Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[MantyMadTown]

Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.

[sparker]

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

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

Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.

Again, the concept of reaching Canada is just another PR tool.  The actual legislated "NAFTA" corridor in the region, HPC #26 (enacted in 1995), doesn't utilize the I-11 corridor north of Las Vegas, but rather turns NE on I-15 all the way to the Canadian border via Montana -- which makes sense, because that routing segues onto an improved multilane facility (AB 4/3/2) serving two of the largest metros in western Canada,  Calgary & Edmonton.  Between that area and the next Interstate crossing to the west, I-5, is mountainous territory in Canada with widely separated and relatively small urban metro areas.  Taking I-11 toward Canada as a direct corridor doesn't make a lot of sense economically; there just isn't the traffic potential to justify a continuous corridor of about 800+ miles.  Having said that, some options do have some degree of justification -- a continuation to I-5 somewhere in Oregon would provide a "shortcut" from the Northwest to the inland mountain areas while bypassing persistent CA congestion.  And if the Boise/Treasure Valley metro area starts approaching 1M, a connection between I-80 and that area could also be considered appropriate.  Likewise, in WA, upgrading US 395 to Interstate status between I-82 and I-90 would address the increasing commercial use of that particular corridor; and even an Interstate-grade facility along US 95 between I-90 and the Canadian border might be called for given the traffic levels there.  Bottom line -- certain segments of potential I-11 corridors north of I-80 may be effective SIU's on their own; but the entire corridor concept (particularly when projected over the sparsely-traveled US 395 through OR) has little to stand upon.   

[Sub-Urbanite]

As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

[MantyMadTown]

As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

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

[sparker]

As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

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

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

[Interstate 69 Fan]

Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.

The routes I've heard of are a new terrain route northeast to US 95, then following 95, or heading west on 395, and ending up at 84/82.

[MantyMadTown]

As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

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

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

I was thinking my alignment would be more for Seattle as an ultimate destination.

[skluth]

As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.

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

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

You could FritzOwl it all the way to the Trans-Canada Highway. Winnemucca, Boise/Nampa, Pullman/Moscow, Spokane, then blast a few mountains on the way to a Trans-Canada Freeway at Revelstoke.

Seriously, it makes sense to either go to Portland or Seattle. Problem with a Portland terminus is crossing the Cascades pretty much anywhere in Oregon north of Klamath Falls. Problem with a Seattle terminus via Bend is getting across the rugged wilderness south of Yakima. Drivers could go Winnemucca to Boise/Nampa then using the I-82 corridor to get to Seattle, but that doesn't really help anyone but those in Boise and Yakima. You're probably right about going west from Klamath Falls. Unfortunately, the lack of any long N-S open stretches in the Basin and Range north of I-80 makes it really difficult to find any easier-to-build corridor.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

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

Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Part of the problem with getting a corridor from Klamath Falls -- or anywhere else along US 97 for that matter -- over to I-5 in Oregon is simply politics.  The most logical route (when one looks at it on a map) is simply up US 97 and then over OR 58 to the Eugene/Springfield area.   However, the east side of Willamette Pass is relatively easy; but the west slope would involve snaking a freeway facility down the side of one or another canyons; the monetary cost would be sky-high -- and draw the ire of every politico from PDX and the Willamette Valley for destruction of the old-growth forests in the Willamette watershed.  And that problem would persist with any attempt to route a corridor to anywhere in the Willamette Valley, be it along OR 58, US 20, or OR 22.  Perhaps US 26 would work, but only with permission from the Native American reservation NW of Madras -- and weaving a facility through the populated 26 corridor via Sandy and Boring -- but then you'd be attempting to bring a new freeway into greater Portland -- and Metro would throw a shitfit about that!  Hence my suggestion about crossing the Cascades along OR 140 -- it'd avoid the old-growth forests flanking the Willamette Valley, it would serve the growing Rogue Valley region, and it would let traffic bound to and from Reno avoid Siskiyou Summit on I-5 (not truckers' favorite stretch of that route by any means!). 

Re a northward passage through the Basin & Range country:  about the only feasible route is the one the old Southern Pacific "Modoc" line used to get from Fernley to Klamath Falls; it skirted Pyramid Lake, passed through Gerlach, NV, and cut over to US 395 just NE of the Susanville area, paralleling 395/299/139/39 all the way from there to Klamath Falls.  Of course, gradient-averse railroads seek out the flattest possible routing; this one would work -- but it would totally leave Reno out of the corridor picture, which would probably be a disqualifying factor (but it'd give the Burning Man aficionados a much closer freeway corridor to use (not that it'd make much of difference to those folks, who prize the isolated nature of their assembly site!). 

[skluth]

I figured there was more preventing a highway across the Cascades than just the engineering concerns. It's probably no more difficult than I-70 west of Denver which I drove on my move to California.

[sparker]

I figured there was more preventing a highway across the Cascades than just the engineering concerns. It's probably no more difficult than I-70 west of Denver which I drove on my move to California.

There's no equivalent to Glenwood Canyon on any of the cross-Cascade routes; all options from OR 58 on north feature a relatively easy ascent to the summit from the east but deep canyons on the western Casade slopes or, in the case of OR 22, a canyon that's now part of a reservoir courtesy of Detroit Dam.  But like I said, those western Cascade slopes part of the Willamette watershed are mostly covered in old-growth evergreen forests that have been "hands-off" in OR for decades; most commercial lumber production has shifted south toward Roseburg or east to the US 97 corridor between Bend and Klamath Lake. 

[Mark68]

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

[MantyMadTown]

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

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

[sparker]

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

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

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

[MantyMadTown]

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

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

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

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

[Mark68]

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

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

It would...except in winter. But the regional (truck) traffic would be better served by using I-84 to get to PDX and can already take I-82 & 182 to access the Tri-Cities, US 395, Yakima, and Seattle via I-82 to I-90.

[The Ghostbuster]

I am skeptical we will ever see Interstate 11 in Oregon or Washington. I expect even getting Interstate 11 to reach Interstate 80 will be a long, slow process. Ditto on it's other end making its way through Arizona. I don't think the traffic demands (although I could be wrong) warrant an Interstate Highway north of Interstate 80 in Nevada, let alone in Oregon or Washington. This extension of Interstate 11 to these states may be as much of a pipe-dream as certain segments of Interstate 69 in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee being built.

[sparker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MantyMadTown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was thinking that I-11 would be concurrent with I-82 from where it meets US 97 to Ellensburg. Even then, I would still like to see it go all the way to I-82.

If you don't see it being extended from I-84 to I-82, US 97 should at least be upgraded so the US 97/I-82/I-90 corridor can at least make sense as a Portland bypass.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The last time I used the US 97 corridor between I-84 and I-82 (several years back) there wasn't enough traffic (weekday/midday) to warrant upgrading to Interstate status; besides, it goes right through the Yakima Nation, which entails a completely separate process regarding route alignment and format.  It's likely that any corridor up US 97 would have to initially terminate at I-84; if that finished corridor resulted in increased traffic further north on US 97, the matter of an extension to I-82 would need to be explored at that point. 

The reality is that any corridor straight up US 97 is not particularly useful as access to either Portland or Seattle -- the reason, taking into account ODOT's preferences as an adjunct to their political handlers, why I have suggested a I-11 cross-Cascade corridor between Klamath Falls and the Medford area as the "best of a bad lot" compromise.  The problem can be seen right on any map -- the farther north one gets along US 97 (at least until I-82) the farther one is from the I-5 corridor and the populated areas along that route -- and the less effectual such a corridor becomes as a Portland or Seattle server.    IMO, unless the powers that be in Oregon can be convinced to let a new Interstate corridor into the Willamette Valley watershed, US 97 is best utilized as part of a corridor connecting northern California with the Northwest interior (Tri-Cities/Spokane). 

[MantyMadTown]

Would you have I-11 connect to I-5 then?

[Bobby5280]

The #1 priority for I-11, by a very wide margin, should be linking Las Vegas to Phoenix. In Arizona, the plans of pushing it farther down to Tucson and ultimately to Nogales is a whole lot of wishful thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

[sparker]

Would you have I-11 connect to I-5 then?

In a word, yes.  Klamath Falls to just north of Medford more or less via OR 140, which is the newest of the cross-Cascade highways.  For all intents & purposes, out of sight and out of mind for the PDX crowd, but providing a reasonably efficient path over to the largely diagonal corridor that is I-11.

The #1 priority for I-11, by a very wide margin, should be linking Las Vegas to Phoenix. In Arizona, the plans of pushing it farther down to Tucson and ultimately to Nogales is a whole lot of wishful thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

I-11 from Vegas to I-80 is, for all intents & purposes, a fait accompli; the state of Nevada wants to do it and appears to be willing to spend the funds to do so (the tourist/gambling revenues must be up considerably from their recession nadir).  The die was cast back in 2005 when HPC #68 was designated; many of the casino owners with properties in both the south and north parts of the state have wanted an Interstate-grade connection for years -- and they have plenty of pull within the state.  The Carson City public hearings about the alignment eliminated any Carson Valley routing because of (a) construction costs and (b) the fact that such an alignment would leave out the Fallon Valley, which is positioning itself as a low-cost housing and warehousing area, anchored by Tesla's developments in the vicinity of Fernley -- and which figures prominently in Nevada's long-range economic development plans.  The Carson Valley, teeming with California "refugees", has been deemed to be taking care of itself just fine without depending upon Interstate access to the south part of the state; its economic well-being is derived from residents and the growth of those -- it's not dependent on the sort of tourist income that a long Interstate corridor would supply.  Likewise, Reno doesn't need to be tethered to Las Vegas by a singular direct corridor; that metro area is growing quite well "as is" -- but some sort of efficient (read: freeway) corridor linking it to the state's other attraction has been sought for quite some time both in and out of state government.  And with Nevada's topology, deploying high-capacity corridors becomes a game of horseshoes; "leaners" are scored highly if they are capable of functioning well.  In the current instance, everyone is hedging their bets as to where I-11 will go from there -- northeast or northwest.  Thus the "best compromise" of Fernley as the junction point allows traffic -- and further development -- to choose its direction -- west to Reno and the US 395 corridor, or east to Winnemucca and the US 95 corridor.  What's the outcome?  For the time being, Reno can't claim to be "on" I-11; a situation that likely makes no difference to commercial developers who for years have been and are looking at other factors such as the low tax rate and favorable local inducements.  So one has to take I-80 east 30 miles to reach I-11?  No big whoop -- just do it!  And if a further extension up US 395 is eventually selected, I-11 will just multiplex with I-80 into town before turning north -- and at that point it'll be a singular signed corridor from LV to Reno.

IMO -- if I-580 and any extension of that route south from Carson City along US 395 is to be incorporated into a longer interregional corridor, that corridor will simply continue south along 395 into SoCal, likely veering onto CA 14 through Mojave and Palmdale.  Growth in the mountain states, particularly SW Idaho, would be one of the driving factors for such a corridor -- in conjunction with a corridor serving that area from I-80 such as the oft-discussed US 95 routing.  Carson City and Reno would benefit from that pass-through, which would almost certainly include both commercial and recreational traffic.  But I'm getting way ahead of the current I-11 situation -- the likely Fallon Valley junction point with I-80 will do just fine to convey traffic from Vegas to Reno -- as the present routing has done for years, but with a much faster and safer facility.