Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

U.S. 95 (Nevada)

<< < (3/3)

I think some here have miss understood what I was saying here.  First I only meant upgrading the existing expressway into a freeway.  After Mercury (where it currently ends) the road would continue as a two lane highway like it does now.  And the road would be still be signed as U.S. 95.

I understood what you were saying AZDude.

I would still argue that any new interchanges north of SR 156/Lee Canyon Rd would be highly unnecessary as the traffic volumes don't justify it.  Also, converting the existing divided highway to a freeway would require bypasses to be built around Indian Springs and Cactus Springs since the divide highway runs right through the middle of these small towns.

"If attitudes towards wasting money on "Interstates in desert regions" existed in the 1950s, much of the current Interstate system in the western US would still be two lane US-xx highway

The environmentalism and anti-tax sentiments that started in the 1970's, working in concert with each other (though both sides are loathe to admit it), served a beneficial purpose. Those two widely-reviled philosophies forced planners to consider limits (economic, environmental, and cultural) to available resources in their planning.

This is why even in Texas, you are seeing considerable resistance to big footprints for transporation corridors (i.e. the newly-killed off Trans-Texas Corridor).  Right now, the only new Interstate that has new terrain factored into planning is the extension of I-69, and that's a dead project walking.  In fact, the one thing that's going to kill off I-69 before anything else is the developing lack of justification, on economic grounds, for the extension.

Be careful about making statements like "forward-thinking," as you don't know how forward-thinking has gone through great changes over time. Take it from this "Native Roadgeeking Son of the Great Plains:" Cost-Benefit Analysis is good for you, and for everyone.


--- Quote ---Many here have commented about the "waste" of money to build future Interstates in desert and low populated regions in the intermountain west.  My contention is you build them now to fill future needs.  Far too many people are not forward looking enough to see that many corridors of proposed and fictional Interstates some of us would like to see built would make sense as population growth occurs over the next 50 years.
--- End quote ---

Frankly the Great Basin doesn't have the water resources to sustain a population boom in central Nevada- it's probably not ever going to happen


--- Quote from: corco ---Frankly the Great Basin doesn't have the water resources to sustain a population boom in central Nevada- it's probably not ever going to happen
--- End quote ---

Yeah, and the Great Basin definitely doesn't have the water resources to supplement Las Vegas' water problems either...but they're planning a pipeline anyway.  But that discussion is diverging from the original topic.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version