So, now the plan is to potentially push the Interstate 11 project through the Northwest, the eastern halves of Washington and Oregon specifically. Only question now is will the Northwest fight it? And is it even realistic to ask for it at this point? So far, there's no official path for it even released to the public north of California and Nevada. Proposals appear to show it taking either US 395 or US 95 into Oregon. While Washington's portions of US 395 are mainly freeway or near freeway grade (between Spokane and the Oregon border including I-90 and I-82), US 395 in eastern Oregon is full of winding twists and turns. Plus, how they'll pull of I-11 along a very unprepared road like US 395 in a state not very freeway oriented these days beats the heck out of me. Also, how many of you living in the Northwest actually wouldn't or would mind this politician driven Interstate going through your backyard?
http://i11study.com/wp/?page_id=34
http://www.kanwehelp.com/Interstate%2011.htm
I apologize for not posting a link sooner. I had thought most of you had seen the proposals within the news articles and other means recently. This isn't a solid plan yet and last I read is still in the studying phase at least since June or July 2013. Again, I apologize for not posting the link sooner. Kind of feel like FritzOwl now.
There is no such plan.
I'm gonna need a citation for said plan or I'm going to shuffle this to Fictional.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 11, 2015, 01:42:59 AM
I'm gonna need a citation for said plan or I'm going to shuffle this to Fictional.
Citations added. My apologies.
It would better justify the I-11 designation, as the proposal would push it to its proper place in the grid. However, I don't see any need for an Interstate north of Vegas or Reno, if it ever gets that far. At least not in the near-future anyway.
There's little chance of I-11 going north of Las Vegas, and none of it going north of Reno. Faced with limited budgets, states need to spend their money where there are backups or structural deficiencies, not where there's miles and miles of empty 2-lane highways.
Quote from: kkt on March 11, 2015, 12:57:04 PM
There's little chance of I-11 going north of Las Vegas, and none of it going north of Reno. Faced with limited budgets, states need to spend their money where there are backups or structural deficiencies, not where there's miles and miles of empty 2-lane highways.
Yeah. I-5 through Oregon and the bridges in Washington state need complete rebuilding.
There's just no traction for it in Oregon. As sensible as it seems to upgrade the Portland to Klamath Falls corridor for safety and freight mobility reasons, it's completely shut down by cost and concerns about Oregon's climate goals.
Maybe, eventually, someday, if and when 11 is built from Vegas to Reno, a discussion can take place about connecting the Northwest to the corridor. But that's assuming all of the DOTs involve somehow stumble upon Scrooge McDuck's money vault and feel like they actually can build some things.
as long as it hooks up to and encompasses I-82 to Seattle it would be cool, or turn over toward SF.
"high-level visioning for future extensions of the Corridor south to Mexico and potentially north to Canada" is planner-speak for "look at me, I'm FritzOwl".
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 03:37:37 PM
"high-level visioning for future extensions of the Corridor south to Mexico and potentially north to Canada" is planner-speak for "look at me, I'm FritzOwl".
:-D
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 03:37:37 PM
"high-level visioning for future extensions of the Corridor south to Mexico and potentially north to Canada" is planner-speak for "look at me, I'm FritzOwl".
:rofl:
Seriously though, I agree that there is little to no traction to get this done in Oregon. An extension from Las Vegas to Reno might make some sense as it connects Nevada's two main population centers but any further north makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 11, 2015, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 03:37:37 PM
"high-level visioning for future extensions of the Corridor south to Mexico and potentially north to Canada" is planner-speak for "look at me, I'm FritzOwl".
:rofl:
Seriously though, I agree that there is little to no traction to get this done in Oregon. An extension from Las Vegas to Reno might make some sense as it connects Nevada's two main population centers but any further north makes no sense whatsoever.
Agreed. I'm supportive of I-11 going between Tucson and Reno for the purposes of connecting the two isolated population centers of Nevada, creating a safer corridor between Las Vegas and Phoenix, fix the problem created by an outdated I-10 between Casa Grande and Phoenix (my parents are afraid of it due to how narrow it is and the heavy traffic between Arizona's two biggest cities) and hopefully help grow Tucson's economy. The Las Vegas to Canada portion is already connected to the proposed I-11 via I-15 or I-80 and I-5.
I checked Arizona's traffic data. The AADT between the suburbs of Phoenix and Tucson is only 40-50k, and according to street view, it's already six lanes. Are people in the southwest traffic-phobic or something? It really doesn't strike me as a place where another corridor is needed. IMO, the best route for I-11 is to truncate the southern end to I-8 and the northern end to I-15.
I live in Vancouver, WA and have family in Las Vegas. For entirely selfish reasons, I would not mind a more direct Interstate route. Now, the options are either to use minor roads or take a vast detour. I wonder how much truck traffic there is between Las Vegas and Seattle/Portland. Providing a reasonably direct Interstate route would facilitate commerce.
By the time I11 could be built from Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno, virtually all new cars and trucks will be electric. I expect that the environmental opposition to building a new Interstate in Oregon and Washington will be significantly reduced when that will be the case.
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2015, 09:23:01 PM
I checked Arizona's traffic data. The AADT between the suburbs of Phoenix and Tucson is only 40-50k, and according to street view, it's already six lanes. Are people in the southwest traffic-phobic or something? It really doesn't strike me as a place where another corridor is needed. IMO, the best route for I-11 is to truncate the southern end to I-8 and the northern end to I-15.
Between Casa Grande and Tucson its six lanes, but during rush hour it gets congested and its only four lanes between Casa Grande and Phoenix. I travel I-10 between the two all the time. We aren't "traffic phobic", just normal people using our common sense. Plus, its also for Interstate and international truck traffic heading to Phoenix. There's a lot of it and it creates a rush hour in Tucson despite the fact we've widened I-10 within the city to be 8 lanes. Plus, Phoenix and the rest of Arizona have a massive population growth going on and more people and more cars travelling between the two biggest cities in the state. A four lane freeway won't be enough to handle it, so we need a wider I-10 and a reliever to handle said traffic. Hopefully, the dual freeway will mean cars only for one of them. Another example of a dual freeway would be that ADOT is also building an I-10 reliever for Phoenix itself so far dubbed SR 30.
Quote from: mcarling on March 11, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
I live in Vancouver, WA and have family in Las Vegas. For entirely selfish reasons, I would not mind a more direct Interstate route. Now, the options are either to use minor roads or take a vast detour. I wonder how much truck traffic there is between Las Vegas and Seattle/Portland. Providing a reasonably direct Interstate route would facilitate commerce.
By the time I11 could be built from Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno, virtually all new cars and trucks will be electric. I expect that the environmental opposition to building a new Interstate in Oregon and Washington will be significantly reduced when that will be the case.
I'd like to see that as well for similar reasons. I come from Seattle, live in Tucson and want a better connection to my hometown so I can visit more often.
I wouldn't support another major North-South Interstate anywhere in Oregon except along the US-97 corridor (possibly continuing to Spokane from there though, through the Tri-Cities). US-395 in Oregon is way too desolate, as is US-95 (although a Reno to Boise corridor makes more sense than routing through Burns and Lakeview). Anything along US-97 wouldn't be I-11 though, it would probably start in Weed and be I-7 or I-9 (maybe depending on what happens with CA-99). But even that is very unlikely, and not really needed.
Quote from: doorknob60 on March 12, 2015, 01:53:38 AM
I wouldn't support another major North-South Interstate anywhere in Oregon except along the US-97 corridor (possibly continuing to Spokane from there though, through the Tri-Cities). US-395 in Oregon is way too desolate, as is US-95 (although a Reno to Boise corridor makes more sense than routing through Burns and Lakeview). Anything along US-97 wouldn't be I-11 though, it would probably start in Weed and be I-7 or I-9 (maybe depending on what happens with CA-99). But even that is very unlikely, and not really needed.
That, or they could shift the freeway from US 95 to US 97 via US 395 and connect that to I-82/US 395 via I-84. US 395 is already being turned into a freeway in the northern part of Spokane, so that could eventually be dragged up to the Canadian border and create a sensible route serving the large population centers of Spokane, Bend, Crater Lake and the Lake Tahoe area. I won't say anymore on possible routes, given that would be a discussion that should be carried over to the Fictional Highways thread.
Quote from: mcarling on March 11, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
I live in Vancouver, WA and have family in Las Vegas. For entirely selfish reasons, I would not mind a more direct Interstate route. Now, the options are either to use minor roads or take a vast detour. I wonder how much truck traffic there is between Las Vegas and Seattle/Portland. Providing a reasonably direct Interstate route would facilitate commerce.
Right here with you. Seems like a practical "relief valve" for freight on I-5 as well as a sensible connection for the inland Northwest and a bolster for the ports of Portland and Vancouver.
But then political reality bites, and bites hard.
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 12, 2015, 11:51:47 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 11, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
I live in Vancouver, WA and have family in Las Vegas. For entirely selfish reasons, I would not mind a more direct Interstate route. Now, the options are either to use minor roads or take a vast detour. I wonder how much truck traffic there is between Las Vegas and Seattle/Portland. Providing a reasonably direct Interstate route would facilitate commerce.
Right here with you. Seems like a practical "relief valve" for freight on I-5 as well as a sensible connection for the inland Northwest and a bolster for the ports of Portland and Vancouver.
But then political reality bites, and bites hard.
I dunno. US 97 is a pretty wide open road most of the time, except the 50 miles or so right around Bend. Seems like an additional lane of I-5 would be a lot more useful than making US 97 an interstate.
Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2015, 01:01:36 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 12, 2015, 11:51:47 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 11, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
I live in Vancouver, WA and have family in Las Vegas. For entirely selfish reasons, I would not mind a more direct Interstate route. Now, the options are either to use minor roads or take a vast detour. I wonder how much truck traffic there is between Las Vegas and Seattle/Portland. Providing a reasonably direct Interstate route would facilitate commerce.
Right here with you. Seems like a practical "relief valve" for freight on I-5 as well as a sensible connection for the inland Northwest and a bolster for the ports of Portland and Vancouver.
But then political reality bites, and bites hard.
I dunno. US 97 is a pretty wide open road most of the time, except the 50 miles or so right around Bend. Seems like an additional lane of I-5 would be a lot more useful than making US 97 an interstate.
I own a place up in Bend, OR, and use US 97 a few times a year when heading up there. While it probably doesn't have enough traffic to warrant becoming an Interstate anytime soon, I like this option more than US 95, which is REALLY vacant in Oregon.
Plus, I think 97 could easily be converted to a full freeway south of Bend. Through Bend (Bend Pkwy) and north might prove more difficult, though still possible.
Then duplex with 84 from the Dalles, hop onto 82, and then take 395 north to Spokane? Again, just ideas.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 12, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
Then duplex with 84 from the Dalles, hop onto 82, and then take 395 north to Spokane? Again, just ideas.
I've always been more in favor of crossing the Cascades at Government Camp and connecting to the system at Happy Valley. Seems like every time I'm driving to Central Oregon, there's pretty heavy traffic, almost always caused by one Subaru carefully driving no faster than 45.
Quote from: 707 on March 12, 2015, 12:54:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2015, 09:23:01 PM
I checked Arizona's traffic data. The AADT between the suburbs of Phoenix and Tucson is only 40-50k, and according to street view, it's already six lanes. Are people in the southwest traffic-phobic or something? It really doesn't strike me as a place where another corridor is needed. IMO, the best route for I-11 is to truncate the southern end to I-8 and the northern end to I-15.
Between Casa Grande and Tucson its six lanes, but during rush hour it gets congested and its only four lanes between Casa Grande and Phoenix. I travel I-10 between the two all the time. We aren't "traffic phobic", just normal people using our common sense. Plus, its also for Interstate and international truck traffic heading to Phoenix. There's a lot of it and it creates a rush hour in Tucson despite the fact we've widened I-10 within the city to be 8 lanes. Plus, Phoenix and the rest of Arizona have a massive population growth going on and more people and more cars travelling between the two biggest cities in the state. A four lane freeway won't be enough to handle it, so we need a wider I-10 and a reliever to handle said traffic. Hopefully, the dual freeway will mean cars only for one of them. Another example of a dual freeway would be that ADOT is also building an I-10 reliever for Phoenix itself so far dubbed SR 30.
Quote from: mcarling on March 11, 2015, 11:57:59 PM
I live in Vancouver, WA and have family in Las Vegas. For entirely selfish reasons, I would not mind a more direct Interstate route. Now, the options are either to use minor roads or take a vast detour. I wonder how much truck traffic there is between Las Vegas and Seattle/Portland. Providing a reasonably direct Interstate route would facilitate commerce.
By the time I11 could be built from Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno, virtually all new cars and trucks will be electric. I expect that the environmental opposition to building a new Interstate in Oregon and Washington will be significantly reduced when that will be the case.
I'd like to see that as well for similar reasons. I come from Seattle, live in Tucson and want a better connection to my hometown so I can visit more often.
Must be a difference between the southwest and the northeast. In this part of the country, it's perfectly normal to have delays that can double or triple the length of a trip during rush hour, and there are six lane freeways that service AADTs in excess of 100k and four lane freeways that service the equivalent traffic as Phoenix-Tucson.
I still can't see a second interstate goes there though, especially since there's nothing but desert in between. Maybe a widening if it's really that bad (perhaps a dual/dual setup if people REALLY want another road?).
Arizonans are right lane phobic. I've driven from Phoenix to Tucson dozens of times. The six lane stretch is flat and has basically no interchanges, but because rural six lane freeways don't exist in the west eexcept over grades, people drive like it's an urban freeway, leaving the right lane open for merging traffic that doesn't exist. Nobody seems to understand that the right lane is for general travel.
You can set your cruise at 90 in the right lane of I-10 and move over for the occasional truck. If you use the left and middle lanes, it's impossible, making traffic seem worse than it is.
I've driven a lot of places in my life and never seen more consistently poorly used capacity than on that six lane stretch of I-10.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 12, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
I own a place up in Bend, OR, and use US 97 a few times a year when heading up there. While it probably doesn't have enough traffic to warrant becoming an Interstate anytime soon, I like this option more than US 95, which is REALLY vacant in Oregon.
Plus, I think 97 could easily be converted to a full freeway south of Bend. Through Bend (Bend Pkwy) and north might prove more difficult, though still possible.
Then duplex with 84 from the Dalles, hop onto 82, and then take 395 north to Spokane? Again, just ideas.
Taking as a starting point the objective to extend the future I11 northward from Reno, it would be possible to follow the US395 corridor to Susanville, then follow CA139/OR50 to Klamath Falls and then follow US97 to Yakima. That would satisfy both the Canamex objectives and provide a much more direct Interstate connection between Seattle/Portland and Reno/Las Vegas/Phoenix. Consequences would include significant relief of I5, more traffic on US26 between Madras and Portland, and probably a little more traffic on US97 between Weed and Klamath Falls.
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Quote from: mcarling on March 12, 2015, 09:48:55 PM
Consequences would include significant relief of I5, more traffic on US26 between Madras and Portland, and probably a little more traffic on US97 between Weed and Klamath Falls.
You forgot OR 58.
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Right, though this topic at the same time isn't discussing something fictional, considering Arizona and Nevada officials are truly discussing whether or not I-11 should go through Washington and Oregon.
Quote from: NE2 on March 12, 2015, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: mcarling on March 12, 2015, 09:48:55 PM
Consequences would include significant relief of I5, more traffic on US26 between Madras and Portland, and probably a little more traffic on US97 between Weed and Klamath Falls.
You forgot OR 58.
Yes, you're right. OR 58 probably would also get some more traffic.
Quote from: 707 on March 13, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Right, though this topic at the same time isn't discussing something fictional, considering Arizona and Nevada officials are truly discussing whether or not I-11 should go through Washington and Oregon.
... and the Feds want it to extend to the Canadian border.
Quote from: mcarling on March 13, 2015, 12:37:19 AM
... and the Feds want it to extend to the Canadian border.
[citation needed]
Quote from: 707 on March 13, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Right, though this topic at the same time isn't discussing something fictional, considering Arizona and Nevada officials are truly discussing whether or not I-11 should go through Washington and Oregon.
Right, because Arizona and Nevada booster clubs have so much to say about how Oregon and Washington spend their highway $$.
At least out to Bend and Redmond. Most Reno-Portland traffic would split off of US 97 and take OR 58 over the Cascades over US 20/OR 22 or US 26.
Quote from: kkt on March 13, 2015, 10:20:03 AM
Quote from: 707 on March 13, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Right, though this topic at the same time isn't discussing something fictional, considering Arizona and Nevada officials are truly discussing whether or not I-11 should go through Washington and Oregon.
Right, because Arizona and Nevada booster clubs have so much to say about how Oregon and Washington spend their highway $$.
And by booster clubs, that includes ADOT, NVDOT and both the state governments. It doesn't matter what Arizona and Nevada want, because its up to the people and governments of Oregon and Washington in the end.
Quote from: 707 on March 13, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Right, though this topic at the same time isn't discussing something fictional, considering Arizona and Nevada officials are truly discussing whether or not I-11 should go through Washington and Oregon.
Are they attempting to do with I-11 what Indiana did for I-69?
Quote from: 707 on March 13, 2015, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 13, 2015, 10:20:03 AM
Quote from: 707 on March 13, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
Something to keep in mind with this conversation: It is not yet a given that I-11 will extend north of Las Vegas, but it seems to be the sentiment to route it roughly along the US 95 corridor towards (not necessarily to) Reno. If such an extension happens, there's no definitive on whether it goes north further than that, and whether it goes through Reno or more eastward in Nevada and beyond.
Right, though this topic at the same time isn't discussing something fictional, considering Arizona and Nevada officials are truly discussing whether or not I-11 should go through Washington and Oregon.
Right, because Arizona and Nevada booster clubs have so much to say about how Oregon and Washington spend their highway $$.
And by booster clubs, that includes ADOT, NVDOT and both the state governments. It doesn't matter what Arizona and Nevada want, because its up to the people and governments of Oregon and Washington in the end.
Keep in mind that the I-11 study focuses primarily on the Vegas to Phoenix corridor and involves Nevada & Arizona state DOTs and regional planning bodies, but also broad-level scoping going on which the FHWA and consultants are part of. (So it's not NDOT and ADOT specifically deciding what ODOT & WSDOT are going to do.) Once it gets beyond scoping, all affected states would be at the table.
Quote from: NE2 on March 13, 2015, 03:51:04 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 13, 2015, 12:37:19 AM
... and the Feds want it to extend to the Canadian border.
[citation needed]
http://i11study.com/wp/?page_id=34
The US government has a treaty obligation (NAFTA) to Canada and Mexico to upgrade CANAMEX for the entire path between the Canadian and Mexican borders.
Quote from: mcarling on March 13, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 13, 2015, 03:51:04 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 13, 2015, 12:37:19 AM
... and the Feds want it to extend to the Canadian border.
[citation needed]
http://i11study.com/wp/?page_id=34
The US government has a treaty obligation (NAFTA) to Canada and Mexico to upgrade CANAMEX for the entire path between the Canadian and Mexican borders.
I...don't know how to reply to this. So I'll go with snarkily mean: take a remedial reading comprehension class. Now stating the obvious: the "CANAMEX" corridor uses I-15 north of Vegas. Now just asking questions: where does NAFTA say CANAMEX must be a freeway?
Now straight man: fuck it, I can't do this. (heh heh he's a cig)
(It is interesting to note that the official definition (http://www.canamex.org/canamex/federal-definition/) does not reach the Mexican border, stopping in Nogales (as I-19 does).)
I see someone on OSM has gone and marked a proposed twinning of US 95 from Las Vegas to Fallon as "Future I-11/US 95". :eyebrow:
Quote from: mcarling on March 13, 2015, 07:03:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 13, 2015, 03:51:04 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 13, 2015, 12:37:19 AM
... and the Feds want it to extend to the Canadian border.
[citation needed]
http://i11study.com/wp/?page_id=34
The US government has a treaty obligation (NAFTA) to Canada and Mexico to upgrade CANAMEX for the entire path between the Canadian and Mexican borders.
At Coutts, Alberta where I-15 is. The Canadian government has no interest in the US building a freeway that ends up in the middle of the wilderness in interior BC.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2015, 12:00:26 AM
I see someone on OSM has gone and marked a proposed twinning of US 95 from Las Vegas to Fallon as "Future I-11/US 95". :eyebrow:
And it's under construction :bigass:
Note added: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/331024
Quote from: corco on March 12, 2015, 02:37:23 PM
Arizonans are right lane phobic. I've driven from Phoenix to Tucson dozens of times. The six lane stretch is flat and has basically no interchanges, but because rural six lane freeways don't exist in the west except over grades, people drive like it's an urban freeway, leaving the right lane open for merging traffic that doesn't exist. Nobody seems to understand that the right lane is for general travel.
You can set your cruise at 90 in the right lane of I-10 and move over for the occasional truck. If you use the left and middle lanes, it's impossible, making traffic seem worse than it is.
I've driven a lot of places in my life and never seen more consistently poorly used capacity than on that six lane stretch of I-10.
There's quite a few sections of rural 6-lane freeway in Southwest Washington, and people are actually pretty good about sticking to the right lane, which is strange for Washington. Well, at least the trucks stick to the right-ish lanes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHQd22PI.png&hash=7745373945fb49af6dbeb8e605177fad58c74940)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say long range plans for I-5 are for at least six lanes, border to border. Though I doubt any official plans exist.
Even if the Eastbank Freeway were somehow to go from 4 to 6 between the US 30 ramps and the Maquam Bridge approaches, you'd still have to somehow upgrade the mountain segments between Grants Pass and Cottage Grove, and the entire stretch through the Siskiyous, to say nothing of the East LA interchange or the Ross Island Maze.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 16, 2015, 02:28:51 AM
you'd still have to somehow upgrade the mountain segments between Grants Pass and Cottage Grove, and the entire stretch through the Siskiyous,
If there's actual congestion there and not just roadgeeks' excretory congestion, adding passing lanes to and promoting US 97-OR 58 as an alternate route might be the easiest solution.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 16, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
If I didn't know any better, I'd say long range plans for I-5 are for at least six lanes, border to border. Though I doubt any official plans exist.
I wouldn't count on the mountainous stretch from Burlington to Bellingham getting done within the next 20 years or so. Expensive, and just not that busy.
Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2015, 02:35:10 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on March 16, 2015, 02:28:51 AM
you'd still have to somehow upgrade the mountain segments between Grants Pass and Cottage Grove, and the entire stretch through the Siskiyous,
If there's actual congestion there and not just roadgeeks' excretory congestion, adding passing lanes to and promoting US 97-OR 58 as an alternate route might be the easiest solution.
This, and I-5 through the Siskiyous already has truck climbing lanes.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 16, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
If I didn't know any better, I'd say long range plans for I-5 are for at least six lanes, border to border. Though I doubt any official plans exist.
I suspect WsDOT would like to finish I-5 at six lanes in the southern half of the state, but I doubt they'd want to put much more into it beyond that. Wisely, they're putting money into upgrading Amtrak Cascades service. Leave the freeway for people who need to drive and get folks going from city to city onto fast trains.
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico. There would be no other reason I can see for it. SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more. There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
Now renumbering I-82 to either an odd number or I-88, would make more sense to me at this time, or returning I-80 to Portland. There is a lot of work needed, but a majority of it is along the highly traveled I-5 corridor (better bypasses, or better traffic control around Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Portland/Vancouver), I-84, and I-90 (like how about a canyon crossing bridge near George, instead of wasting all that time and fuel getting to river level to cross).
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico. There would be no other reason I can see for it. SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more. There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico. There would be no other reason I can see for it. SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more. There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).
Really, are they doubling the bridge over the Columbia there too?
Quote from: kkt on March 23, 2015, 10:40:09 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico. There would be no other reason I can see for it. SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more. There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).
Really, are they doubling the bridge over the Columbia there too?
I don't know. It was night when I drove through there recently. The US 97 overpass across I-84 has already been replaced. Now they are in the process of rebuilding the slip lane ramps. I think the US 97 overpass across the railroad (Oregon side) has also been replaced, but I'm not certain.
I know this is fictional, but the only place I'd put Interstate 11 in the northwest is along existing Interstate 82. That highway should have had an odd number to begin with.
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico. There would be no other reason I can see for it. SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more. There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).
How long is the 4-lane section going to be?
Rick
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2015, 01:40:04 PM
I know this is fictional, but the only place I'd put Interstate 11 in the northwest is along existing Interstate 82. That highway should have had an odd number to begin with.
I agree at 82 needs a more accurate number, or at least call it 88. However, most people want to mark it as I-9, then run I-11 up US-395/I-90 to Spokane, then up into the Interior of BC.
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 16, 2015, 04:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2015, 01:40:04 PM
I know this is fictional, but the only place I'd put Interstate 11 in the northwest is along existing Interstate 82. That highway should have had an odd number to begin with.
I agree at 82 needs a more accurate number, or at least call it 88. However, most people want to mark it as I-9, then run I-11 up US-395/I-90 to Spokane, then up into the Interior of BC.
There's already an I-88 in N.Y. I-82 is out of grid, but not drastically so. I wouldn't renumber just for that.
I-82 is short enough that it could be a 3di, if it were worth renumbering.
The trouble is, if I-11's north end is at I-80 around Reno or Winnemucca, there's no need for a couple of hundred miles of interstate through very empty land until you get north to I-84. (The need to go north of Las Vegas is marginal to begin with.)
US 97 from Weed to Bend to Yakima gets much more use than an I-11 extension north of I-80 would. Not to mention, say, making I-5 six lanes where it's currently four.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2015, 01:50:33 PM
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 12:26:07 AM
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).
How long is the 4-lane section going to be?
I don't know. I drove across US 97, not along it. At least 300 meters, perhaps longer.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2015, 01:40:04 PM
I know this is fictional, but the only place I'd put Interstate 11 in the northwest is along existing Interstate 82. That highway should have had an odd number to begin with.
What would you do with I-182?
Quote from: kktNot to mention, say, making I-5 six lanes where it's currently four.
Being generous and not counting the ramps of the Ross Island Interchange, if the 4 lane section between Centralia and Tumwater gets widened, and if ODOT and PBOT actually man up and widen the Eastbank Freeway, I-5 will boast continuous six lanes from Kuebler Blvd in Salem to past Everett. Let's say it drops back to 4 in Marysville (been a while since I've been up there), that'd make it 255 miles of six lane, beating out the Tijuana-CA 99 portion (221 miles).
Now, I wouldn't mind I-5 being six lanes from OR 58 all the way up to Salem, or from CA 99 to I-580...
Quote from: Bickendan on April 16, 2015, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2015, 01:40:04 PM
I know this is fictional, but the only place I'd put Interstate 11 in the northwest is along existing Interstate 82. That highway should have had an odd number to begin with.
What would you do with I-182?
It would have to be renumbered too. I-111? Such a nice number I almost wish it would happen. :-D
Quote
Quote from: kktNot to mention, say, making I-5 six lanes where it's currently four.
Being generous and not counting the ramps of the Ross Island Interchange, if the 4 lane section between Centralia and Tumwater gets widened, and if ODOT and PBOT actually man up and widen the Eastbank Freeway, I-5 will boast continuous six lanes from Kuebler Blvd in Salem to past Everett. Let's say it drops back to 4 in Marysville (been a while since I've been up there), that'd make it 255 miles of six lane, beating out the Tijuana-CA 99 portion (221 miles).
Now, I wouldn't mind I-5 being six lanes from OR 58 all the way up to Salem, or from CA 99 to I-580...
Also should be six lanes from I-505 in Calif. through the Siskyous and through Oregon. Heavy traffic so much of the time.
Currently, as you go north from Marysville the drop to 4 lanes is just south of Mt. Vernon at exit 224. If we're not up for building six lanes through the Chuckanut Mountains, at least to the north end of Burlington would be helpful. Say adding the lane southbound where the trucks merge from the scales at mile 233, and drop the lane northbound at the top of the hill at Bow Hill Rd., exit 236. Even if we skipped the mountain, an additional lane would be useful in Bellingham and north to the border too.
Routing I-11 north of I-80, if I had to put it somewhere it would be up US 95 to Lewiston and then US 195 to Spokane. At least the Lewiston-Spokane section is moderately busy for a two-lane highway.
There's talk of adding HOV lanes to I-5 between Everett (MP 195) and Smokey Point (MP 206). The stretch between the Snohomish River (MP 195) and Ebey Slough (MP 198) is frequently congested when Boeing changes shifts around 2 pm.
Anyway, I'd just have I-182 be signed as US 12. No need to keep it as an interstate when it is entirely concurrent with a U.S. route.
Count me in for a 6-lane minimum on I-5 from border to border. In the mountain areas we need that extra lane for the slow trucks and the inevitable snow. The urban areas have an obvious need. I-5 is the main highway for the entire West Coast.
Don't look for Oregon to lead the way though like they used to when the Beaver State was the first West Coast state to complete it's portion of I-5. :-(
Rick
http://www.rtcsnv.com/press-archive/rtc-ndot-federal-state-local-leaders-officially-sign-318m-11-project/
Fair use excerpt:
"The creation of Interstate 11 (I-11) connecting Las Vegas and Phoenix took a major step forward today as federal, state and local elected officials, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), and community and business leaders celebrated the launch of one of the largest state transportation projects in history."
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
Count me in for a 6-lane minimum on I-5 from border to border. In the mountain areas we need that extra lane for the slow trucks and the inevitable snow. The urban areas have an obvious need. I-5 is the main highway for the entire West Coast.
Don't look for Oregon to lead the way though like they used to when the Beaver State was the first West Coast state to complete it's portion of I-5. :-(
Rick
Yeah, Portland especially. From the Rose Quarter north to the Interstate Bridge, Portland is a city that doesn't really care for roads.
Propose making I-5 bike only, and they might listen to you. :-)
I do agree that I-5 should be 6 lanes from Mexico to Canada, maybe the only exception being from the 99 split until Tracy, but even then there is probably enough truck traffic to warrant it.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 21, 2015, 03:15:14 PM
Yeah, Portland especially. From the Rose Quarter north to the Interstate Bridge, Portland is a city that doesn't really care for roads.
...
I do agree that I-5 should be 6 lanes from Mexico to Canada....
At least the Portland City Council unanimously approved widening I-5 from 2x2 to 2x3 through the Rose Quarter. Now it's a question of funding.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 21, 2015, 03:15:14 PM
I do agree that I-5 should be 6 lanes from Mexico to Canada, maybe the only exception being from the 99 split until Tracy, but even then there is probably enough truck traffic to warrant it.
I disagree. I think there's enough auto and truck traffic on that stretch of I-5 to warrant 6 lanes and traffic can get very heavy on holiday weekends.
Quote from: mcarling on April 21, 2015, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 21, 2015, 03:15:14 PM
Yeah, Portland especially. From the Rose Quarter north to the Interstate Bridge, Portland is a city that doesn't really care for roads.
...
I do agree that I-5 should be 6 lanes from Mexico to Canada....
At least the Portland City Council unanimously approved widening I-5 from 2x2 to 2x3 through the Rose Quarter. Now it's a question of funding.
That'll leave the 2x2 section on the Eastbank from the US 30 split to the Marquam Bridge. Baby steps, at least.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 21, 2015, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: mcarling on April 21, 2015, 03:39:55 PM
At least the Portland City Council unanimously approved widening I-5 from 2x2 to 2x3 through the Rose Quarter. Now it's a question of funding.
That'll leave the 2x2 section on the Eastbank from the US 30 split to the Marquam Bridge.
I believe the section of I-5 between I-84 and the Marquam Bridge is now three lanes southbound but only two lanes northbound.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 21, 2015, 06:18:15 PMBaby steps, at least.
Yes, I prefer incremental progress to no progress.
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 16, 2015, 04:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2015, 01:40:04 PM
I know this is fictional, but the only place I'd put Interstate 11 in the northwest is along existing Interstate 82. That highway should have had an odd number to begin with.
I agree at 82 needs a more accurate number, or at least call it 88. However, most people want to mark it as I-9, then run I-11 up US-395/I-90 to Spokane, then up into the Interior of BC.
I think 88 is a better number for I-82 myself. With regard to the I-11 project - is that slated to go to Boise, Spokane...?
I-11's north of Reno routing hasn't even been touched on by the planners yet, only that it will. I'm not sure CalTrans, ODOT, WSDOT or IdaDOT(?) have been approached yet.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 04, 2015, 10:57:37 AM
I-11's north of Reno routing hasn't even been touched on by the planners yet, only that it will. I'm not sure CalTrans, ODOT, WSDOT or IdaDOT(?) have been approached yet.
Instead of a Bridge To Nowhere we will get a Freeway Through The Middle Of Nowhere...LOL!
About the only route that makes any sort of sense to me would be to route I-11's northern branch along 395 to just north of Lakeview, where it can use SR 78 to US 97, US 97 to US 26 and thence to PDX. The second choice would be to take US 97's alignment all the way to I-82. Wow, what a climb on both sides of the Columbia that would be for building a freeway!
In any case I do not expect an I-11 northern section to be built. One connecting Reno to Las Vegas at least makes some sense in terms of connecting Nevada's two metro areas but there are no truly large cities north of Reno. Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions.
Rick
Boise and Spokane are fairly large cities, but there's a lot of empty in between them.
I'd still be kind of surprised to see I-11 built north of Las Vegas.
Honestly, I would be too, but I'm looking forward what shakes out of the planning meetings.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
Count me in for a 6-lane minimum on I-5 from border to border. In the mountain areas we need that extra lane for the slow trucks and the inevitable snow. The urban areas have an obvious need. I-5 is the main highway for the entire West Coast.
Don't look for Oregon to lead the way though like they used to when the Beaver State was the first West Coast state to complete it's portion of I-5. :-(
Rick
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone. Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike. It's time for a new standard:
URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier
RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation
Quote from: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
Count me in for a 6-lane minimum on I-5 from border to border. In the mountain areas we need that extra lane for the slow trucks and the inevitable snow. The urban areas have an obvious need. I-5 is the main highway for the entire West Coast.
Don't look for Oregon to lead the way though like they used to when the Beaver State was the first West Coast state to complete it's portion of I-5. :-(
Rick
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone. Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike. It's time for a new standard:
URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier
RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation
Beautiful! I like your standards.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 10:34:44 PM
Quote from: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
Count me in for a 6-lane minimum on I-5 from border to border. In the mountain areas we need that extra lane for the slow trucks and the inevitable snow. The urban areas have an obvious need. I-5 is the main highway for the entire West Coast.
Don't look for Oregon to lead the way though like they used to when the Beaver State was the first West Coast state to complete it's portion of I-5. :-(
Rick
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone. Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike. It's time for a new standard:
URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier
RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation
Beautiful! I like your standards.
Rick
15-foot lanes are not necessary. As well, we don't need huge inside shoulders. Don't encourage people to stop on the inside of the carriageway. Central reservation should be smaller as well. ROW is getting more expensive. A good barrier is all that's necessary.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 04, 2015, 10:57:37 AM
I-11's north of Reno routing hasn't even been touched on by the planners yet, only that it will. I'm not sure CalTrans, ODOT, WSDOT or IdaDOT(?) have been approached yet.
I-11's route north of
Las Vegas hasn't even been touched yet, let alone Reno. The general long-range planning has the interstate going to the Reno vicinity, but the exact route hasn't even been decided.
Quote from: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone. Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike. It's time for a new standard:
URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier
RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation
Why the heck would we need 15-foot lanes? If you can't keep your vehicle inside a 12-foot lane, something is seriously wrong. You realize that as soon as some routes were made with 15-foot lanes, trucks would be built 14 feet wide, and every existing road in the country would be instantly obsolete.
Six lanes with three extra feet each would be enough for another travel lane, almost two, which are needed urgently.
There are quite a few interstates that would benefit from being six lanes, but there are also quite a few where that would be a total waste of money. It shouldn't be a minimum standard.
Quote from: kkt on May 05, 2015, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 10:28:58 PM
I think the time for a four-lane standard for at least an interstate, if not a freeway altogether, is come and gone. Clearly we are witness to greater and greater freeway traffic volumes, Interstate and other freeways alike. It's time for a new standard:
URBAN - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at right, 12ft hard shoulder at left, 1 1/2ft Jersey barrier
RURAL - 3x15ft lanes, 12ft hard shoulder at each side of carriageway, 24ft central reservation
Why the heck would we need 15-foot lanes? If you can't keep your vehicle inside a 12-foot lane, something is seriously wrong. You realize that as soon as some routes were made with 15-foot lanes, trucks would be built 14 feet wide, and every existing road in the country would be instantly obsolete.
Six lanes with three extra feet each would be enough for another travel lane, almost two, which are needed urgently.
There are quite a few interstates that would benefit from being six lanes, but there are also quite a few where that would be a total waste of money. It shouldn't be a minimum standard.
While I agree that 15' lanes are a ridiculous waste of money, I think the assumption that trucks will match interstate widths is fallacious.
---
The problem with these high speed dreamways is that trucks are still going to be governed at 70 MPH. While lanes are wider and may allow for 90 MPH traffic, speed variance between different vehicles is a huge factor.
That's why some states still have 65 MPH ceilings. Legislature caps the truck speed limit ∴ limiting the general speed limit. If you want true speedways, you'll have to add a separate carriageway that prohibits trucks and other slower vehicles.
Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AM
About the only route that makes any sort of sense to me would be to route I-11's northern branch along 395 to just north of Lakeview, where it can use SR 78 to US 97, US 97 to US 26 and thence to PDX. The second choice would be to take US 97's alignment all the way to I-82. Wow, what a climb on both sides of the Columbia that would be for building a freeway!
Those two options make sense to me -- except that I don't think OR 78 connects to US 97, but rather in the other direction to US 95.
Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AMIn any case I do not expect an I-11 northern section to be built. One connecting Reno to Las Vegas at least makes some sense in terms of connecting Nevada's two metro areas but there are no truly large cities north of Reno. Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions.
I agree that "Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions" however, in my opinion, Phoenix/Las Vegas/Reno to/from Portland/Seattle traffic justifies a 2x2 Interstate (which would relieve I-5, I-84, and other routes). The dramatically shorter route compared to current Interstates would reduce a pollution by tons of CO2 per day. Compared to existing 1x2 roads, safety would be dramatically increased. Anyway, at the moment it's hypothetical. Once Phoenix - Las Vegas is open to traffic and Las Vegas - Reno is approved for construction, we'll start to have a clearer picture. Once Las Vegas - Reno is open to traffic, then the AADT along US 395 and US 97 north of Reno will be instructive.
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 23, 2015, 10:40:09 AM
Quote from: mcarling on March 23, 2015, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 04:42:48 PM
This does make a little sense, but only in-so-far as to make travel distances shorter between Vancouver and interior Mexico. There would be no other reason I can see for it. SE Oregon is much like Northern Nevada, desert, and nothing more. There isn't an established population in that area, and unless you run this route up along US 97 in Oregon, it isn't going to really help anyone there, and I doubt anyone is clambering for a freeway from Central Washington to Kamloops (unless it continues to Alaska), so this is largely a non-starter in the PNW.
US 97 is currently being widened from 2 lanes to 4 lanes at Biggs Junction (I-84 interchange).
Really, are they doubling the bridge over the Columbia there too?
I don't know. It was night when I drove through there recently. The US 97 overpass across I-84 has already been replaced. Now they are in the process of rebuilding the slip lane ramps. I think the US 97 overpass across the railroad (Oregon side) has also been replaced, but I'm not certain.
The DB Cooper Bridge
Quote from: mcarling on May 12, 2015, 03:11:05 PM
I agree that "Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions" however, in my opinion, Phoenix/Las Vegas/Reno to/from Portland/Seattle traffic justifies a 2x2 Interstate (which would relieve I-5, I-84, and other routes). The dramatically shorter route compared to current Interstates would reduce a pollution by tons of CO2 per day. Compared to existing 1x2 roads, safety would be dramatically increased.
The US routes that are there now are generally excellent. I don't think an interstate route would draw significant amounts of traffic from I-5 or I-84.
Quote from: mcarling on May 12, 2015, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AM
About the only route that makes any sort of sense to me would be to route I-11's northern branch along 395 to just north of Lakeview, where it can use SR 78 to US 97, US 97 to US 26 and thence to PDX. The second choice would be to take US 97's alignment all the way to I-82. Wow, what a climb on both sides of the Columbia that would be for building a freeway!
Those two options make sense to me -- except that I don't think OR 78 connects to US 97, but rather in the other direction to US 95.
Quote from: nexus73 on May 04, 2015, 11:46:05 AMIn any case I do not expect an I-11 northern section to be built. One connecting Reno to Las Vegas at least makes some sense in terms of connecting Nevada's two metro areas but there are no truly large cities north of Reno. Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions.
I agree that "Reno/Boise traffic can be handled with passing lane and climbing lane additions" however, in my opinion, Phoenix/Las Vegas/Reno to/from Portland/Seattle traffic justifies a 2x2 Interstate (which would relieve I-5, I-84, and other routes). The dramatically shorter route compared to current Interstates would reduce a pollution by tons of CO2 per day. Compared to existing 1x2 roads, safety would be dramatically increased. Anyway, at the moment it's hypothetical. Once Phoenix - Las Vegas is open to traffic and Las Vegas - Reno is approved for construction, we'll start to have a clearer picture. Once Las Vegas - Reno is open to traffic, then the AADT along US 395 and US 97 north of Reno will be instructive.
Correction. 31 for 78. My bad!
Rick
Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2015, 03:53:16 PM
The US routes that are there now are generally excellent. I don't think an interstate route would draw significant amounts of traffic from I-5 or I-84.
The Klamath Falls to Portland corridor is pretty rough. Few passing lanes, a lot of trucks, a lot of traffic. No, there aren't many towns to slow cars down, but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.
Quote from: NickCPDX on May 13, 2015, 02:11:09 PM
The Klamath Falls to Portland corridor is pretty rough. Few passing lanes, a lot of trucks, a lot of traffic. No, there aren't many towns to slow cars down, but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.
I agree completely. If we imagine Klamath Falls to Bend to Portland as a 2x2 road and Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno as a 2x2 road in the future, then Reno to Susanville to Klamath Falls seems likely to get a lot more traffic in that possible future than it does today. Thus I have no difficulty imagining a possible extension of the I-11 northward from Reno in the distant future.
Quote from: NickCPDX on May 13, 2015, 02:11:09 PM
...but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.
Well, sort of. Money first, safety second.
Does the 2+1 road interest you?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1d%2FMMLNorr1.JPG&hash=2d693224c2a13aa83e630ec8940a5ec2bb706855)
Not with those shoulders, lol.
Where is this beauty?
Quote from: Bickendan on May 13, 2015, 04:14:43 PM
Not with those shoulders, lol.
Where is this beauty?
Fair enough. :-D Outside Linköping, Sweden.
The only place I know where 2+1 roads are (somewhat) common is Europe. Sweden used to build a lot of them but has stopped as far as I know, France has some, Lithuania is building one (bypass of Panevezys).
At the very least, we could construct 2+2 roads with the type of median seen here. No need for medians that are 50 feet wide.
Quote from: NickCPDX on May 13, 2015, 02:11:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2015, 03:53:16 PM
The US routes that are there now are generally excellent. I don't think an interstate route would draw significant amounts of traffic from I-5 or I-84.
The Klamath Falls to Portland corridor is pretty rough. Few passing lanes, a lot of trucks, a lot of traffic. No, there aren't many towns to slow cars down, but that doesn't do anyone any good if there's 10 cars stuck behind a truck doing 50 and someone decides to take a risk on a two-lane road. Safety first.
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5. I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5. I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras. There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem. But an interstate would be overkill. (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not? That's kinda messed up.)
As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country. 250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway. You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2015, 04:56:21 PM
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5. I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5. I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras. There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem. But an interstate would be overkill. (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not? That's kinda messed up.)
As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country. 250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway. You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
One disadvantage of adding lanes to I-5 rather than to the Las Vegas - Reno - Susanville - Klamath Falls - Bend - Portland/Yakima route is that the former would funnel yet more traffic through already badly congested Portland and the Interstate Bridge while the latter would funnel traffic over the less congested Glenn Jackson Bridge and the Biggs Rapids Bridge. However, I fully support upgrading I-5 to a minimum of 2x3 lanes from Eugene to Seattle. I'm more skeptical about adding lanes to I-5 between Redding and Eugene.
Quote from: mcarling on May 13, 2015, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2015, 04:56:21 PM
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5. I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5. I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras. There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem. But an interstate would be overkill. (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not? That's kinda messed up.)
As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country. 250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway. You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
One disadvantage of adding lanes to I-5 rather than to the Las Vegas - Reno - Susanville - Klamath Falls - Bend - Portland/Yakima route is that the former would funnel yet more traffic through already badly congested Portland and the Interstate Bridge while the latter would funnel traffic over the less congested Glenn Jackson Bridge and the Biggs Rapids Bridge. However, I fully support upgrading I-5 to a minimum of 2x3 lanes from Eugene to Seattle. I'm more skeptical about adding lanes to I-5 between Redding and Eugene.
6-laning I-5 from Sutherlin to Myrtle Creek to handle Roseburg/Umpqua Valley and Grants Pass's Merlin exit to Ashland would be justifiable due to the amount of local traffic. Medford hits for around 90K per day on I-5 as I recall. To that add in 3-lane uphill sections like California does and 6-lane I-5 through Siskiyou Pass to make sure when heavy snow hits that plowing operations will have plenty of room to work with and then some since this is one of the main climate-related chokepoints on I-5.
If we built I-5 to today's terrain-taming standards it would be a whole lot easier and safer to drive from the Lane/Douglas county line to the California/Oregon border. The 60 miles between Roseburg and Grants Pass is the most dangerous stretch of I-5 in my eyes.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 13, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
If we built I-5 to today's terrain-taming standards it would be a whole lot easier and safer to drive from the Lane/Douglas county line to the California/Oregon border. The 60 miles between Roseburg and Grants Pass is the most dangerous stretch of I-5 in my eyes.
I-5 could use some serious reconstruction in Southern Oregon, German style (much wider corner radii, more tunnels, and so on).
The good news is ODOT wants to make I-5 6 lanes from OR 34 to Kuebler Blvd. The bad news is it's a backburner project.
Quote from: nexus73 on May 13, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
Quote from: mcarling on May 13, 2015, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2015, 04:56:21 PM
There is some traffic along there but it's much less crowded than I-5. I think more traffic diverts from I-5 to US 97 to make better time than diverts from 97 to 5. I'd like to see more passing lanes from Weed to Madras. There are already a fair number of 4-lane sections between Bend and Klamath Falls, so someone sees the problem. But an interstate would be overkill. (How is it that US 26 got to be a US route, but OR 58 did not? That's kinda messed up.)
As a route for I-11, the portion from Reno to Klamath Falls would be going through a whole lot of empty, mountainous country. 250 miles of relatively expensive and yet not very useful freeway. You could probably make I-5 six lanes from Redding to Salem for less than that would cost.
One disadvantage of adding lanes to I-5 rather than to the Las Vegas - Reno - Susanville - Klamath Falls - Bend - Portland/Yakima route is that the former would funnel yet more traffic through already badly congested Portland and the Interstate Bridge while the latter would funnel traffic over the less congested Glenn Jackson Bridge and the Biggs Rapids Bridge. However, I fully support upgrading I-5 to a minimum of 2x3 lanes from Eugene to Seattle. I'm more skeptical about adding lanes to I-5 between Redding and Eugene.
6-laning I-5 from Sutherlin to Myrtle Creek to handle Roseburg/Umpqua Valley and Grants Pass's Merlin exit to Ashland would be justifiable due to the amount of local traffic. Medford hits for around 90K per day on I-5 as I recall. To that add in 3-lane uphill sections like California does and 6-lane I-5 through Siskiyou Pass to make sure when heavy snow hits that plowing operations will have plenty of room to work with and then some since this is one of the main climate-related chokepoints on I-5.
If we built I-5 to today's terrain-taming standards it would be a whole lot easier and safer to drive from the Lane/Douglas county line to the California/Oregon border. The 60 miles between Roseburg and Grants Pass is the most dangerous stretch of I-5 in my eyes.
Rick
I'd consider the dangerous part down to Redding. In good weather, it's dangerous because people think it's safe to go 65 even around curves signed for 50. In bad weather, there's unexpected icy or snowy patches.
The climbing lane uphill in the California Siskiyous is only loosely a third lane. It's striped as a wide shoulder and there's no other shoulder in addition to the climbing lane. Signs say trucks can drive on shoulder. It'd be nice to see it laid out as three real lanes plus a shoulder.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2015, 12:31:00 AM
The good news is ODOT wants to make I-5 6 lanes from OR 34 to Kuebler Blvd. The bad news is it's a backburner project.
That's the first I heard of ODOT even thinking of extending the 6-lane south of Kuebler. Thank you for mentioning it!
As you likely noticed, the new bridges on I-5 in Eugene/Springfield are built for 6-lanes. The current ODOT plan to actually do a 6-lane project in the area is "sometime in the 2030's", so nothing truly definite.
WSDOT has only about 25 miles of I-5 left to 6-lane to improve I-5 from PDX to Seattle. That state has done a good job dealing with their I-5 congestion.
To kkt: The I-5 section I mentioned as most dangerous was the part in Oregon I see in that way. However you are right about the curves and ice problems north of Redding. The new bridge crossing Lake Shasta is a nice needed improvement but in the end it comes down to lots of bulldozers, dump trucks and dynamite to bend the land to one's will so a great freeway can be built. Since it is I-5 we're talking about, the main artery for the entire West Coast, I would make it into a real showcase of road engineering if I was running the show!
Rick