Interstate 11

[kkt]

Plus, it would give a more direct interstate route from Las Vegas to Northern California (Sacramento, Bay Area, etc.).

Ummm... I don't think so.

As someone who makes that drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Las Vegas at least once a year, the route you propose is hardly a "direct" route.  The direct route from anywhere in central California is to take either I-5 or CA-99 south to Bakersfield, turn east on CA-58 to Barstow and then head north on I-15 to Las Vegas.  I'll concede that this route is not an all-freeway route but it is the shortest and probably the fastest route even if a freeway is built between Las Vegas and Reno.

This.

Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.

Even if it wasn't protected land, it would be the stupidest interstate route ever.  There's a reason Tioga Pass is closed six months of the year, and it's not that Caltrans is lazy.

[roadfro]

I wonder though if an I-11 from Las Vegas to Reno/Carson City would stimulate traffic and development in that corridor (as if the desert really needs that much more development). Reno is a very fast-growing city. Plus, it would give a more direct interstate route from Las Vegas to Northern California (Sacramento, Bay Area, etc.).

That stretch is not exactly in a situation to stimulate economic development or traffic. The majority of the towns between Las Vegas and Reno have populations well under 10,000 (only Fernley is above, and that would not be on a proposed I-11 routed through Carson City).

All these towns have little industry to offer other than tourism, mining and farming/ranching. Even Hawthorne, with an US Army munitions depot, only has about 3k-4k population. Fallon, with the Naval Air Station, has about 8k population (that town would also be bypassed by an I-11 passing through Carson City).

The Vegas to Reno corridor is not really in need of development. With some scarce water resources, most of these towns have little resources to expand anyway.

[Grzrd]

The "Draft I-11 Corridor Justification Report" has been released for public review:

http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/I11_CJR_07_02_13_DRAFT.pdf

[nexus73]

LV to Reno could be upgraded as 395 between I-15 and the Cal-Nev border has been done to a better-than-average expressway capable of being driven at 80+.  Toss in a few interchanges as needed and voila, there's your Nevada main connector N-S route without undue expense and more safety for all concerned. 

Rick

[Rover_0]

LV to Reno could be upgraded as 395 between I-15 and the Cal-Nev border has been done to a better-than-average expressway capable of being driven at 80+.  Toss in a few interchanges as needed and voila, there's your Nevada main connector N-S route without undue expense and more safety for all concerned. 

Rick

Are you referring to US-395 north of, south of, or on both sides of the NV/CA border?

Assuming you're talking about both sides of, the southern section of US-395 in California is largely divided, using an upgraded CA-58 and US-395 as part of a Las Vegas/Reno connector isn't a terrible idea. The question is, how much longer would it be than a hypothetical upgraded US-95? Would you then have a 100-plus-mile wrong-way concurrency with I-15, or would US-395 become I-9?

[TheStranger]

LV to Reno could be upgraded as 395 between I-15 and the Cal-Nev border has been done to a better-than-average expressway capable of being driven at 80+.  Toss in a few interchanges as needed and voila, there's your Nevada main connector N-S route without undue expense and more safety for all concerned. 

Rick

Are you referring to US-395 north of, south of, or on both sides of the NV/CA border?

Assuming you're talking about both sides of, the southern section of US-395 in California is largely divided, using an upgraded CA-58 and US-395 as part of a Las Vegas/Reno connector isn't a terrible idea. The question is, how much longer would it be than a hypothetical upgraded US-95? Would you then have a 100-plus-mile wrong-way concurrency with I-15, or would US-395 become I-9?

The US 95/Alt US 50/I-80 route to Reno is 452 miles, while I-15 to Route 58 to US 395 is 568 miles (and two hours longer).

[NE2]

On the other hand, cutting over to Bishop from US 95 is only 475 miles.

[kkt]

The "Draft I-11 Corridor Justification Report" has been released for public review:

http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/I11_CJR_07_02_13_DRAFT.pdf

And what a bunch of BS it is... talking about economic development in general while dancing around that the traffic volumes on US 93 do not justify an interstate now or in the reasonably near future.

[andy3175]

Additionally, it appears some in Tucson desire a southerly extension of Interstate 11 into their city:

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/tucson-may-see-another-interstate/article_826cbc8a-059d-5e30-b25e-613adc5e6a7d.html

A new interstate could loop around Tucson's west side if local officials can marshal community support.

The southern end of the proposed Interstate 11, which would become part of the Canamex trade corridor, initially was to stop in Casa Grande.

The assumption was that Pima County's 2007 resolution opposing a bypass highway to accommodate freight trucks meant excluding Pima County.

That resolution stemmed from environmental concerns because the previously proposed routes ran through the Avra, San Pedro or Aravaipa valleys.

But the combination of an economic crisis, Mexico's booming manufacturing industry, renewed interest in creating a regional distribution hub and an environmentally friendly route could wipe out that opposition. At least that's what county officials are hoping as they prepare to present a proposed Interstate 11 route in Southern Arizona.

Its 56-mile Pima County path would loop west, behind the Tucson Mountains and the San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation, then connect to I-19 near Sahuarita. From there, it would veer east as part of the proposed Aerospace Parkway on the city's southeast side and connect to I-10 near Rita Road, where the University of Arizona Tech Park, Port of Tucson and Target Fulfillment Center are located.

Southbound exports could travel I-19 to Mexico and - from the Port of Guaymas - to markets in Latin America, Europe and Asia.

"The current corridor is as good as it's going to get without double-decking it," John Moffatt, director of strategic planning for Pima County, said of the I-10 segment that runs through the city.

Regards,
Andy

[Henry]

Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.

Which will never, ever happen for obvious reasons.

[NE2]

Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.

Which will never, ever happen for obvious reasons.

Those reasons being that you and FritzOwl disagree on which side of the valley it uses?

[Brandon]

Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.

Which will never, ever happen for obvious reasons.

Those reasons being that you and FritzOwl disagree on which side of the valley it uses?

Run it up the Hetch Hetchy.  Ten lanes per direction might just do it. 

[Revive 755]

As someone who makes that drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Las Vegas at least once a year, the route you propose is hardly a "direct" route.  The direct route from anywhere in central California is to take either I-5 or CA-99 south to Bakersfield, turn east on CA-58 to Barstow and then head north on I-15 to Las Vegas.  I'll concede that this route is not an all-freeway route but it is the shortest and probably the fastest route even if a freeway is built between Las Vegas and Reno.

Hmm, looks like another reason to support upgrading CA 58 into an extension of I-40

Additionally, it appears some in Tucson desire a southerly extension of Interstate 11 into their city:

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/tucson-may-see-another-interstate/article_826cbc8a-059d-5e30-b25e-613adc5e6a7d.html

This idea would be better numbered using a northern extension/relocation of I-19 and a new three digit route.

[kkt]

Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di.  What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?

[mapman1071]

Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di.  What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?

Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.

[Rover_0]

If they're going to do that, why not make I-11 an I-19 extension? Sure, it may be west of I-17, but why not go all-out and use a single number to Las Vegas if they want the Canamex corridor?

The current segment from I-10 down to the proposed I-11 junction becomes something like I-119 while the proposed segment from current I-19 to I-10 becomes something like I-910.

Heck, this could also be a way to make I-17 and I-19 the same route (I-11 would remain).

[vdeane]

Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di.  What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?

Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.

Given that the interstate system was decoupled from funding mechanisms a while ago, I don't think that's a problem any more.

[NE2]

Given that there's no 100% federal funding for re-signing a state route as an Interstate, I think that's still a problem.

[kkt]

Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di.  What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?

Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.

If they're not going to use federal money, they don't really need interstate numbers, do they?

[Brandon]

Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di.  What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?

Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.

If they're not going to use federal money, they don't really need interstate numbers, do they?

Never stopped Illinois.  We have one assigned a number before completion as a tollway (I-355).  They also want an interstate number for what will be another tollway (West O'Hare ByPass).

[Rover_0]

Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di.  What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?

Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.

If they're not going to use federal money, they don't really need interstate numbers, do they?

Never stopped Illinois.  We have one assigned a number before completion as a tollway (I-355).  They also want an interstate number for what will be another tollway (West O'Hare ByPass).

Agreed. As I've said before, there's nothing really stopping Arizona from pursuing potential 3di designations should this new road reach Tucson. Of course, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping Arizona from making I-11 (besides the portion east of current I-19) an extension of I-19 or from using this proposed freeway to Tucson to merge I-17 and I-19.

[ethanhopkin14]

If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!

[Rover_0]

If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!

Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?

[ethanhopkin14]

If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!

Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?

Yeah but I-2 is not technically a spur, at least it has a bigger idea.  But it is not a violation. 

[agentsteel53]

why is I-2 a violation?  as far as I can tell, it is south of I-4.