News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

Started by swbrotha100, October 16, 2012, 09:51:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SSR_317

Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 04:23:47 PM
I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.

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


roadfro

BUMP!

This article notes that NDOT is holding a second round of traveling meetings later this month (this time going from north to south) to discuss the evaluation and ranking of the previous four options identified for the future Tonopah to I-80 segment.

Public meetings on future of I-11 to be held in 7 Nevada cities, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/13/18
Quote
For a second time this year, the Nevada Department of Transportation is going on a road trip to discuss the future of Interstate 11.

Its seven-city tour is aimed at explaining the importance of building the new freeway and gathering public input on where I-11 should be routed north of Las Vegas.
<...>
State and local officials are still figuring out how I-11 should go through – or around – the Las Vegas Valley.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm planning on going to the Reno public meeting and shall report back.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

sparker

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

The Ghostbuster

They should have Interstate 11 follow the Interstate 515-US 95 corridor through Las Vegas. That's been my opinion for the get-go. After leaving the Las Vegas area, I have no opinion on which alignment it should take from there to Interstate 80.

sparker

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

I'd say you've got a 2-out-of-3 chance that I-11 will simply head right up US 95 through town, replacing what's left of I-515 (RIP).  There's no current consensus regarding building an eastern bypass, and the configuration of the western part of 215 doesn't lend itself to functioning efficiently as a through route; it'd be marginally more so if a NW corner connection to northward US 95 would be made, but that would pose an additional expense that could be avoided by the direct in-town routing.  As far as beyond LV, past Tonopah it's all up in the air awaiting the above public airing of the options.  In an area with widely dispersed population bases, it'll be interesting to see how the folks that are out there respond to the first new freeway in years that isn't I-580!

roadfro

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

Most NDOT public hearings are held in the "open house with presentation" format, where the people can browse display boards and talk with representatives for about an hour or so before the formal presentation and public comment period begins. This is not explicitly stated in the linked article, but the summer 2018 meeting notice (PDF) on NDOT's project page indicates that all the 4pm meetings will have formal presentations begin at 5:30pm (and questions/comment on public record are usually taken after the presentation).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

sparker

Quote from: roadfro on July 17, 2018, 10:40:50 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2018, 02:25:09 PM
Noticed that all of the meetings are held on weekdays during standard working hours. That sort of schedule often results in overrepresentation of retirees (or those on more flexible work schedules) at such conferences -- at least in my own experience with such things.  In that area, which is increasingly becoming a retirement "mecca", you may find an increased NIMBY factor expressed during the presentations -- particularly in Fernley & Fallon, "ground zero", along with Silver Spring to the southwest, for new "55+" development (just peruse the real-estate sections of Bay Area newspapers; they're rife with listings for such tracts in northern NV).  That might also have some bearing on the so-called "western" loop via Carson City & Reno; while obviously planning on using I-580 between those two cities, it would impinge on the area south of Carson City (Minden, Gardnerville and environs) that has long been a magnet for both retirees and CA housing-cost "refugees".  It should be interesting to not only get a report of at least one of the conferences but also the audience response to the various corridor iterations.

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

That's a bit better!  Let's hope some folks with actual input to supply can get out of work a little early for the 5:30 (or so) start of the presentation; it'd be difficult to engage in a real dialogue without actually taking in the presentation itself prior to the Q & A session; that would entail coming in at 6:30-7 with prefabricated questions (this has actually happened here in San Jose at VTA/Valley Transit meetings I've attended -- latecomers show up just as the Q & A is getting underway with their "laundry lists", many of which would have been answered if they had attended the presentation itself).  That tends to slow down the process to the point that the agency's response becomes limited to short statements lacking detail or even context (everyone wants to go home by that later hour!). 

Now -- if the presentation were to be itself "prefabbed" and put online (with well-publicized notice) in addition to and in advance of the on-site version, then the subsequent Q & A session might be more productive; folks whose schedules prohibit early arrival could participate in an informed fashion -- including a couple of days of online comments post-event.  The idea here is to broaden the dialogue beyond those whose participation is a result of convenience.   

FLRoads

I actually streamed the July 24 meeting through Nevada Department of Transportation's Facebook page and was able to post questions, and have them read and answered, during the course of the presentation. The meeting should still be active on their page for anyone to watch.

Short summary, the representatives basically spoke about which options NDOT was looking at pursuing and which ones are being eliminated. It seems the option that would route I-11 over to U.S. 395 and Carson City from Walker Lake, then up I-580 has been removed from further planning. So, on a side note I-580 is safe from elimination. The options that NDOT is looking to pursue, though, are the two middle options that would take I-11 north either through/near Silver Springs/Fernley or through/near Fallon.

I was told that I-11 between northwest Las Vegas and Tonopah will basically overlay existing U.S. 95, with bypasses around any population centers.

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

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

I would encourage others interested to try and catch more of these meetings, especially if they live stream them on their official Facebook page.

sparker

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

roadfro

I attended the community meeting in Reno on Wednesday this week. Additional notes:

*Consistent concerns from the prior public meeting & input process: "What happens to my town?" and "What happens north of I-80?". The consultants have prepared some documents (posted on the study website) that help address these questions.

*Following the first round of meetings a few months ago, a fifth alternative was developed for the Tonopah-to-I-80 segment based on public input. This followed B2-B4 to Walker Lake, then jutted off northeasterly to make use of SR 839 and take US 50 back west to Fallon and Fernley. You can see B5 below, in this photo I took of one of the display boards.

20180725_172044 by LJ Johnson, on Flickr - my pic of the project display board at the meeting.

*Based on the scoring method used by the project team, options B1 (new terrain), B4 (SR 208 & US 395/I-580 corridor) and B5 (new option) are all being eliminated from further consideration as the future I-11 corridor. The scoring on the B4 alternative came out least favorable in terms of cost, land use/management, and community acceptance, and also was one of the two ranked lowest in terms of environmental sustainability. B1 had the least favorable scores on compatibility with existing transportation plans & policies and economic vitality, and was the other low ranker with environmental.

*It was mentioned that eliminated corridor segments may still be important to statewide mobility and improvements may be address subsequently, but are not being considered in this current PEL process.

*Next steps are to evaluate the current round of feedback, develop possible implementation strategies/planning (we're talking 10-20 years out on planning), and complete final PEL report by September.


*During public comment, someone asked about north of I-80. The project team has looked at transportation plans from the various states that could be affected: California, Oregon, Washington & Idaho. The current thought is that I-11 might follow generally either the US 395 corridor or the US 95 corridor northward. According to the project manager, none of the other states are really taking a keen interest in I-11 at the current time, as there isn't much set in stone. NDOT intends to initiate conversations with these folks and outline the steps Nevada is taking regarding planning, to help advance interest.

*Another public question asked about how the improvements will be conducted and current safety concerns. The project team compared this project to how Arizona has been incrementally four-laning US 93 along the future I-11 corridor. The next round of study may develop a preliminary implementation plan for the remaining corridor optinos, but the reps at the meeting indicated that they would probably deploy a strategy similar to ADOT and that improvements would likely go from south to north extending the four-lane divided setup that currently ends at Mercury.

*One member of the public (who I recall also spoke at the first meeting) is passionate about our public lands and warning of the government releasing lands for development via several public lands bills. He strongly advocated for B2. Several in attendance (mostly elderly folks) seemed to support his statements.


My current thought is that while B3 will be a faster and shorter route (especially if the route swings well north of Yerington instead of going through as US 95A currently does), the clout from Fallon may have enough pull to make B2 the ultimate option chosen. The study team's scoring also seems to favor B2 as well.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

roadfro

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

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

The I-11 route through Vegas is not a formal part of this study, as this process is examining from Vegas north to I-80.

Interesting that they said NDOT has no plans to sign I-11 north of Wagonwheel... The STIP indicates there is a planned I-11 resigning project for FY 2018...

However, it's doubtful they'll sign I-11 anywhere north of I-215/SR 564. It would not make any sense to sign it around the SR 157 interchange, as there would be a huge disconnect there and it wouldn't provide any utility.

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

If you look closely at the options, B2 (95/50/50A via Fallon) and B3 (95/95A via Silver Springs) both end up connecting to I-80 in the vicinity of Fernley. The option that went north from Fallon via US 95 was B1, which was eliminated.

I was talking with one of the project team members after the meeting while looking at the alternatives display board. He seemed to think that if I-11 ultimately follows the US 95 corridor north of I-80, there would likely be some kind of spur that would connect Fallon to the north via existing US 95.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Plutonic Panda

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

SSR_317

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

NE2

I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

vdeane

I-11 going to I-80 near Fernley would still provide an all-interstate connection between Reno and Las Vegas, even if I-11 didn't itself go there.  Not so for Carson City, though, which is why I preferred that alternative, though I can see why NDOT didn't pick it.  At least the one that would have gone up US 95 to I-80, which would have been useless for Reno, is out.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sparker

Fernley is, from a purely practical standpoint, the obvious junction choice -- just as it has been for decades for LV-Reno traffic.  At that point, it more or less equalizes the options for taking the corridor further north; one would multiplex on I-80 in either case (unless someone decides it would be a good idea to run a corridor north via the Burning Man site!). :sombrero:  This seems to demonstrate that NDOT is reasonably committed to the corridor concept as far as I-80; IMO, unless one of the adjoining states takes and openly expresses a keen interest in any extension further north, I-11 will end near Fernley for the foreseeable future. 

That being said -- if B3 via the Yerington/Silver Springs/95A route is selected -- and a northern extension to western Idaho via US 95 is eventually developed, a spur via Fallon would be pointless; it would have to depart the main corridor down by Schurz and largely duplicate the function of the "main line" -- only serving Fallon instead, with only a marginal difference in overall mileage.  But, as is likely given Fallon's growth in recent years, the selection will probably be B2 -- at which point a spur following US 95 directly north to I-80 would be appropriate with an Idaho-bound extension.  At that point the I-11 mainline could be rerouted over the spur, and the original Fernley route could become a x11.  Just thinking! 

Plutonic Panda

What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

NE2

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
10/20?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

ilpt4u

#318
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
Excluding Y/T or Trumpet style connections, where 2 Freeways become 1?

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

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

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

FLRoads

Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
The I-11 route through Vegas is not a formal part of this study, as this process is examining from Vegas north to I-80.
Yes, I knew that the routing of I-11 through Las Vegas wasn't part of this study, but it didn't hurt to ask just to see what they would say... :biggrin:

Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
Interesting that they said NDOT has no plans to sign I-11 north of Wagonwheel... The STIP indicates there is a planned I-11 resigning project for FY 2018...
Well, as I mentioned before, it was the RTS personnel I spoke with about the signing of I-11 up to I-215/I-515/NV 564. I told him that I knew I-11 had already been approved up to that exchange, and that NDOT was suppose to be switching out I-515 signs for I-11 ones during FY2018. That's when he stated that as far as he knew they were not going to rush into resigning that particular section north of Wagonwheel. I will admit he could be mistaken, and they start replacing signs once I-11 opens next month.

Mapmikey

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

26 and 95 are pretty rural...

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

sparker

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 29, 2018, 07:08:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.

26 and 95 are pretty rural...

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

I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.  84/82 (OR) is also out in the boonies of Hinkle, OR (which is basically a railroad yard & associated buildings).  Speaking of swamps: 10/75 is in wetlands near Lake City, FL.  But NE2 is probably the winner here with 10/20 -- now that's really the middle of nowhere!

US 89

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

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

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

sparker

Quote from: US 89 on July 30, 2018, 12:52:49 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.

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

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

I'd define full interchanges as those that allowed a full complement of movements between the various directions; a directional or semi-directional interchange with one facility extending in one direction from the crossing route would qualify if and only if every possibility for traffic movement were present.  One facility actually crossing to the other side of the 2nd isn't necessary under that definition.  Here, 15/70, as a trumpet, would qualify whereas another remote interchange, 84/86 in Idaho, would not because there's no movement from west I-84 to east I-86 or west I-86 to east I-84; it's a simple "Y".  A full -- and qualifying for the OP -- interchange would be realized by expanding/modifying that interchange to a trumpet. 

Henry

Quote from: SSR_317 on July 28, 2018, 09:54:34 PM
By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).
Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!
Agreed on both counts. Also, this would be totally counterintuitive of the original purpose of the Interstate system, which is to connect major cities to each other. Even the current system has its flaws (I-80 needs to go from Paterson to NEW YORK, not Hackensack! I-65 needs to go from Indianapolis to CHICAGO, not Gary!), but then again, we can't always get what we want. I can see why B4 was eliminated (rough terrain and high cost), but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.