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

707

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.


NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Bickendan

I'm gonna need a citation for said plan or I'm going to shuffle this to Fictional.

707

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.

Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kkt

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.

707

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.

Sub-Urbanite

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.

texaskdog

as long as it hooks up to and encompasses I-82 to Seattle it would be cool, or turn over toward SF.

NE2

"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".
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

kkt

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

myosh_tino

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: 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.

707

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.

vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mcarling

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

707

#15
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.

doorknob60

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.

707

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.

Sub-Urbanite

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.

kkt

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.

OCGuy81

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.

Sub-Urbanite

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.

vdeane

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?).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

corco

#23
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.


mcarling

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



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.