Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

Top posting this thread since another I-11 thread got created. 


The Ghostbuster

It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).

Plutonic Panda

I agree the central alignment for I-11 makes the most sense but Vegas needs an eastern loop to complete its beltway. Hopefully that happens at some point.

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2021, 04:09:13 PM
I agree the central alignment for I-11 makes the most sense but Vegas needs an eastern loop to complete its beltway. Hopefully that happens at some point.

Any facility on the eastern side would have to be quite far-flung; the housing on the east side of town and neighboring Henderson backs right up against the ridge.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some sort of multiple-lane arterial tucked in between the residences and the mountain as an alternative to actually serve the housing rather than a simple bypass.  The only precipitating factor that I could think of that would prompt construction of an outlying east freeway is if commercial traffic between AZ and SLC consistently complains about schedule issues due to congestion -- but only after the actual through-town corridor has been selected, signed, and is in full operation.  The problem with any beltway that utilizes the existing 215 corridor is that the portion at south I-11 will need to make a considerable multiplexed "jog" to serve as a continuous facility. 

But I agree that the through-town alignment, which would mark the demise of I-515, is the single most rational alternative, since (a) it already exists and (b) it doesn't require any new-terrain construction at the beltway's northwest corner.  If an eastern belt segment is proposed in the future, it would likely be as a 215 extension if the north end segues directly onto that freeway, or a new designation if not.

Bobby5280

IMHO, if an Eastern leg of a Las Vegas beltway is ever built it should carry the I-215 designation. That's the only thing that makes sense. Let I-11 consume I-515.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2021, 09:10:58 PM
IMHO, if an Eastern leg of a Las Vegas beltway is ever built it should carry the I-215 designation. That's the only thing that makes sense. Let I-11 consume I-515.

If either of the termini (at I-11 to the south or I-15 to the north) of an eastern bypass segues directly onto the existing 215 3/4 beltway, I'd concur that an I-215 designation would be appropriate; if, however, it terminates farther out on both ends, a new designation (I-415? 211?) should be selected.  Two separate jogs/multiplexes for a beltway may just be a bit much!

Sub-Urbanite

Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.

sparker

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.

Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area.  Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.

Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area.  Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!

There isn't any developable land there. The city is built up to Frenchman's Mountain (except in the area downhill from the original Las Vegas landfill, not exactly prime real estate), and everything east of there is either ACEC or NPS.

It's. Never. Happening.

sparker

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 10:38:21 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.

Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area.  Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!

There isn't any developable land there. The city is built up to Frenchman's Mountain (except in the area downhill from the original Las Vegas landfill, not exactly prime real estate), and everything east of there is either ACEC or NPS.

It's. Never. Happening.

I tend to agree -- but someone needs to drive that point home to the regional pipedreamers who persist in submitting such corridor proposals -- let 'em know that they're probably banging their collective heads against the proverbial wall!  I suppose some stubborn folks' heads are harder than others, though. 

roadfro

Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 02:26:48 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 10:38:21 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.

Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area.  Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!

There isn't any developable land there. The city is built up to Frenchman's Mountain (except in the area downhill from the original Las Vegas landfill, not exactly prime real estate), and everything east of there is either ACEC or NPS.

It's. Never. Happening.

I tend to agree -- but someone needs to drive that point home to the regional pipedreamers who persist in submitting such corridor proposals -- let 'em know that they're probably banging their collective heads against the proverbial wall!  I suppose some stubborn folks' heads are harder than others, though.

Quite honestly, the only time I've really seen any mention of a potential eastern Las Vegas Beltway over the last 10+ years has been on this forum...

IIRC, the idea was last floated circa early/mid-2000s, and an preliminary feasibility study ruled it out as cost-prohibitive since ROW costs would have been enormous to get a freeway through the more established parts of the region. Keep in mind that most of the path of 215 went in where there was no/minimal preexisting developments, so ROW was relatively cheap.

Don't get me wrong, an eastern beltway leg would've been nice (especially in the context of the CANAMEX corridor), but it's not gonna happen.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

andy3175

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
A bit more on the deletion of the eastern alignment is provided in this article:

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/08/26/ndotscrapsoption/

QuoteFor years the Nevada Department of Transportation has proposed building a new highway system for the Interstate 11 Corridor that would run through the City of Henderson and protected public lands, including Rainbow Gardens and the Lake Mead Recreation Area.

Those plans, known as the "eastern alternative corridor,"  have now been abandoned after ongoing public backlash, according to the department.

"The eastern corridor alternative was dismissed from further consideration for a number of reasons, including potential impact to sensitive environmental resources and protected areas, access, mobility, connectivity, financial feasibility, and public opposition,"  said Ryan McInerney, director of Communications & Government Affairs for NDOT. ...

The two remaining options for the highway are the western alternative corridor, which would extend westward along existing I-11 from the Nevada-Arizona border to the I-215 before continuing further west along the I-215 to northwest Las Vegas, or the central alternative corridor which would extend along the existing I-11 from the Nevada- Arizona border to the I-215 and extend further north along the I-515 to the spaghetti bowl interchange before continuing northerly along the U.S.-95.

The eastern alternative may have been doomed from the start due to a lack of financial feasibility, access, mobility and connectivity.

Nearly 45 percent of the proposed route for the eastern alternative would require the construction of new bridges and interchanges within mountainous and treacherous terrain, putting the cost of the eastern alternative at a whopping $2.42 billion compared to a $406 million cost for the central alternative and $320 million cost for the western alternative.

Broken down, the eastern alternative was estimated to be six times as expensive as the central alternative and almost eight times as expensive as the western alternative, according to a report by NDOT.

The Eastern Corridor would have also been the longest of the three corridor alternatives and would carry substantially lower daily traffic volumes than the other two alternatives due to its relative isolation from the greater Las Vegas Area, making the cost per corridor mile and cost per user a "very high"  and impractical investment.

Public comment for the future development of I-11 started on August 17 and closes on September 30. NDOT is encouraging community input at their open public online meeting for the two current corridor alternatives and the overall project.


Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

sparker

Quote from: andy3175 on September 01, 2021, 01:14:55 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
A bit more on the deletion of the eastern alignment is provided in this article:

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/08/26/ndotscrapsoption/

QuoteFor years the Nevada Department of Transportation has proposed building a new highway system for the Interstate 11 Corridor that would run through the City of Henderson and protected public lands, including Rainbow Gardens and the Lake Mead Recreation Area.

Those plans, known as the "eastern alternative corridor,"  have now been abandoned after ongoing public backlash, according to the department.

"The eastern corridor alternative was dismissed from further consideration for a number of reasons, including potential impact to sensitive environmental resources and protected areas, access, mobility, connectivity, financial feasibility, and public opposition,"  said Ryan McInerney, director of Communications & Government Affairs for NDOT. ...

The two remaining options for the highway are the western alternative corridor, which would extend westward along existing I-11 from the Nevada-Arizona border to the I-215 before continuing further west along the I-215 to northwest Las Vegas, or the central alternative corridor which would extend along the existing I-11 from the Nevada- Arizona border to the I-215 and extend further north along the I-515 to the spaghetti bowl interchange before continuing northerly along the U.S.-95.

The eastern alternative may have been doomed from the start due to a lack of financial feasibility, access, mobility and connectivity.

Nearly 45 percent of the proposed route for the eastern alternative would require the construction of new bridges and interchanges within mountainous and treacherous terrain, putting the cost of the eastern alternative at a whopping $2.42 billion compared to a $406 million cost for the central alternative and $320 million cost for the western alternative.

Broken down, the eastern alternative was estimated to be six times as expensive as the central alternative and almost eight times as expensive as the western alternative, according to a report by NDOT.

The Eastern Corridor would have also been the longest of the three corridor alternatives and would carry substantially lower daily traffic volumes than the other two alternatives due to its relative isolation from the greater Las Vegas Area, making the cost per corridor mile and cost per user a "very high"  and impractical investment.

Public comment for the future development of I-11 started on August 17 and closes on September 30. NDOT is encouraging community input at their open public online meeting for the two current corridor alternatives and the overall project.




..........one down, one to go!  It's likely, IMO, that absent any major political influence from Strip interests being brandished, the western/215 alternative will also be dismissed, primarily because either a direct connection to north US 95 from the northwest corner of 215, on all-new terrain, would be required to avoid an oblique/backward connection from the east-west portion of 215 to the diagonal 95 and vice-versa.  Just the time required for the obligatory studies and gathering of public comment, plus the expense of ROW acquisition and, finally, construction itself would likely add tens if not hundreds of millions to the corridor development expense.  Even though there's still work to be done on 95/515 near downtown, utilizing that corridor is and always has been the most reasonable option. 

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: sparker on September 01, 2021, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on September 01, 2021, 01:14:55 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
A bit more on the deletion of the eastern alignment is provided in this article:

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/08/26/ndotscrapsoption/

QuoteFor years the Nevada Department of Transportation has proposed building a new highway system for the Interstate 11 Corridor that would run through the City of Henderson and protected public lands, including Rainbow Gardens and the Lake Mead Recreation Area.

Those plans, known as the "eastern alternative corridor,"  have now been abandoned after ongoing public backlash, according to the department.

"The eastern corridor alternative was dismissed from further consideration for a number of reasons, including potential impact to sensitive environmental resources and protected areas, access, mobility, connectivity, financial feasibility, and public opposition,"  said Ryan McInerney, director of Communications & Government Affairs for NDOT. ...

The two remaining options for the highway are the western alternative corridor, which would extend westward along existing I-11 from the Nevada-Arizona border to the I-215 before continuing further west along the I-215 to northwest Las Vegas, or the central alternative corridor which would extend along the existing I-11 from the Nevada- Arizona border to the I-215 and extend further north along the I-515 to the spaghetti bowl interchange before continuing northerly along the U.S.-95.

The eastern alternative may have been doomed from the start due to a lack of financial feasibility, access, mobility and connectivity.

Nearly 45 percent of the proposed route for the eastern alternative would require the construction of new bridges and interchanges within mountainous and treacherous terrain, putting the cost of the eastern alternative at a whopping $2.42 billion compared to a $406 million cost for the central alternative and $320 million cost for the western alternative.

Broken down, the eastern alternative was estimated to be six times as expensive as the central alternative and almost eight times as expensive as the western alternative, according to a report by NDOT.

The Eastern Corridor would have also been the longest of the three corridor alternatives and would carry substantially lower daily traffic volumes than the other two alternatives due to its relative isolation from the greater Las Vegas Area, making the cost per corridor mile and cost per user a "very high"  and impractical investment.

Public comment for the future development of I-11 started on August 17 and closes on September 30. NDOT is encouraging community input at their open public online meeting for the two current corridor alternatives and the overall project.




..........one down, one to go!  It's likely, IMO, that absent any major political influence from Strip interests being brandished, the western/215 alternative will also be dismissed, primarily because either a direct connection to north US 95 from the northwest corner of 215, on all-new terrain, would be required to avoid an oblique/backward connection from the east-west portion of 215 to the diagonal 95 and vice-versa.  Just the time required for the obligatory studies and gathering of public comment, plus the expense of ROW acquisition and, finally, construction itself would likely add tens if not hundreds of millions to the corridor development expense.  Even though there's still work to be done on 95/515 near downtown, utilizing that corridor is and always has been the most reasonable option.

Agreed, US 95 is the best option.

However, "the I-215"  and "the I-515" ???


Concrete Bob

In lieu of an eastern beltway, perhaps Nellis Boulevard could be upgraded in key areas to a "Superarterial" between 515 and 15, in a similar manner as Desert Inn around the Strip. 

Bobby5280

Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?

brad2971

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?

Likely, that $400 million cost is for the eventual downtown 515 viaduct later this decade: https://ndotdap.com/environmental-schedule

roadfro

Quote from: brad2971 on September 03, 2021, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?

Likely, that $400 million cost is for the eventual downtown 515 viaduct later this decade: https://ndotdap.com/environmental-schedule

The area of I-515/US 95 covered by the Downtown Access Project is the one of the oldest stretches of freeway in the Las Vegas area, and has not seen any sort of significant upgrades since original construction in the late 1960s and early 1980s–it's the last significant stretch of freeway in the Las Vegas Valley to not have been newly constructed or undergone major reconstruction in the 21st century. The oldest section between Las Vegas Blvd and I-15 has a number of deficiencies from Interstate standards, including substandard width shoulders, closely spaced ramps, and inadequate merge distances. Other than that, I-515/US 95 is generally Interstate standard with minimal deficiencies throughout the rest of the Las Vegas Valley now, so NDOT could probably post the I-shields immediately after making their final alignment decision.

IMHO, the $400 million estimate central corridor estimate on I-11, if mostly aimed at addressing the DAP, almost seems a bit of a low-ball estimate for the scope of work they plan to do. But part of that project is to cut many of the street crossings that currently go under the viaduct (mostly residential roads) so that they don't have to build another long viaduct or have as many bridges if they go with the below-grade alternative, so perhaps this lower estimate reflects far less bridgework than I'm imagining...



Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Mark68

What if (as an alternative to running it over the old decrepit viaduct through downtown) I-11 was routed west on 215, then north on a concurrency with I-15 to US 95? At this time, wouldn't it just be the cost to re-sign everything?

I understand it's not the most direct route, but the western bypass (were it to be chosen) certainly wouldn't be, either. It would save a ton of money and could probably be done now.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: roadfro on September 03, 2021, 03:27:55 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on September 03, 2021, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?

Likely, that $400 million cost is for the eventual downtown 515 viaduct later this decade: https://ndotdap.com/environmental-schedule

The area of I-515/US 95 covered by the Downtown Access Project is the one of the oldest stretches of freeway in the Las Vegas area, and has not seen any sort of significant upgrades since original construction in the late 1960s and early 1980s–it's the last significant stretch of freeway in the Las Vegas Valley to not have been newly constructed or undergone major reconstruction in the 21st century. The oldest section between Las Vegas Blvd and I-15 has a number of deficiencies from Interstate standards, including substandard width shoulders, closely spaced ramps, and inadequate merge distances. Other than that, I-515/US 95 is generally Interstate standard with minimal deficiencies throughout the rest of the Las Vegas Valley now, so NDOT could probably post the I-shields immediately after making their final alignment decision.

IMHO, the $400 million estimate central corridor estimate on I-11, if mostly aimed at addressing the DAP, almost seems a bit of a low-ball estimate for the scope of work they plan to do. But part of that project is to cut many of the street crossings that currently go under the viaduct (mostly residential roads) so that they don't have to build another long viaduct or have as many bridges if they go with the below-grade alternative, so perhaps this lower estimate reflects far less bridgework than I'm imagining...
Yeah I suspect NDOT gets rid of the viaduct and places the freeway below grade. Easily close to a billion if not north of it.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: Mark68 on November 12, 2021, 06:00:54 PM
What if (as an alternative to running it over the old decrepit viaduct through downtown) I-11 was routed west on 215, then north on a concurrency with I-15 to US 95? At this time, wouldn't it just be the cost to re-sign everything?

I understand it's not the most direct route, but the western bypass (were it to be chosen) certainly wouldn't be, either. It would save a ton of money and could probably be done now.

Project likely needed regardless of what the freeway is called.  I think it's silly to swing 11 around on 215 because of deficiencies on an existing interstate.  The "thru" traffic on I-11 will be paltry compared to local traffic anyway.
If 11 doesn't punch the core via 93/95, it will be a travesty, in my humble opinion.  It's shorter and involves zero turns.  If traffic is bad, that's what 215 will be for to get the handful of vehicles just passing thru out of the mess.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Bobby5280

Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I suspect NDOT gets rid of the viaduct and places the freeway below grade. Easily close to a billion if not north of it.

I don't see any point of building a replacement for the elevated segment of I-515 (or future I-11) North of Downtown Las Vegas below grade. Obviously such a project would be ridiculously expensive. Only a portion of the elevated segment could be replaced. The I-15/I-515 interchange, the railroad line and the exits for Main Street, Casino Center Blvd and Las Vegas Blvd all force I-515 to be elevated in that part of town.

East of the Las Vegas Blvd exit I-515 could transition down to a below grade freeway, but the gradual downhill slope would sever a number of street connections that pass under the freeway. The same would happen on the uphill climb to the Eastern Ave exit. Deck parks that cap over the top of freeways are gaining popularity, but they're expensive to build. The neighborhood between Las Vegas Blvd and Eastern Ave isn't the greatest. Maybe a deck park there could help improve the neighborhood. Or a deck park might end up being a magnet for hoodlums and homeless people. I don't know.

I think the easiest solution is just make improvements to the existing elevated freeway structure. I'm not sure what deficiencies it has in regard to current Interstate standards.

Plutonic Panda

It's more aesthetically pleasing, the below grade option. I highly doubt NDOT goes with the elevated alternative but we'll see.

roadfro

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 14, 2021, 11:37:23 AM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I suspect NDOT gets rid of the viaduct and places the freeway below grade. Easily close to a billion if not north of it.

I don't see any point of building a replacement for the elevated segment of I-515 (or future I-11) North of Downtown Las Vegas below grade. Obviously such a project would be ridiculously expensive. Only a portion of the elevated segment could be replaced. The I-15/I-515 interchange, the railroad line and the exits for Main Street, Casino Center Blvd and Las Vegas Blvd all force I-515 to be elevated in that part of town.

East of the Las Vegas Blvd exit I-515 could transition down to a below grade freeway, but the gradual downhill slope would sever a number of street connections that pass under the freeway. The same would happen on the uphill climb to the Eastern Ave exit. Deck parks that cap over the top of freeways are gaining popularity, but they're expensive to build. The neighborhood between Las Vegas Blvd and Eastern Ave isn't the greatest. Maybe a deck park there could help improve the neighborhood. Or a deck park might end up being a magnet for hoodlums and homeless people. I don't know.

I think the easiest solution is just make improvements to the existing elevated freeway structure. I'm not sure what deficiencies it has in regard to current Interstate standards.

May I suggest you take a look at the Downtown Access Project thread regarding potential upgrades to I-515. We can discuss further in that thread, but two points of note: renderings of the below-grade option under consideration would place I-515 below grade from Eastern to just east of I-15, and keeping the existing structure long-term is not feasible due to age and operational and structural deficiencies.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Max Rockatansky

For those who aren't aware of the 2022 AASHTO Fall Meeting Route Numbering decisions:

Item 3: Nevada, I-11   Approved
Action: Extension of a route or segment   
Description: The requested Interstate Route contains portions of existing roadways previously designated by legislative action and includes the following: Segment One (currently operating as IR-515) from the IR-215/SR 564 interchange along the IR-515 corridor and terminates at the United States (US) Route US 93/US 95/IR 515/IR-15 interchange.  Segment Two (currently operating as US 95) from US 93/US 95/IR-515/IR-15 interchange along the US 95 corridor to the North ramps of SR 157 (Kyle Canyon) in Clark County, NV.   



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.