How to sign US 93 + 95 after I-11

[Sub-Urbanite]

With the clock ticking on US 93 south of Las Vegas, and NDOT closing in on a settled through-town routing for I-11, it occurred to me on a recent trip that it's not going to make a lot of sense to multiplex US 95 on I-11 for roughly 400 miles.

And so, I am here for all you NDOT and AASHTO lurkers with a solution to this problem:

Move US 93, and kill US 95 south of wherever it intersects with I-11.

Here's how you do it.

1. US 93 continues its multiplexing through Las Vegas. From US 95 is then re-numbered as US 93 from Boulder City to San Luis.

2. US 93 stays on the west side of the river. On the east side of the river, US/AZ 95 is re-designated as US 195. Or as AZ 95. But not as US 95.

2b. South of Blythe, the new US 93 follows CA 78 and then Ogilby Road to connect down to I-8.

*gets off soapbox*

[US 89]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

[KeithE4Phx]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

US 93 is not going anywhere for many, many years, unless it's redesignated as AZ 93 while I-11 construction is going on. 

The upgrade from 2 lanes to 4 between Wickenburg and I-40 will be completed soon enough, but upgrading it to Interstate standards beyond that will require a lot more work, thanks to about 3 dozen ranch turnoffs in that section.  I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.  Those ranchers have clout and can prevent it from being upgraded to a full freeway.

The part between Kingman and the bridge won't be as big a problem because that stretch is pretty flat.  I can see that getting done and open in the next 10 years.

[Max Rockatansky]

Good luck getting California to change the legislative definition of Route 93 and US 95.  One could simply just reroute US 93 on NV 163 and AZ 95 when it's complete to I-40. 

[Bickendan]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

US 93 is not going anywhere for many, many years, unless it's redesignated as AZ 93 while I-11 construction is going on. 

The upgrade from 2 lanes to 4 between Wickenburg and I-40 will be completed soon enough, but upgrading it to Interstate standards beyond that will require a lot more work, thanks to about 3 dozen ranch turnoffs in that section.  I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.  Those ranchers have clout and can prevent it from being upgraded to a full freeway.

Makes me wonder if FHWA would be willing to give this segment of I-11 the west Texas I-10 treatment if ranch access is the only issue.

[KeithE4Phx]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

US 93 is not going anywhere for many, many years, unless it's redesignated as AZ 93 while I-11 construction is going on. 

The upgrade from 2 lanes to 4 between Wickenburg and I-40 will be completed soon enough, but upgrading it to Interstate standards beyond that will require a lot more work, thanks to about 3 dozen ranch turnoffs in that section.  I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.  Those ranchers have clout and can prevent it from being upgraded to a full freeway.

Makes me wonder if FHWA would be willing to give this segment of I-11 the west Texas I-10 treatment if ranch access is the only issue.

I take it that means that the at-grade intersections at the ranch entrances would remain as-is?  I-40 has those in Texas as well.  That would make the most sense since there is no room to squeeze in even the simplest exits on that section of 93. 

Closer to I-40, there is room for exits at the county roads in the area, as well as the intersections with AZ 97, 71, and 89 (the latter two are already quasi-interchanges).  But those ranch turnoffs will be a problem. 

This is not an issue with the section of 93 between AZ 68 and just before the bridge; that is flat territory for about 70 miles northwest of Coyote Pass.

[roadfro]

I could certainly understand a truncation of US 93 to the I-15/Garnet interchange northeast of Las Vegas, once Arizona gets their portion of I-11 fully upgraded to Wickenburg. But I don't think a big change to move the US 93 designation to existing US 95 would be worth the trouble.

<Bordering on Fictional>
Long term, if there's no desire to eliminate the US 95 designation once I-11 is fully built out to northern Nevada, then one thing I could see is a significant reroute of the highway through central Nevada. It could basically revive the routing of pre-1976's SR 8A. From Tonopah, a brief overlap with US 6 east to SR 376, north on SR 376, brief overlap on US 50 west through Austin, north on SR 305 to Battle Mountain, then overlapping I-80 to Winnemucca. (I believe, had this route been been fully paved when US 95 was extended south through Nevada way back when, this would be the route of US 95 today.) In this scenario, SR 376 & SR 305 go away, and we'd need new designations for US 95 from the Fallon area north to I-80 as well as all of US 95 Alt. But this would give US 95 independent utility from I-11 in central Nevada and cut down its length considerably–yes, it would still have significant overlapping with I-11, but it'd be much less.
</Borderline Fictional>

US 93 is not going anywhere for many, many years, unless it's redesignated as AZ 93 while I-11 construction is going on. 

The upgrade from 2 lanes to 4 between Wickenburg and I-40 will be completed soon enough, but upgrading it to Interstate standards beyond that will require a lot more work, thanks to about 3 dozen ranch turnoffs in that section.  I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.  Those ranchers have clout and can prevent it from being upgraded to a full freeway.

Makes me wonder if FHWA would be willing to give this segment of I-11 the west Texas I-10 treatment if ranch access is the only issue.

I think development of I-11 through much of rural Nevada will need this treatment if it directly supplants US 95. There's many minor small ranches and utility access locations, as well as *many* BLM/open space access roads that would need to be accessible but would never warrant interchanges or maintaining extensive frontage road coverage.

[corco]

Honestly I'm willing to bet that the concept of highway numbers as we know them is gone (and we're probably all dead) before I-11 is actually constructed in full between Phoenix and Reno.

So no rush to do anything.

[Max Rockatansky]

Honestly I'm willing to bet that the concept of highway numbers as we know them is gone (and we're probably all dead) before I-11 is actually constructed in full between Phoenix and Reno.

So no rush to do anything.

I'd argue outside the Phoenix Metro Area that the current route of US 93 and US 60 is plenty adequate to get traffic from Phoenix/Las Vegas.  The worst aspect of US 93 was largely solved when it was expanded to an expressway most of the way between the two cities.  The Boulder City Bypass was the biggest bottleneck solved on US 93 south of Las Vegas.  A bypass of Wickenburg would be nice but would have nowhere near the same impact.  US 60 on Grand Avenue is a slog but it's just as easy to jump on AZ 303. 

[Bobby5280]

If I-11 can be completed between the Las Vegas and Phoenix areas, it seems likely US-93 would be truncated back up into Nevada. There is no way I-11 can run 100% on top of all the existing US-93 roadway. Bypasses would happen in Kingman and Wickenburg. Stubs of existing US-93 could probably be re-signed as Business Loops or Business Spurs of I-11.

[J3ebrules]

188.

I'm sorry, huge Fallout NV fan; could NOT resist.

*bows head and leaves*

[Kniwt]

Left unsaid so far is the fact that much of the four-lane section of US 93 between Kingman and Wickenburg was built on the cheap, by simply adding a second carriageway next to the existing road ... which often has substandard shoulders, or even no shoulders at all, and old-school rolling alignment.

And even north of Kingman, much of the southbound carriageway is deeply substandard, although remedial work is in progress there from roughly MP 28 to MP 38.

The road might become a full expressway sooner rather than later -- work is in progress north of Wikieup now -- but it's going to be a long, long, long time (if ever!) before it's (close to) interstate quality.

[bing101]

As of 2020 I-515 still exists. Yes I remember I-11 was going to take over the section where I-515 is located though.

[heynow415]

I could certainly understand a truncation of US 93 to the I-15/Garnet interchange northeast of Las Vegas, once Arizona gets their portion of I-11 fully upgraded to Wickenburg. But I don't think a big change to move the US 93 designation to existing US 95 would be worth the trouble.

<Bordering on Fictional>
Long term, if there's no desire to eliminate the US 95 designation once I-11 is fully built out to northern Nevada, then one thing I could see is a significant reroute of the highway through central Nevada. It could basically revive the routing of pre-1976's SR 8A. From Tonopah, a brief overlap with US 6 east to SR 376, north on SR 376, brief overlap on US 50 west through Austin, north on SR 305 to Battle Mountain, then overlapping I-80 to Winnemucca. (I believe, had this route been been fully paved when US 95 was extended south through Nevada way back when, this would be the route of US 95 today.) In this scenario, SR 376 & SR 305 go away, and we'd need new designations for US 95 from the Fallon area north to I-80 as well as all of US 95 Alt. But this would give US 95 independent utility from I-11 in central Nevada and cut down its length considerably–yes, it would still have significant overlapping with I-11, but it'd be much less.
</Borderline Fictional>

US 93 is not going anywhere for many, many years, unless it's redesignated as AZ 93 while I-11 construction is going on. 

The upgrade from 2 lanes to 4 between Wickenburg and I-40 will be completed soon enough, but upgrading it to Interstate standards beyond that will require a lot more work, thanks to about 3 dozen ranch turnoffs in that section.  I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.  Those ranchers have clout and can prevent it from being upgraded to a full freeway.

Makes me wonder if FHWA would be willing to give this segment of I-11 the west Texas I-10 treatment if ranch access is the only issue.

I think development of I-11 through much of rural Nevada will need this treatment if it directly supplants US 95. There's many minor small ranches and utility access locations, as well as *many* BLM/open space access roads that would need to be accessible but would never warrant interchanges or maintaining extensive frontage road coverage.

Considering much of Nevada is "Open Range" converting to interstate would mean fencing both sides of the r/w and providing grade separations to allow movement of stock (and wildlife).  Converting to four lanes would be expensive enough but I just can't see justification for full freeway (even with ranch access) with the traffic volumes on 95.  Even if Vegas and Reno tripled their respective populations it still doesn't seem necessary.

[abqtraveler]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

That would be like US-85 through New Mexico. On paper, US-85 follows I-10 from the Texas Border to Las Cruces, and then and I-25 from Cruces to the Colorado border at Raton Pass, save for the 4-miles on Business 25 through Las Vegas, but US-85 is unsigned for its entire journey through New Mexico. All in all, US-85 has about 600 miles of unsigned overlap with interstate routes from the TX/NM border on I-10, to where it leaves I-25 at Fountain, CO. It wouldn't be completely without precedence that Nevada takes the same approach with US-95 between Boulder City and I-80 when I-11 gets built...keep both designations in the route logs, but only sign the route as I-11 and keep US-95 as a paper designation.

[roadfro]

As of 2020 I-515 still exists. Yes I remember I-11 was going to take over the section where I-515 is located though.

It is presumed the alignment of I-11 will supplant I-515, but this has not yet been officially decided by NDOT. (see our I-11 alignment thread)

Considering much of Nevada is "Open Range" converting to interstate would mean fencing both sides of the r/w and providing grade separations to allow movement of stock (and wildlife).  Converting to four lanes would be expensive enough but I just can't see justification for full freeway (even with ranch access) with the traffic volumes on 95.  Even if Vegas and Reno tripled their respective populations it still doesn't seem necessary.

While much of Nevada is open range, many sections of US 95 in the center of the state already has basic right of way wire fencing designed to keep cattle out (you'll cross several cattle guards going in and out of the rural towns or between sections of open range in the middle of nowhere). So I wouldn't see this as a big deal in a freeway buildout.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

If I-11 is designated along I-515 as it may very well be projected to be, I would suggest it be extended to at least its junction with I/CC 215 for the time being. When they are upgraded to Interstate Standards I am sure that the temporary traffic light will be removed.

[brad2971]

If I-11 is designated along I-515 as it may very well be projected to be, I would suggest it be extended to at least its junction with I/CC 215 for the time being. When they are upgraded to Interstate Standards I am sure that the temporary traffic light will be removed.

Bear in mind that traffic light is on CC-215, not US95. So, if the report NDOT is waiting for suggest running I-11 up I-515 and US95, NDOT could sign I-11 up to Kyle Canyon Rd (SR157) before finishing the last 4 ramps and second CC-215 carriageway of the Centennial Bowl.

[skluth]

With the clock ticking on US 93 south of Las Vegas, and NDOT closing in on a settled through-town routing for I-11, it occurred to me on a recent trip that it's not going to make a lot of sense to multiplex US 95 on I-11 for roughly 400 miles.

And so, I am here for all you NDOT and AASHTO lurkers with a solution to this problem:

Move US 93, and kill US 95 south of wherever it intersects with I-11.

Here's how you do it.

1. US 93 continues its multiplexing through Las Vegas. From US 95 is then re-numbered as US 93 from Boulder City to San Luis.

2. US 93 stays on the west side of the river. On the east side of the river, US/AZ 95 is re-designated as US 195. Or as AZ 95. But not as US 95.

2b. South of Blythe, the new US 93 follows CA 78 and then Ogilby Road to connect down to I-8.

*gets off soapbox*

Didn't see this until today. I don't see the point. Decommission US 95 south of Fallon, designate the highway as NV 95 and CA 95 south of Boulder City, and be done with it. Nobody has to renumber anything and signs can be updated over time. If NV doesn't want two highways 95, they can use NV 173 which is the new designation of US 95 from the old US 93 and I-11.

[Max Rockatansky]

With the clock ticking on US 93 south of Las Vegas, and NDOT closing in on a settled through-town routing for I-11, it occurred to me on a recent trip that it's not going to make a lot of sense to multiplex US 95 on I-11 for roughly 400 miles.

And so, I am here for all you NDOT and AASHTO lurkers with a solution to this problem:

Move US 93, and kill US 95 south of wherever it intersects with I-11.

Here's how you do it.

1. US 93 continues its multiplexing through Las Vegas. From US 95 is then re-numbered as US 93 from Boulder City to San Luis.

2. US 93 stays on the west side of the river. On the east side of the river, US/AZ 95 is re-designated as US 195. Or as AZ 95. But not as US 95.

2b. South of Blythe, the new US 93 follows CA 78 and then Ogilby Road to connect down to I-8.

*gets off soapbox*

Didn't see this until today. I don't see the point. Decommission US 95 south of Fallon, designate the highway as NV 95 and CA 95 south of Boulder City, and be done with it. Nobody has to renumber anything and signs can be updated over time. If NV doesn't want two highways 95, they can use NV 173 which is the new designation of US 95 from the old US 93 and I-11.

In the hypothetical scenario that I-11 made it to Reno wouldn't not deviate substantially from some of the existing US 95 in places like Goldfield, Tonopah, and Hawthorne?  If that is the case what is the harm in carrying a silent multiplex and splitting US 95 onto whatever surface routes were available akin to US 6 in Colorado?  US 95 south of Las Vegas does still have some value given it reaches the border.  There are a couple handy cut-off corridors that US 95 utilizes south I-40.

[roadfro]

US 95 has independent utility both south of Las Vegas and north of I-80. Also, NDOT is not adverse to signing US route multiplexes like some other states seem to be.

So honestly, I don't foresee any changes to US 95 with an I-11 build-out through central Nevada. Yeah, it'd be a really long multiplex, but who cares? And I would imagine that the old alignment will get the "US 95 Business" treatment through the towns bypassed.

[Sub-Urbanite]

US 95 has independent utility both south of Las Vegas and north of I-80. Also, NDOT is not adverse to signing US route multiplexes like some other states seem to be.

So honestly, I don't foresee any changes to US 95 with an I-11 build-out through central Nevada. Yeah, it'd be a really long multiplex, but who cares? And I would imagine that the old alignment will get the "US 95 Business" treatment through the towns bypassed.

A 400 mile multiplex! I mean, the remaining length of US 95 south of Boulder City is only 290 miles.

[Max Rockatansky]

US 95 has independent utility both south of Las Vegas and north of I-80. Also, NDOT is not adverse to signing US route multiplexes like some other states seem to be.

So honestly, I don't foresee any changes to US 95 with an I-11 build-out through central Nevada. Yeah, it'd be a really long multiplex, but who cares? And I would imagine that the old alignment will get the "US 95 Business" treatment through the towns bypassed.

A 400 mile multiplex! I mean, the remaining length of US 95 south of Boulder City is only 290 miles.

That's still 290 miles of an independent route that does go to a border crossing...are we talking 1964 California all of the sudden?  By the same token I hear a lot of arguments for keeping US 93 when at best might be carried on an almost 240 mile multiplex between Las Vegas-Wickenburg.  In that concept a lot of people on this forum want to see US 93 end only 60 miles to the south in Phoenix. 

[abqtraveler]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

That would be like US-85 through New Mexico. On paper, US-85 follows I-10 from the Texas Border to Las Cruces, and then and I-25 from Cruces to the Colorado border at Raton Pass, save for the 4-miles on Business 25 through Las Vegas, but US-85 is unsigned for its entire journey through New Mexico. All in all, US-85 has about 600 miles of unsigned overlap with interstates from the TX/NM border along I-10, to where it leaves I-25 at Fountain, CO. It wouldn't be completely without precedence that Nevada takes the same approach with US-95 between Boulder City and I-80 when I-11 gets built...keep both designations in the route logs, but only sign the route as I-11.

[abqtraveler]

This situation reminds me a bit of US 87 in Colorado, and it seems more likely to me that Nevada just wouldn't sign US 95 on the I-11 concurrency. No way NDOT wants to coordinate a massive re-designation of area highways with Arizona and California.

On the other hand, I can easily see US 93 being truncated out of Arizona to the I-15 Garnet interchange once 11 is complete to Wickenburg. I hate to see US routes disappear, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

That would be like US-85 through New Mexico. On paper, US-85 follows I-10 from the Texas Border to Las Cruces, and then and I-25 from Cruces to the Colorado border at Raton Pass, save for the 4-miles on Business 25 through Las Vegas, but US-85 is unsigned for its entire journey through New Mexico. All in all, US-85 has about 600 miles of unsigned overlap with interstate routes from the TX/NM border on I-10, to where it leaves I-25 at Fountain, CO. It wouldn't be completely without precedence that Nevada takes the same approach with US-95 between Boulder City and I-80 when I-11 gets built...keep both designations in the route logs, but only sign the route as I-11 and keep US-95 as a paper designation.