will continue to grow.

As our cities grow, we have to start thinking more sustainability. Is the practice of suburb after suburb connected by arterials and freeways a sustainable growth plan? It has been, sure. But, what happens in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Can Houston's freeway network cope with another 50 years of growth? I'm not so sure. Would anyone really drive three hours to work one-way at 75 mph? What I (and many others) know is that it's entirely possible to take urban freeways out of the picture. Cities just need to make it easier for people to live inside the "core" without having to worry about a car **if they so choose**. Urban freeways do not make urban living nice. They are unsightly, divide neighborhoods, and take up vast amounts of land that could be dedicated to literally anything else.

FWIW: the US is car-centric because we've built our cities around the car, not the other way around. In the early 20th century, transport by trolley and train were far more popular than anything a private citizen could operate. Once the automobile became more affordable, making land far outside the city easy to access, our cities very quickly became less dense. It became popular for regional planners to develop extensive arterial and freeway networks that could ferry these suburbanites to and from work...and now here we are. Basically on the verge of boiling over. Something has to change.

[SD Mapman]

Would anyone really drive three hours to work one-way at 75 mph?

That's about 225 miles; you think urban sprawl will get that big?

I know people that drive 2.5 hours to work one way.

[Plutonic Panda]

Growth won't stop. People still want to drive regardless. So it's probably inevitable that sprawl grows that large.

[Bobby5280]

Has it ever occurred to those who are opposed to urban planning that our cities are still growing? I honestly get the feeling that people look at cities like Indianapolis, St Louis, or Houston, and say "right, let's build a road network to fit what we have". It doesn't seem to occur to them that these cities, no matter how apparent it may be at first glance, are growing. And unless a terrible economic situation hits, like in Detroit, they will continue to grow.

American cities vary on how well they plan for future traffic needs. Cities in Texas have been better at this than most, such as building divided streets with big grassy medians able to hold new freeways if or when they're needed years or decades later. Overall it is very difficult to predict what a city's growth pattern will be 20 to 50 years into the future. If explosive growth starts to happen all a city can do is try its best to get ahead of it.

There is no guarantee certain American cities are going to keep growing rapidly. Simple economics of living costs are going to affect that. The United States has been registering new all time lows in total fertility rate. This past year the TFR of American born women fell to 1.77 children per adult female. You need a TFR of 2.1 just to replace all the people who die. All of the costs that come with having children (health care, housing, day care, family sized vehicles, etc) are all rising well above average wage growth levels. We're also seeing cultural changes where fewer women are tying their identities to marriage and motherhood. Many want to have careers first and then maybe do the mom and wife stuff later, if ever. America's teen pregnancy rate is a mere 1/3 what it was in 1990.

If the US maintains these current trends we could usher in a Japanese style population crash. If US birth rate continues dropping, even at a modest pace it will start affecting things like public school systems in a matter of just a few years. Long term it could devastate the government's budget & social programs and have it struggling to properly staff a national defense.

As our cities grow, we have to start thinking more sustainability. Is the practice of suburb after suburb connected by arterials and freeways a sustainable growth plan? It has been, sure. But, what happens in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Can Houston's freeway network cope with another 50 years of growth? I'm not so sure. Would anyone really drive three hours to work one-way at 75 mph? What I (and many others) know is that it's entirely possible to take urban freeways out of the picture. Cities just need to make it easier for people to live inside the "core" without having to worry about a car **if they so choose**. Urban freeways do not make urban living nice. They are unsightly, divide neighborhoods, and take up vast amounts of land that could be dedicated to literally anything else.

Suburban sprawl is caused by a number of factors with high, unaffordable housing prices inside the city core being a chief culprit. The cost of housing inside many US city cores is ridiculous. The situation in places like New York City and San Francisco is disgustingly profane. Workers get pushed farther and farther out to the fringes until they can find an affordable living situation. New Urbanists act like this problem of affordability simply doesn't exist. They don't bother to notice all the Millennial workers struggling to live in the "cool" big city, doing things like piling up together, two, three or more at a time in one apartment to share living costs (the wife and kids thing doesn't work well in that situation).

Doing something like ripping out all the freeways inside I-610 or Beltway 8 in Houston is not going to change any of that, not while city core housing keeps pricing people out to the suburbs. If anything, such a stunt could speed up more disruptive changes to business, like using developments in robotics and artificial intelligence to replace many human jobs. Faster internet is allowing more people to work from home offices. If America's population starts going into serious decline that will correct the orgy of real estate price gouging in city cores. It still may be a hard sell to convince suburbanites to move into an area where property values are falling.

FWIW: the US is car-centric because we've built our cities around the car, not the other way around. In the early 20th century, transport by trolley and train were far more popular than anything a private citizen could operate. Once the automobile became more affordable, making land far outside the city easy to access, our cities very quickly became less dense. It became popular for regional planners to develop extensive arterial and freeway networks that could ferry these suburbanites to and from work...and now here we are. Basically on the verge of boiling over. Something has to change.

All cities when initially founded were built around the dominant form of transportation of that age. European cities being much older were laid out with buildings crammed in more tightly together. Streets only needed to be wide enough to hold foot traffic and horse-drawn carriages. Over the centuries those cities have had to adapt, painfully, to changes in transportation, technology, culture and even safety standards. Some of these old, densely packed cities were great at going up in flames (London in 1666, Chicago in 1871, San Francisco in 1906). Newer cities don't tend to repeat those mistakes.

[kkt]

There is no guarantee certain American cities are going to keep growing rapidly. Simple economics of living costs are going to affect that. The United States has been registering new all time lows in total fertility rate. This past year the TFR of American born women fell to 1.77 children per adult female. You need a TFR of 2.1 just to replace all the people who die. All of the costs that come with having children (health care, housing, day care, family sized vehicles, etc) are all rising well above average wage growth levels. We're also seeing cultural changes where fewer women are tying their identities to marriage and motherhood. Many want to have careers first and then maybe do the mom and wife stuff later, if ever. America's teen pregnancy rate is a mere 1/3 what it was in 1990.

If the US maintains these current trends we could usher in a Japanese style population crash. If US birth rate continues dropping, even at a modest pace it will start affecting things like public school systems in a matter of just a few years. Long term it could devastate the government's budget & social programs and have it struggling to properly staff a national defense.

The fertility rate is just around replacement rate, but there's still immigration.  That's why the population continues to grow. 

[Bobby5280]

Ten years go the Total Fertility Rate in the US was near the replacement rate level of 2.1 before the start of the Great Recession. And it had been hovering at or just under that level since 1975. America's fertility rate has been dropping since late last decade. The 1.77 TFR figure is factual. I didn't make it up. Here's one news story link about it:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/12/08/the-baby-boom-long-gone-get-ready-for-baby-bust/x9JYDX7zzV6xeCkP76RC0M/story.html

There is a good amount of other articles covering this issue. One thing that scares me is some of the sad, tragedies going on in Japan: "lonely deaths." Japan's population is in serious decline. They have a large elderly population and many of these people have no other surviving family members. So when they die in their apartments or homes they may not be discovered for days or weeks until someone notices the smell. One guy's body wasn't discovered for 3 years. These "lonely deaths" are common over there. I could see the same thing happening in the US a couple or so decades from now.

Through much of its history the US has grown its population through liberal immigration policies. But now even those who are emigrating to the US are having fewer children. So we're not going continue seeing net population gains at the pace we did in the past. The birth rate in many developing countries is falling closer to the replacement rate.

[kkt]

How can someone go undiscovered for three years?  Someone needs to pay the rent or property taxes, and if they didn't do it, eventually a deputy sheriff or process server or someone would come to the door.

[triplemultiplex]

How can someone go undiscovered for three years?  Someone needs to pay the rent or property taxes, and if they didn't do it, eventually a deputy sheriff or process server or someone would come to the door.

Death by auto-pay.

[Bobby5280]

Bingo. Indeed, the man wasn't discovered until the automatic bank drafting of his rent & utilities finally emptied his bank account. Japanese people have a term for these undiscovered, elderly deaths, "Kodokushi," which we translate as "Lonely Death."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodokushi

[will_e_777]

Des Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"! 

Des Moines and Tulsa are very unique exceptions. Both places have somewhat strange geographical layouts and city plans. In Tulsa's case I-44 is still taking the most direct route through the central geometric area of the city. Tulsa's downtown is actually on the NW side of the city, not the center. Some of the busiest areas of Tulsa are South of I-44.

Tulsa is that way because Skelly Drive was always planned as a bypass long before the Interstate highway system came into existence.  When the Turner was completed in 1953, the plans (some places even called it Skelly Bypass) took it along what was at that time the developed fringe of Tulsa. 51st Street was the boonies back then.  No one anticipated Tulsa growing so asymmetrically when it was planned, although the plans for a Creek Freeway corridor were on the books shortly after that.  AFAIK, there were never plans to reroute 44 over 244 when it was completed in the early 70's.

Isn't part of Tulsa's "asymmetry" due to the Osage Nation's territory being adjacent to the city, limiting growth to the west and northwest of downtown except for the immediate north bank of the Arkansas River?  In any case, the city core is served by I-244, while the trunk I-44 follows a city-core bypass which, like so many, has since been subsumed by urban development (in this case, well before the Interstate aspect was present).  Since the developmental path of least resistance is to the south and southeast on both riverbanks, any corridor tracing the trajectory of former US 66 has little choice but to be city-bound.   

part of it, but there are also a lot of hills, once you move away from the north bank of the Arkansas River, and oil wells in that area as well, and the mid-century sprawl couldn't quickly and easily fill that area.

44 still had an at grade rail crossing between Southwest Blvd and South 33rd until the mid 1980s.  There were also at-grade crossings at South 49th and New Sapulpa Road until around that same time as well.

[Plutonic Panda]

Nothing really new here: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/1ddf945