News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Interstate 11 Through The Northwest?

Started by 707, March 11, 2015, 01:22:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mcarling

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.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.


The Ghostbuster

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.

nexus73

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
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

TEG24601

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.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

kkt

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.

mcarling

#55
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.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

Bickendan

#56
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...

kkt

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.

Bruce

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.

nexus73

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

US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

mcarling

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."
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

OCGuy81

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.

mcarling

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.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

myosh_tino

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: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Bickendan

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.

mcarling

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.
US 97 should be 2x2 all the way from Yakima, WA to Klamath Falls, OR.

Atomica

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...?
"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."
--- Malcolm X, 1925-1965

Bickendan

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.

nexus73

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   
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

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.

Bickendan

Honestly, I would be too, but I'm looking forward what shakes out of the planning meetings.

Atomica

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
"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."
--- Malcolm X, 1925-1965

nexus73

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
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

jakeroot

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.

roadfro

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



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.