Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[sparker]

My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

[mgk920]

My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

As I suggested several pages upthread, how workable would a crossover between US 95 in the Walker Lake area south of Schurz and NV 208 a short distance south of Yerington, then past Smith and Wellington to US 395 at Topaz Lake be?

Mike

[kkt]

My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

As I suggested several pages upthread, how workable would a crossover between US 95 in the Walker Lake area south of Schurz and NV 208 a short distance south of Yerington, then past Smith and Wellington to US 395 at Topaz Lake be?

Mike

Well, there's a substantial mountain range running N-S west of Walker Lake and Walker River.  There is decommissioned Nevada route 2C over a pass, but it's pretty high, climbing from 4100 feet elevation at US 95 up to 6200 feet at the pass.  Could be built but would defeat the purpose of a faster or easier route between Reno and L.V.

Alt US 95 goes around the north end of that mountain range. That route has only a slight rise of a few hundred feet.  But if you zig north on Alt US 95 around that mountain range, you have to zag south to follow NV 208 around the south end of the next mountain range, west of Smith Valley.  You'd end up with a longer route from L.V. to Reno, not shorter.

[sparker]

My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

As I suggested several pages upthread, how workable would a crossover between US 95 in the Walker Lake area south of Schurz and NV 208 a short distance south of Yerington, then past Smith and Wellington to US 395 at Topaz Lake be?

Mike

Well, there's a substantial mountain range running N-S west of Walker Lake and Walker River.  There is decommissioned Nevada route 2C over a pass, but it's pretty high, climbing from 4100 feet elevation at US 95 up to 6200 feet at the pass.  Could be built but would defeat the purpose of a faster or easier route between Reno and L.V.

Alt US 95 goes around the north end of that mountain range. That route has only a slight rise of a few hundred feet.  But if you zig north on Alt US 95 around that mountain range, you have to zag south to follow NV 208 around the south end of the next mountain range, west of Smith Valley.  You'd end up with a longer route from L.V. to Reno, not shorter.

Bottom line -- unless huge levels of funding are available to get across or through the ranges E and SE of Carson City, the I-11 corridor won't serve Carson City but rather intersect I-80 somewhere around Fernley, with traffic using westward I-80 to reach Reno.  I-580 will remain the sole Interstate connection to the state capital.  Also, such a connection would be more conducive to forming a relatively continuous corridor if an extension east on I-80 and then north mostly along US 95 to the Boise/Treasure Valley region of SW Idaho ends up being selected for further corridor expansion.   

[michravera]

What are the current volumes on these roads now(395,95,93)?
rom what I can see they all are well built and have good shoulders. It would make sense to start with passing lanes

US-95 is one of the few places where a 3-lane road actually makes sense!

[Bobby5280]

MOD NOTE: This post and the following two posts dated 12/28/2017 & 12/29/2017 were moved here from the "I-11/US 93 - Boulder City Bypass" thread. This was done to keep discussion/speculation on potential routes of I-11 contained to this thread. –Roadfro


Progress is going to be slow going for I-11 unless the federal government gets a wild hair up its butt and decides big highways are important again.

Chances on that are slim unfortunately. The right wing is only thinking in terms of spending cuts (bad for freeways) and the left wing is only thinking in terms of people riding bicycles and walking to every destination no matter how far away and remote it might be (also bad for freeways and highways in general).

If the decision was up to me I would route I-11 along current I-515 thru Las Vegas and on out NW of town as far as the freeway ran (who cares if it ends at a US highway or not?). The loop around Las Vegas has long been recognized with the 215 designation, partially with an Interstate designation and the rest with a county designation. I think the whole damned thing just needs to be I-215. That's what will be best for everyone in the 'Vegas metro. There's businesses and other stuff along the 215 loop that are used to calling it the 215 loop, particularly in their advertising. There is nothing at all to be gained changing that to I-11. They just need to finish upgrading the entire loop to Interstate highway standards and call the entire thing I-215. They're not far away from being able to do that now.

[sparker]

Progress is going to be slow going for I-11 unless the federal government gets a wild hair up its butt and decides big highways are important again.

Chances on that are slim unfortunately. The right wing is only thinking in terms of spending cuts (bad for freeways) and the left wing is only thinking in terms of people riding bicycles and walking to every destination no matter how far away and remote it might be (also bad for freeways and highways in general).

If the decision was up to me I would route I-11 along current I-515 thru Las Vegas and on out NW of town as far as the freeway ran (who cares if it ends at a US highway or not?). The loop around Las Vegas has long been recognized with the 215 designation, partially with an Interstate designation and the rest with a county designation. I think the whole damned thing just needs to be I-215. That's what will be best for everyone in the 'Vegas metro. There's businesses and other stuff along the 215 loop that are used to calling it the 215 loop, particularly in their advertising. There is nothing at all to be gained changing that to I-11. They just need to finish upgrading the entire loop to Interstate highway standards and call the entire thing I-215. They're not far away from being able to do that now.

What you suggest -- the in-town routing via US 95 and temporarily terminating at the NW corner of the 215 loop -- is probably what's going to happen in the near-to-medium term.  Overall, the original Phoenix-LV section of I-11 will, in all likelihood, progress a piece at a time, with the Kingman-Vegas segment coming on line earlier than the rest (basically the SIU concept at work!).  As far as the rest of the corridor -- I'd call it a 20-25-year project -- and I'm being generous only because there has been almost continuous progress along US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40, and I don't anticipate any change in that timeframe.  And with the Phoenix section -- right now there are too many "pie-in-the-sky" proposals that have cluttered the discussion to pinpoint a likely outcome; the more outlandish of which will have to be discarded before serious corridor discussion commences.  I can see the Hassayampa corridor -- and even the extension to Casa Grande (with I-11 functioning as the long-sought PHX bypass for I-10) surviving the initial selection phase -- although something down to Loop 303 might be more practical.  All I can say for now is "we'll see".   

[Bobby5280]

With just a few improvements I-11 could be extended as far North as Indian Springs & Creech Air Force Base. There's even some frontage roads in Indian Springs. US-95 stops being a 4-lane road at the Mercury Highway freeway style exit a few miles farther West.

The Kingman to Las Vegas segment of I-11 will be the easiest segment to upgrade to Interstate standards. It's a mostly straight shot and a couple of freeway style exits have already been built. There's not quite as many at grade crossings and driveways to eliminate.

I-40 down to Wickenburg is a more expensive project. It's not all 4-laned yet. There are more at-grade crossings, driveways and gravel roads accessing the main lanes directly. It's a judgment call what to do with that. Obviously some intersections are worthy of a freeway exit. Others only deserve RIRO access via short frontage roads the length of a rest area or simple Y-shape ramps. And access to some other roads will have to be eliminated. The choice is to either do that or relax Interstate standards down to that of the old I-10 in West Texas with all its gravel driveways.

Parts of I-69 in South Texas are supposed to use limited frontage roads for access to some rural roads. Again, not every road crossing can get a full exit.

As for I-11 from Wickenburg down to Phoenix, I think the policy makers need to prioritize just getting the highway built along/near US-60 to Loop 303 and then move on from there as other things develop. They just need to accomplish the basics first.

I think it's pie in the sky hoping for anyone to realistically think I-11 would ever actually get built to Tucson. The idea of a parallel route to I-19 down to Nogales is really far fetched. I think the best case scenario is I-11 following Loop 303 down to the proposed Hassayampa Freeway and ending at I-8 or I-10 near Casa Grande. Farther Southeast I think the best thing to do for adding capacity is simply adding more lanes to I-10 and I-19 if need be. There's plenty of room in the ROW for such expansion. The only road that would be cramped for space is I-10 within Tucson. But ADOT can develop some kind of I-x10 or I-x19 loop or half loop just for the Tucson area without having to drag I-11 into it.

[roadfro]

If the decision was up to me I would route I-11 along current I-515 thru Las Vegas and on out NW of town as far as the freeway ran (who cares if it ends at a US highway or not?). The loop around Las Vegas has long been recognized with the 215 designation, partially with an Interstate designation and the rest with a county designation. I think the whole damned thing just needs to be I-215. That's what will be best for everyone in the 'Vegas metro. There's businesses and other stuff along the 215 loop that are used to calling it the 215 loop, particularly in their advertising. There is nothing at all to be gained changing that to I-11. They just need to finish upgrading the entire loop to Interstate highway standards and call the entire thing I-215. They're not far away from being able to do that now.

So, we shouldn't route I-11 along the 215 loop because the businesses are used to that number...? Valid point, until it's noted that businesses along US 95 and I-515 have been used to those numbers for even longer...  The US 95 freeway has existed since the 1970's or 1980's (depending on which end you're talking about), and has been full freeway through Las Vegas on it's present alignment since 1994 (when I-515 was signed). Conversely, the first segment of I-215 was completed in 1994-1995, and first sections of CC-215 (the southwestern frontage roads–the freeway between came later) opened in 1999.

Both the through-town (US 95) routing and the south/west bypass (CC-215) routing have merits, depending on what I-11 traffic patterns are desired. It's about two miles longer via 215, factoring in that I-11 would take a straight shot north towards US 95 from the northwest corner of 215. But traffic would likely be less congested along 215.


FYI: The long-term plan has always been for the entirety of CC-215 to be re-designated as I-215 once the beltway is completely up to freeway standards. (I also believe that ownership is supposed to be transferred from Clark County to NDOT.) When the next phase of the Centennial Bowl is constructed, adding three more direct ramps between CC-215 and US 95, they could probably get away with renumbering the whole western leg up to US 95 if they wanted to...not sure if they'll do it or not, given there will still be a signalized intersection there during the interim.

[theroadwayone]

My Nevada upbringing, I learned this as "basin and range" topography. It dominates most of central and northern Nevada, and also explains why there's only three real long-haul east-west routes across the state (I-80, US 50 and US 6).

Right -- you don't hear horst und graben outside the geology classroom (did all my collegiate science requirements in geology).  In any case, it was damn good luck that the surveyors back in the 1840's found the Humboldt River channel, which had over time dug itself through several of the ranges, providing a continuous gap that now contains 2 UP (formerly SP and WP) rail lines plus I-80.  Of course, US 50 surmounts one range after another on its way across the state, while US 6 skirts the southern end of the ranges, crossing them at a lower altitude -- but still with significant gradients.  Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.   

"Geology is the study of pressure and time. That's all it takes; pressure and time. That, and a big damn poster"
-Otis "Red" Redding (a.k.a. Morgan Freeman,) "Shawshank Redemption."

[Bobby5280]

Both the through-town (US 95) routing and the south/west bypass (CC-215) routing have merits, depending on what I-11 traffic patterns are desired. It's about two miles longer via 215, factoring in that I-11 would take a straight shot north towards US 95 from the northwest corner of 215. But traffic would likely be less congested along 215.

I-215/CC-215 may be a newer highway, but it doesn't follow along the direct path of I-11 like the thru-town routing along US-95/I-515 would. If I-11 is routed along 215 what happens with the segment of 215 past the US-95 interchange on the North side of Vegas? Another little I-215 segment like the existing one?

It's kind of a traditional thing to route 2di Interstate routes thru the center of a city while routing the 3 digit Interstate routes around it. I-11 is initally going to exist as an excruciatingly short Interstate highway stub. Routing it through the middle of Las Vegas would at least give the highway more visibility (which is kind of important for politics).

I'm also not a fan of highways that are going one direction but just change their number past a certain exit while the freeway keeps going. Put I-11 on the 215 loop and there will be a lot of that. It would be more simple and more direct for all routes involved assigning the I-11 designation to US-95/I-515.

And repeating what I said earlier, I think I-11 should be signed as far North as the freeway runs. If the freeway gets up to Creech AFB or even Mercury Highway it should be signed that far.

Fortunately for those who will be planning I-11, the terrain is relatively benign, with no major ridges to cross and no canyons to navigate.  It won't be a walk in the park by any means, but it isn't prohibitive either.

That all the depends on the alignment near the Carson City and Reno area. It's simple if I-11 stays along the US-95 alignment clear up to Fallon, finally jogging over to Fernley and I-80 via US-50A. But that really sucks for Carson City and kind of sucks for Reno. Why bother building I-11 up that way if it follows that route? There are other possible (but not cheap) ways to get I-11 into the Carson City and Reno area in a far more direct path. It would be controversial to bypass Tonopah, but a bunch of miles could be shaved off the path by going South of Montezuma Peak and skirting Silver Peak up to the Western junction of US-95 & US-6. It's possible to punch a highway connection through the mountain range on the West side of Walker Lake. There's a couple different dry creek beds cutting possible paths through there. And a tunnel or two might not be out of the question. Such things exist elsewhere in the Interstate system. That would open a path to Smith Valley and Wellington, then skirt the south edge of the big range East of Carson City. Then it's on to Gardnerville, Minden and the South end of I-580. Then I-11 could cannibalize another I-5XX route through Reno, all the way up to Cold Springs and the California border.

[sparker]

There will always be calls to shift the I-11 alignment west to place the corridor through the growing Gardnerville-Carson City area, obviously entailing some mountainous new-terrain mileage.  However, since the actual route planning will fall to NDOT, an agency by its public nature responsive to state citizenry -- and the perpetual need to economize to stave off public-expenditure naysayers (this is the West, and those tend to reside -- or re-settle -- in the mountain states).  While most armchair planners look to deploy a "connect-the-dots" approach regarding population centers -- and the relatively dense US 395 corridor south of Reno certainly qualifies as an atypical part of the usually sparse NV idiom -- attempting to include that corridor in I-11 plans may be that proverbial "bridge (although tunnel might be a more appropriate term here!) too far" simply because of the N-S orientation of most NV mountain ranges.  Besides, the Fallon area is growing at a rate similar to that of the Carson-Minden-Gardnerville composite area; selecting a markedly more costly corridor alignment bypassing Fallon and vicinity might well result in some political backlash.  The argument would likely cite the presence of I-580 -- and the possibility that it might at some point be extended south to serve the valley south of Carson City (which wouldn't require mountain crossings) -- as providing sufficient egress for that area; and that I-11, as an interregional connector, can't be expected to be all things to all areas.  Once north of Walker Lake, the remainder of the path to I-80, be it via US 95 or Alternate US 50 via Hazen and Fernley, is one of the more benign segments of the entire corridor re construction costs.  That will weigh on the minds of NDOT -- whether to pursue the "perfect" path and spend the considerable $$$ to get I-11 through Carson and vicinity -- or settle for the reasonably efficient "doable" plan via the Fallon flatlands.  If I were to place a bet on the final selection, it would be on the US 95/Fallon option.

   

[michravera]

There will always be calls to shift the I-11 alignment west to place the corridor through the growing Gardnerville-Carson City area, obviously entailing some mountainous new-terrain mileage.  However, since the actual route planning will fall to NDOT, an agency by its public nature responsive to state citizenry -- and the perpetual need to economize to stave off public-expenditure naysayers (this is the West, and those tend to reside -- or re-settle -- in the mountain states).  While most armchair planners look to deploy a "connect-the-dots" approach regarding population centers -- and the relatively dense US 395 corridor south of Reno certainly qualifies as an atypical part of the usually sparse NV idiom -- attempting to include that corridor in I-11 plans may be that proverbial "bridge (although tunnel might be a more appropriate term here!) too far" simply because of the N-S orientation of most NV mountain ranges.  Besides, the Fallon area is growing at a rate similar to that of the Carson-Minden-Gardnerville composite area; selecting a markedly more costly corridor alignment bypassing Fallon and vicinity might well result in some political backlash.  The argument would likely cite the presence of I-580 -- and the possibility that it might at some point be extended south to serve the valley south of Carson City (which wouldn't require mountain crossings) -- as providing sufficient egress for that area; and that I-11, as an interregional connector, can't be expected to be all things to all areas.  Once north of Walker Lake, the remainder of the path to I-80, be it via US 95 or Alternate US 50 via Hazen and Fernley, is one of the more benign segments of the entire corridor re construction costs.  That will weigh on the minds of NDOT -- whether to pursue the "perfect" path and spend the considerable $$$ to get I-11 through Carson and vicinity -- or settle for the reasonably efficient "doable" plan via the Fallon flatlands.  If I were to place a bet on the final selection, it would be on the US 95/Fallon option.

So, I will call the two options "Stay East" along US-95 and "Go West" along US-395/I-580.

The Stay East option, in effect, says that we are going to build I-11 to Boise and we aren't letting a little thing like regional convenience get in our way. It would be far cheaper and we would see the results much sooner, if we just limited access along US-95 and bypassed a few crosswalks.
The Go West option basically says that we already have US-95. If we are going to build anything at all, we may as well build something that recognizes our current and near future need for a route from Reno and Carson City to Las Vegas. Why build anything that doesn't do that for which we perceive the need?

I have, in effect, driven both routes several times. I am not sure what is possible around Walker Lake, but it sure seems to me that, if costs could be contained properly, that the western route going near but around Carson Valley and Minden would have been the greatest convenience.

The biggest problem with US-95 further south is that trucks and small vehicles must share a single lane and that small vehicles traveling in opposite directions get blown off the road by trucks travelling at or just above the legal 70 MPH speed. Divide the road and let everyone legally go 80 or 85 MPH and most of that trouble is over and it won't much matter on the route (as long as it doesn't run right through town in Hawthorne, Nellis, or Tonopah). Easy enough to have an exit that puts you on "Business 11" at each end of town. If you need gas, food, entertainment, to take a dump, or the old in-out, go ahead and drive through town.

[Bobby5280]

US-95 up to Boise is not a high traffic corridor. And it doesn't take anything resembling a direct path to Boise either. The city of Boise has around 220,000 residents. Reno has more people within its city limits and the Reno-Carson City MSA is larger than Boise's MSA.

As it is US-95 doesn't have a lot of traffic on it between Las Vegas and towns like Fallon and Fernley either. There's just no good, direct path between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area. If there was a more direct path I think it would draw quite a bit more traffic and development along the corridor.

Fallon, NV may be growing, but it's still a small town of less than 10,000 people. Fernley is about double that size. I can maybe see some four-laning upgrades on various roads in that area. But it's hardly worth spending the money on an Interstate upgrade if the Interstate ends up serving a very sparse number of people. A pretty significant amount of mileage can be shaved off an I-11 route to the Reno area with some controversial town bypass choices. I mentioned Tonopah earlier. Beatty could be bypassed as well. You could end up with a fairly direct route from Vegas to Reno with some creative highway engineering. US-95 between Vegas and Fernely has a pretty crooked path because it's mostly just a 2-lane highway built to a certain cost saving standard.

[roadfro]

I-215/CC-215 may be a newer highway, but it doesn't follow along the direct path of I-11 like the thru-town routing along US-95/I-515 would. If I-11 is routed along 215 what happens with the segment of 215 past the US-95 interchange on the North side of Vegas? Another little I-215 segment like the existing one?

It's kind of a traditional thing to route 2di Interstate routes thru the center of a city while routing the 3 digit Interstate routes around it. I-11 is initally going to exist as an excruciatingly short Interstate highway stub. Routing it through the middle of Las Vegas would at least give the highway more visibility (which is kind of important for politics).

I'm also not a fan of highways that are going one direction but just change their number past a certain exit while the freeway keeps going. Put I-11 on the 215 loop and there will be a lot of that. It would be more simple and more direct for all routes involved assigning the I-11 designation to US-95/I-515.

If I-11 were to take the 215 option through Las Vegas, then yes, you would end up with an I-215 segment on the North side (but the existing one would be absorbed into I-11).

I realize that 2DIs tend to go through city centers, but it has often been that an outer 3DI route was constructed much later. It's not often that a new 2DI is placed into an existing facility. So there's no reason you can't choose either option in this case. The political narrative and visibility of extending I-11 northwest through Las Vegas end up being the same regardless of which of the two paths are selected.

However, I will grant you that using 215 option will result in at least one (and probably two) "turn off to stay on" situations.

And repeating what I said earlier, I think I-11 should be signed as far North as the freeway runs. If the freeway gets up to Creech AFB or even Mercury Highway it should be signed that far.

Currently, the US 95 freeway section ends at the SR 157 junction, which is at the northwest urban limits of Las Vegas. The SR 157/Kyle Canyon Road junction is an at grade intersection. This junction will be converted to an interchange in the not-too-distant future, but that only extends the freeway north to the Snow Mountain interchange at the Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation. There are several other at grade intersections between there and Mercury.

EDIT: Fixed SR 156 to SR 157

[kkt]

A pretty significant amount of mileage can be shaved off an I-11 route to the Reno area with some controversial town bypass choices. I mentioned Tonopah earlier. Beatty could be bypassed as well. You could end up with a fairly direct route from Vegas to Reno with some creative highway engineering. US-95 between Vegas and Fernely has a pretty crooked path because it's mostly just a 2-lane highway built to a certain cost saving standard.

If it was easy to make a direct alignment between Las Vegas and Carson City/Reno, they would have built at least a 2-lane road that way ages ago.  The bends in the direct path are mostly there so they can go on level ground around mountain ranges.

[sparker]

So, I will call the two options "Stay East" along US-95 and "Go West" along US-395/I-580.

The Stay East option, in effect, says that we are going to build I-11 to Boise and we aren't letting a little thing like regional convenience get in our way. It would be far cheaper and we would see the results much sooner, if we just limited access along US-95 and bypassed a few crosswalks.
The Go West option basically says that we already have US-95. If we are going to build anything at all, we may as well build something that recognizes our current and near future need for a route from Reno and Carson City to Las Vegas. Why build anything that doesn't do that for which we perceive the need?

I have, in effect, driven both routes several times. I am not sure what is possible around Walker Lake, but it sure seems to me that, if costs could be contained properly, that the western route going near but around Carson Valley and Minden would have been the greatest convenience.

The biggest problem with US-95 further south is that trucks and small vehicles must share a single lane and that small vehicles traveling in opposite directions get blown off the road by trucks travelling at or just above the legal 70 MPH speed. Divide the road and let everyone legally go 80 or 85 MPH and most of that trouble is over and it won't much matter on the route (as long as it doesn't run right through town in Hawthorne, Nellis, or Tonopah). Easy enough to have an exit that puts you on "Business 11" at each end of town. If you need gas, food, entertainment, to take a dump, or the old in-out, go ahead and drive through town.

US-95 up to Boise is not a high traffic corridor. And it doesn't take anything resembling a direct path to Boise either. The city of Boise has around 220,000 residents. Reno has more people within its city limits and the Reno-Carson City MSA is larger than Boise's MSA.

As it is US-95 doesn't have a lot of traffic on it between Las Vegas and towns like Fallon and Fernley either. There's just no good, direct path between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area. If there was a more direct path I think it would draw quite a bit more traffic and development along the corridor.

Fallon, NV may be growing, but it's still a small town of less than 10,000 people. Fernley is about double that size. I can maybe see some four-laning upgrades on various roads in that area. But it's hardly worth spending the money on an Interstate upgrade if the Interstate ends up serving a very sparse number of people. A pretty significant amount of mileage can be shaved off an I-11 route to the Reno area with some controversial town bypass choices. I mentioned Tonopah earlier. Beatty could be bypassed as well. You could end up with a fairly direct route from Vegas to Reno with some creative highway engineering. US-95 between Vegas and Fernely has a pretty crooked path because it's mostly just a 2-lane highway built to a certain cost saving standard.

I'm not consigning the north end of I-11 to being simply a Boise-directed corridor as of yet.  The corridor doesn't have to go through Fallon itself; it could veer NNW after Walker Lake or Schurz and hit I-80 right at Fernley; that would provide both a clear path west to Reno or northeast to Winnemucca -- and only then on to Boise.  Frankly, I see any extension of I-11 north of Reno serving central Oregon before Boise; while there is a small level of rumbling emanating from Boise/Treasure Valley due to the relatively rapid increase in population as well as being a growing commercial/distribution center.  But that rumbling has yet to produce a call for an Interstate corridor to the south; until that occurs, US 95 will remain pretty much as is.  OTOH, there seems to be a consensus (from a number of those "armchair planners") that somehow US 97 will figure prominently in I-11 plans.  At present, getting it up to I-80 is the only thing that has any semblance of official sanction -- but the definition of HPC 68, the corridor declared a "future I-11" in 2016, is at best vague and at worst a bit schizophrenic -- since it talks about both I-80 and the existing I-580 (without mentioning the existing designation of the latter, which occurred between the original HPC 68 definition in 2005 and its elevation to a future Interstate eleven years later).  The intent of the corridor legislation isn't at all clear -- which means it's open to interpretation by all, including political sorts who have differing agendas.  It's not a matter of "west" versus "east"; it's a matter of what the corridor is expected to do.  I'm simply taking into consideration the topographic factors that have prevented a direct Vegas-Minden/Gardnerville/Carson alignment -- even a 2-lane conventional facility -- from being constructed to date.  I've driven throught the area several times -- and those mountains are certainly imposing, to say the least!  But I take issue with anyone who would claim that if it doesn't serve Carson City and vicinity, then the whole corridor concept is fatally flawed.  Such a corridor alignment would likely "break the bank", so to speak -- at least in comparison with one that follows a more favorable topography -- like anything intersecting I-80 in the Fernley area. 

BTW, while Fallon itself barely tops 13K at present, much of the regional housing development, including several planned retirement "villages", is sited outside the city limits -- and a lot of it is spread along Alternate US 50 to Fernley, which has its own "mini-boom" occurring because of its location.  It's likely that by the time I-11 construction occurs in the vicinity, the two towns will effectively have grown together, along with Silver Springs to the SW along US 50.   

[Bobby5280]

Currently, the US 95 freeway section ends at the SR 156 junction, which is at the northwest urban limits of Las Vegas. The SR 156/Kyle Canyon Road junction is an at grade intersection. This junction will be converted to an interchange in the not-too-distant future, but that only extends the freeway north to the Snow Mountain interchange at the Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation. There are several other at grade intersections between there and Mercury.

Yes, the US-95 freeway in Vegas currently ends at Kyle Canyon Rd (NV-157). The intersection has enough ROW to fit generous size freeway exit. The next intersection (Paiute Drive) is a freeway exit. From there it's a standard 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections thru Indian Springs/Creech AFB and Cactus Springs. The 4-lane ends at a freeway exit for Mercury Road.

My point of saying I-11 should be signed as such as far as the freeway goes is because all that stuff up to Mercury Road would be relatively easy to upgrade to Interstate standards. There's really no problem at all until US-95 gets to the Gold Center and Beatty area. From there all sorts of tricky choices have to be made on just where I-11 should be built. I think if it follows along every mile of US-95 between Vegas and I-80 then the road will just be a big waste of money.

If it was easy to make a direct alignment between Las Vegas and Carson City/Reno, they would have built at least a 2-lane road that way ages ago.  The bends in the direct path are mostly there so they can go on level ground around mountain ranges.

I never said I-11 would be "easy" to build between Vegas and the Reno area. The route would have to cross hilly or mountainous territory in one or more places depending on the alignment chosen. Other Interstates have been built through mountains before. It's just not the cheapest thing to do so.

The current alignment of US-95 in Nevada was built on a pretty crooked alignment. It doubles up with US-6 from Tonopah to Coaldale for 40 miles. Farther North US-95 doubles up with I-80, going the opposite direction for 95 miles to Winnemucca. The 2-lane route was built how it is, with all its multiplexes, turns and what not to save money. It would have been totally possible for them to build US-95 or another 2-lane route more direct to the Reno-Carson City area. They just didn't want to spend the money that it would have required to go through difficult terrain. And to minimize any political fallout they made sure to connect US-95 to as many little towns along the way. Interstate highways aren't really meant to do that. They're supposed to be more direct, efficient paths between destinations of greater significance.

That's the other thing that makes I-11 to the Reno-Carson City area not easy. Politics. If NDOT is willing to bypass Tonopah & Goldfield about 30 miles can be shaved off the route saved right there. About 10 miles could be shaved off the route bypassing Beatty. Both bypasses can be done without having to go through difficult territory. From the Western junction of US-6 & US-95 at Coaldale I-11 would need to follow along US-95 up to Walker Lake. That mountain range next to the lake is an obstacle that would have to be crossed to get I-11 up into Carson City. But I think it's possible to do it. From there it's on West to the Smith Valley & Wellington area and then on up to Gardnerville, Minden, Carson City and Reno.

[sparker]

The above concept seems like a giant S-curve starting near Huntington, going past Walker Lake (it would be simpler to take a freeway alignment around the east side of the lake following the RR tracks), and then skirting the north end of the Wassuk mountain range (the one directly west of Walker Lake) and bypassing Yerington to the south, then essentially following NV 208 WSW over to US 395 before heading north through Gardnerville before reaching Carson City and I-580.  If some efficiencies can be made regarding cutoffs to avoid as much backtracking as possible -- and if the $$ can be found for the additional construction costs intrinsic to deploying a freeway through the Walker River canyon -- the concept might be doable -- but it adds considerable miles to the through Las Vegas-Reno routing compared with a route through the Fallon valley and ending up in Fernley, as previously discussed.  It'll all probably come down to the political and fiscal mood within NV at the time the corridor locations are finalized -- whether to divert I-11 to serve a more populous area or take the cheaper and more geographically efficient route.

[Bobby5280]

The conceptual route I described is not a big "S" curve. It's about as straight a route that can be managed between Vegas and Reno without hitting park land, tribal reservation land and military land. It's certainly far less crooked than the existing US-95 alignment. But it would be politically controversial for the towns it would bypass.

One problem with routing I-11 on the East side of Walker Lake is it would require I-11 to cut through secure areas of the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot and then the Walker Indian Reservation on the North side of the lake. The reservation could be a really difficult political obstacle. Going around the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake would force a lot of out of the way back-tracking. Routing I-11 along Alt US-95 to Yerrington would add over 30 miles to the route by the time I-11 got back down to Wellington for a South approach into Carson City. That's opposed to pushing I-11 West through the mountains next to Walker Lake directly over to Wellington.

[roadfro]

If it was easy to make a direct alignment between Las Vegas and Carson City/Reno, they would have built at least a 2-lane road that way ages ago.  The bends in the direct path are mostly there so they can go on level ground around mountain ranges.

The current alignment of US-95 in Nevada was built on a pretty crooked alignment. It doubles up with US-6 from Tonopah to Coaldale for 40 miles. Farther North US-95 doubles up with I-80, going the opposite direction for 95 miles to Winnemucca. The 2-lane route was built how it is, with all its multiplexes, turns and what not to save money. It would have been totally possible for them to build US-95 or another 2-lane route more direct to the Reno-Carson City area. They just didn't want to spend the money that it would have required to go through difficult terrain. And to minimize any political fallout they made sure to connect US-95 to as many little towns along the way. Interstate highways aren't really meant to do that. They're supposed to be more direct, efficient paths between destinations of greater significance.

For historical context: When US 95 was extended south from Idaho and Oregon through Nevada circa 1940, it was routed along several preexisting state highways. These state highways connected several of the towns and settlements of western Nevada–some of which no longer exist, such as Coaldale (US 6 & 95 western junction) and Millers (which was located where the NDOT rest area north of Tonopah is now). So this explains some of the jogs of US 95.

Also note that 95 was extended through Nevada at a time where much of the state highway network (particularly through central Nevada) had yet to be paved, so that routing of US 95 was the best improved alignment upon which the route could be routed (it was the only paved route north/south in that part of the state at the time). It wasn't really a matter of not wanting to spend money...the state was still completing its highway network (a task not substantially completed until the 1970s) and didn't really have the money to be spending on forging highways through mountains.

[US 89]

Also note that 95 was extended through Nevada at a time where much of the state highway network (particularly through central Nevada) had yet to be paved, so that routing of US 95 was the best improved alignment upon which the route could be routed (it was the only paved route north/south in that part of the state at the time). It wasn’t really a matter of not wanting to spend money...the state was still completing its highway network (a task not substantially completed until the 1970s) and didn’t really have the money to be spending on forging highways through mountains.

Is that also why US 93 goes through Caliente and Pioche instead of being routed on NV 318?

[Bobby5280]

Also note that 95 was extended through Nevada at a time where much of the state highway network (particularly through central Nevada) had yet to be paved, so that routing of US 95 was the best improved alignment upon which the route could be routed (it was the only paved route north/south in that part of the state at the time). It wasn't really a matter of not wanting to spend money...the state was still completing its highway network (a task not substantially completed until the 1970s) and didn't really have the money to be spending on forging highways through mountains.

That kind of backs up what I was saying earlier about US-95 being built to a certain economy, what the state could afford to build at the time rather than something state of the art.

If Carson City and the towns South of it are not a priority to include in I-11, making Reno the main focus, then it could make sense to put Fallon in the I-11 alignment. But not by way of Walker Lake. That adds a lot of unneccesary milage.

For a Reno priority route I would have I-11 go up to Tonopah (bypassing the town just to the West) and then go near/parallel to Gabbs Pole Line Road for 58 miles, unless Pole Line Road starts bending up to NV-361. I would just have I-11 keep following that diagonal line through mostly flat valley territory. It would cross NV-31 just North of the Rawhide Landing Strip, skirting a large open pit mine. I-11 could continue through the flat valley until meeting US-95 near the South boundary of the Fallon Naval Air Station. But that would mean crossing the NE corner of the Walker River Indian Reservation. Fallon could be bypassed on its SW side. I-11 wouldn't be able to join the existing US-50 alignment to Fernley and I-80 until it passed the US-50/US-50A intersection.

[sparker]

The conceptual route I described is not a big "S" curve. It's about as straight a route that can be managed between Vegas and Reno without hitting park land, tribal reservation land and military land. It's certainly far less crooked than the existing US-95 alignment. But it would be politically controversial for the towns it would bypass.

One problem with routing I-11 on the East side of Walker Lake is it would require I-11 to cut through secure areas of the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot and then the Walker Indian Reservation on the North side of the lake. The reservation could be a really difficult political obstacle. Going around the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake would force a lot of out of the way back-tracking. Routing I-11 along Alt US-95 to Yerrington would add over 30 miles to the route by the time I-11 got back down to Wellington for a South approach into Carson City. That's opposed to pushing I-11 West through the mountains next to Walker Lake directly over to Wellington.

Actually, I looked at GE again -- and there is a relatively low-altitude passage through the north end of the Wassuks that stays under about 6.7K foot altitude (the peaks here top out a little over 10K), it more or less stays between 38 degrees 50 minutes north and 38 degrees and 53 minutes north and comes out on the south side of the Yerington valley near where NV 208 makes its western turn toward Wellington.  That might itself be a feasible way to get a I-11 corridor over to US 395 (without having to go through CA and deal with that level of B.S.); it would require some tricky alignment through the Walker River canyon below Topaz Lake, but that doesn't present near the level of issues & expense that something through a high-altitude ridge would incur (Big Bertha, meet your new home!).  So, Bobby, you might be on to something here! 

Actually -- regarding the Hawthorne ammo depot and the east side of Walker Lake -- if the above concept is ignored down the line by NDOT for whatever reason (likely $$$), keeping the corridor on the NE side of the existing rail line (the depot facilities are on the SW side; the line was specifically realigned before WWII to serve the depot) would keep it out of the depot itself as well as provide an easy passage along the east side of the lake following the RR line.  As for the Walker reservation -- it would pose something of an issue -- whether the tribal government would be amenable to a freeway along US 95 is yet TBD -- since the whole I-11 corridor concept wasn't written into law until 2016, it's unlikely that the "nuts & bolts" of any specific alignment, including the political aspects, have been addressed as of yet.  But any basic alignment concept -- how many of US 95's corners will be cut off, whether to try to address the Carson valley, or whether to take the simple way out and shoot it up to Fernley are things NDOT will have to work out over time.  My guess is that they'll have at least 15-20 years to do just that.

P.S. -- just read the addendum about the Gabbs routing -- that might be an option, if Hawthorne folks don't start whining about the Interstate they won't have -- or the Army whips out the "defense" card regarding having an Interstate corridor near their facility.  It's likely getting the corridor up to Tonopah won't involve a lot of controversy; but the rest of the way might really get tricky if specific parties go on the record as either wanting or not wanting a new Interstate corridor in their midst -- and that combined concept doesn't neatly line up efficiently!  And if everyone north of Tonopah wants it -- then some hard decisions will be forthcoming!  This whole I-11 process should be both interesting (and to policy wonks, entertaining!).       

[Bobby5280]

For I-11 to get into Carson City, Minden and Gardnerville from the South via the US-395 corridor pushing I-11 through the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake is the key. It can't happen otherwise. Bypasses of other towns along US-95 in order to further straighten the route would be additional make or break factors.

At this point it's not even clear where the powers that be want I-11 to go in the Northwestern US. I suppose a corridor up to Boise is a possibility, but as an Interstate getting to Boise from Vegas would work a whole lot better and faster via US-93 on the East side of Nevada rather than going West and doing hundreds upon hundreds of miles worth of NE bound back-tracking just to get to Boise.

IMHO, I-11 was envisioned as an alternate major NAFTA highway serving coastal states. It would bypass the traffic clusterf*** in California, serve the growing metro regions in Nevada and serve cities in Oregon and Washington state far bigger than Boise, Idaho. If the choice was up to me I'd have I-11 follow US-395 into Northern California and then follow one of a few possible routes at dove-tailing into the I-5 corridor.