Another bureaucratic step toward a future extension of I-11 from Las Vegas to Reno.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/house-panel-backs-northern-extension-interstate-11
MOD NOTE: Changed message icon and thread title, to reflect additional content and developing discussion. --Roadfro
Do existing traffic demands require an Interstate 11 extension to from Las Vegas to Reno? I am somewhat skeptical.
Looking at Nevada from Google Maps, it'd be hard to do. US 95 is the direct route, but you miss Reno by 60 miles. Another way is to have California step in, in my opinion. It can't go west past Coaldale, as there are mountains there. But I think I found a way. It's flat land northwest in the Walker River Reservation at a town called Schurz. It'd take a northwest path there, directly to Reno. Here's what I'm using to refer to:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nevada/@39.2296726,-119.420746,109971m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80990aa1f8deb471:0xcf47038aaafc95b3
Reno is in the top left, and Schurz is near what looks like green/brown mountains. It's a direct northwest path to connect those two over flat land.
The route between Las Vegas and Reno has not be decided yet. There is some sentiment to try to go via Carson City and incorporate the existing I-580 between Carson City and Reno. That would go via Schurz and Yerington and follow route 50 to Carson City.
If I-11 were to terminate at Reno, AADT would probably be low for an Interstate. However, if it were extended north from Reno through Susanville to Klamath Falls, Bend, Redmond, and Yakima, it would become the preferred route for Phoenix/Las Vegas to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
Do existing traffic demands require an Interstate 11 extension to from Las Vegas to Reno? I am somewhat skeptical.
Existing traffic demands have very little to do with any part of I-11.
Quote from: mcarling on November 06, 2015, 07:37:33 PM
If I-11 were to terminate at Reno, AADT would probably be low for an Interstate. However, if it were extended north from Reno through Susanville to Klamath Falls, Bend, Redmond, and Yakima, it would become the preferred route for Phoenix/Las Vegas to Portland/Seattle/Vancouver.
The 2-lane roads that are the direct route between Las Vegas and Portland are already the preferred route, and it's a rare thing to take your cruise control off.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
Do existing traffic demands require an Interstate 11 extension to from Las Vegas to Reno? I am somewhat skeptical.
Not really. Given that most of the route is two-lane US highway, it's not really necessary from the current traffic volumes.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 06, 2015, 06:10:22 PM
Looking at Nevada from Google Maps, it'd be hard to do. US 95 is the direct route, but you miss Reno by 60 miles. Another way is to have California step in, in my opinion. It can't go west past Coaldale, as there are mountains there. But I think I found a way. It's flat land northwest in the Walker River Reservation at a town called Schurz. It'd take a northwest path there, directly to Reno. Here's what I'm using to refer to:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nevada/@39.2296726,-119.420746,109971m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80990aa1f8deb471:0xcf47038aaafc95b3
Reno is in the top left, and Schurz is near what looks like green/brown mountains. It's a direct northwest path to connect those two over flat land.
Look again. There is not a direct, flat path between Schurz and Reno. If there was, a road would exist on that path by now (since it would cut the distance to Reno significantly).
Heading northwest from Schurz, it's relatively easy to go northwest to Yerington and Silver Springs. But once you get up to US 50, there are mountains that are not easy to get through to go straight to Reno–USA Parkway (SR 439) will be the first paved road to cut through that mountain barrier, but even still that comes out 15-ish miles east of Reno on I-80.
That is the routing that I've been eyeing over the past few years, too. As for the 'Why no road through there now?' thing? Perhaps there was no demand for roads in that corridor when they were first laid out - Las Vegas and Phoenix were essentially not there a century+ ago (also see: 'I-70 in Utah').
Mike
Quote from: roadfro on November 06, 2015, 11:46:39 PM
There is not a direct, flat path between Schurz and Reno. If there was, a road would exist on that path by now (since it would cut the distance to Reno significantly).
Heading northwest from Schurz, it's relatively easy to go northwest to Yerington and Silver Springs. But once you get up to US 50, there are mountains that are not easy to get through to go straight to Reno–USA Parkway (SR 439) will be the first paved road to cut through that mountain barrier, but even still that comes out 15-ish miles east of Reno on I-80.
I can imagine a route via Schurz and Yerington that goes west of Churchill Butte to join US 50 near Stagecoach (rather than following US 95A to Silver Springs), then following US 50 to Carson City, and reaching Reno via I-580. There is presently an unpaved road going NNW from Yerington that stops at the Carson River near where the (stranded?) Southwest Airlines 737 is visible in Google Earth. 39.17.40N 119.21.0W
Waste of time and money.
Bring it up again when Reno has 2 million people, Nevada.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
Do existing traffic demands require an Interstate 11 extension to from Las Vegas to Reno? I am somewhat skeptical.
Two words: Induced demand
My personal preferred route was to cut west from Lida Junction, across Deep Springs Valley and the White Mountains, joining up with (already 4-laned) 395 near Big Pine.
But since I don't have an extra $10 billion hanging around, and neither does Caltrans, I'll have to live with whatever NDOT gives me. Some day. After we raise the federal gas tax to match inflation.
Quote from: NickCPDX on November 15, 2015, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:09:04 PM
Do existing traffic demands require an Interstate 11 extension to from Las Vegas to Reno? I am somewhat skeptical.
Two words: Induced demand
Induced demand is caused by people who were staying home due to congestion start making trips due to an increase in capacity. US 95 is currently a VERY desolate, wide open road that is already rather wide for its current traffic counts. And, despite perception, just slapping an interstate shield down doesn't do much to spur development (which Vegas doesn't need help with anyways); NY's Southern Tier learned that the hard way with I-86.
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2015, 01:32:41 PM
Induced demand is caused by people who were staying home due to congestion start making trips due to an increase in capacity. US 95 is currently a VERY desolate, wide open road that is already rather wide for its current traffic counts. And, despite perception, just slapping an interstate shield down doesn't do much to spur development (which Vegas doesn't need help with anyways); NY's Southern Tier learned that the hard way with I-86.
From your "rather wide for its current traffic counts" comment, I'm not sure if you've driven US 95 all the way between Las Vegas and northern Nevada, or if you were being sarcastic.
While US 95 is 4-lane divided leaving north out of Las Vegas, that lasts less than 50 miles. From the Mercury interchange north, it's all two-lane highway (except in major towns).
FWIW: While I would love to see an interstate along this corridor, I also realize that the northern extension seems rather impractical at the present time (or for the next decade at least).
Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2015, 04:08:21 PMI also realize that the northern extension seems rather impractical at the present time (or for the next decade at least).
No one is expecting I-11 between Las Vegas and Reno to open in the next ten years. I'm cautiously optimistic that I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas will be completed by 2025. I hope that I-11 between Las Vegas and Reno might be completed by 2035. I don't expect there to be agreement on a route before 2020.
Quote from: NickCPDX on November 15, 2015, 10:01:50 PMAfter we raise the federal gas tax to match inflation.
I don't think the federal gas tax will be increased any time soon. I think responsibility for funding highways will gradually shift to the states and that state gas taxes will increase.
Washington doesn't spend money where it is most needed. Rather Washington spends money where the powerful politicians live.
Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2015, 04:08:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2015, 01:32:41 PM
Induced demand is caused by people who were staying home due to congestion start making trips due to an increase in capacity. US 95 is currently a VERY desolate, wide open road that is already rather wide for its current traffic counts. And, despite perception, just slapping an interstate shield down doesn't do much to spur development (which Vegas doesn't need help with anyways); NY's Southern Tier learned that the hard way with I-86.
From your "rather wide for its current traffic counts" comment, I'm not sure if you've driven US 95 all the way between Las Vegas and northern Nevada, or if you were being sarcastic.
While US 95 is 4-lane divided leaving north out of Las Vegas, that lasts less than 50 miles. From the Mercury interchange north, it's all two-lane highway (except in major towns).
FWIW: While I would love to see an interstate along this corridor, I also realize that the northern extension seems rather impractical at the present time (or for the next decade at least).
Felt like it was longer on Google Maps. Even so, it's still pretty desolate.
Just plain silly.
Not every two dots on the map need an Interstate between them, particularly when half of the few dots along most of the route between them are uninhabited "named places."
Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2015, 04:08:21 PM
While US 95 is 4-lane divided leaving north out of Las Vegas, that lasts less than 50 miles. From the Mercury interchange north, it's all two-lane highway (except in major towns).
What are these "major towns" of which you speak? Tonopah? C'mon. In between the suburbs of Reno and the suburbs of Las Vegas, there are no major towns. Just little ones.
Quote from: kkt on November 16, 2015, 11:39:49 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2015, 04:08:21 PM
While US 95 is 4-lane divided leaving north out of Las Vegas, that lasts less than 50 miles. From the Mercury interchange north, it's all two-lane highway (except in major towns).
What are these "major towns" of which you speak? Tonopah? C'mon. In between the suburbs of Reno and the suburbs of Las Vegas, there are no major towns. Just little ones.
Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon (or Yerington, if you take 95A), Fernley. Not sure what your definition of "town" is...
In the context of this drive, these "major towns" are the only major places along that drive where you can stop to eat and/or get gas from at least one national chain. They are often the only places that have decent hotel/motel lodging as well. All have a population of at least 1000 people; and with the exception of Beatty and Fernley, they are also the county seats. Fallon and Fernley are incorporated cities.
So no, not necessarily in dire need of an Interstate highway to connect them. But all are important to regional travel as the only major populated locale in their areas of the state.
Quote from: roadfro on November 17, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon (or Yerington, if you take 95A), Fernley.
And I'll say it ... the local police and the NHP
love enforcing the 25mph speed limits in each of these places (and especially also in Goldfield). And the 35mph limits on either side of the town. And the 45mph limits, which seem to stretch out for-fricking-ever beyond any actual population.
There are towns around here that are much larger than those listed and don't even have Thruway exits despite it going right through the middle.
As Harry Caray would say, Holy cow!
I'm not the least bit surprised that they're pushing for an I-11 extension from Las Vegas to Reno, at a time when most of the route to Phoenix hasn't been built yet! At least it would be on the right side of I-15 if it went to Reno.
Quote from: Henry on November 18, 2015, 12:05:32 PM
I'm not the least bit surprised that they're pushing for an I-11 extension from Las Vegas to Reno, at a time when most of the route to Phoenix hasn't been built yet!
Of course! I think the goal may be to have a route chosen for Las Vegas to Reno by the time Phoenix to Las Vegas will have been completed. That would require pushing the idea now. Any possible construction of I-11 between Las Vegas and Phoenix is far in the future.
Even if the Reno/Sparks/Carson City area will still have a population of less than one million, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Bend, Redmond, and Seattle are all growing rapidly. Reno and Portland have some growth too.
Seattle to Las Vegas is 1100 miles. In the 21st century, most people fly distances over about 600 miles (a long day's drive).
Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2015, 03:38:20 PM
Seattle to Las Vegas is 1100 miles. In the 21st century, most people fly distances over about 600 miles (a long day's drive).
There are plenty of people who drive from New England, NY, NJ, the Midwest and Canadian provinces to Florida. Well over 600 miles.
For one person, flying can be cheaper..but bringing a family of 3 or 4 gets expensive to fly, the cost of car rental, the potential for delays from weather (especially in winter), being beholden to an airline schedule, the general hassles of flying.. TSA, cost for checking bags etc all make driving look better than a flight.
Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2015, 03:38:20 PM
Seattle to Las Vegas is 1100 miles. In the 21st century, most people fly distances over about 600 miles (a long day's drive).
When I'm traveling from Portland to St. George alone, I fly.
When I'm doing it with a family member, I still get in the car and set the cruise control at 80.
I sometimes drive and sometimes fly between Portland and Las Vegas ... depending on what I'm taking with me and other factors.
Quote from: Kniwt on November 17, 2015, 05:48:22 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 17, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon (or Yerington, if you take 95A), Fernley.
And I'll say it ... the local police and the NHP love enforcing the 25mph speed limits in each of these places (and especially also in Goldfield). And the 35mph limits on either side of the town. And the 45mph limits, which seem to stretch out for-fricking-ever beyond any actual population.
And many of those limits are unreasonable. Even through the center of towns like Tonopah, with two lanes in each direction and roadside businesses, the street has the feel of 35 or 40, not 25.
A definite ticket trap.
US 95 through Tonopah, you should be through it in 6 minutes, according to Goog.
I should be through it in 2 minutes at 80 mph on a shiny new interstate bypass, according to me and my dream world where we actually can afford infrastructure.
If we had a fully funded system this wouldn't be an Interstate, so you might need to expand your dream to a world in which there's more money than sense.
Quote from: NickCPDX on November 23, 2015, 05:58:02 PM
I should be through it in 2 minutes at 80 mph on a shiny new interstate bypass, according to me and my dream world where we actually can afford infrastructure.
So the AADT of US 95 before and after Tonopah is 5600... so the annual is about 2 million... so the time wasted spent going through town is 8 million minutes per year...
New bypass is maybe 5 miles @5M per mile, so we'd be paying $25M, design life of the structure is 25 years... $1 M per year, not including complicating factors like interest.
$1M for 8 million minutes saved, 12.5 cents per minute.
What other projects in Nevada would have a better payoff?
"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.
Oh heck, build I-11 to Nome and run it under the sea to connect with the Putin Parkway...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: kkt on November 23, 2015, 06:42:28 PM
So the AADT of US 95 before and after Tonopah is 5600... so the annual is about 2 million... so the time wasted spent going through town is 8 million minutes per year...
New bypass is maybe 5 miles @5M per mile, so we'd be paying $25M, design life of the structure is 25 years... $1 M per year, not including complicating factors like interest.
$1M for 8 million minutes saved, 12.5 cents per minute.
What other projects in Nevada would have a better payoff?
The other factor is that Interstates are much safer than single carriageways. In the US, a statistical life is generally considered to be worth about $2-3 million. Opportunities to save statistical lives at $2M each are generally considered worthwhile expenditures. Over about $3M per statistical life, there are better alternative ways to save more lives for less money. So one needs to consider the construction cost against all the benefits, including time saved, lives saved, and reduced traffic on alternative routes.
If I-11 will be built to Reno and then onward past Susanville, Klamath Falls, and Bend to Yakima before the next major Cascadia Subduction Earthquake, then people will respectively see I-11 as very wise. Prior to the next major Cascadia Subduction Earthquake, I-11 north of Reno will be widely seen as a waste of money, whether built or merely proposed.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.
I agree. I believe that building a full interstate along US 95 is probably unnecessary. The roadway should be improved to a divided 4-lane roadway with intersections, with small sections of freeway to bypass towns along the way. The goal should be a road similar to US 101 along California's central coast.
Pfft. I drove through Tonopah coming from the east on US 6 and continuing on US 6/US 95. There's no need for a bypass or four-laning anything out there. Heck, I was able to stop the car in the middle of the road and take pictures of the scenery for at least ten minutes at a time and I still only moved because I was done and not because another vehicle was coming my way. There just isn't anyone out there to benefit from any major increase in transportation spending.
I'll put it this way: NY has a hard enough time justifying the conversion of NY 17 to I-86. The idea of converting anything out in the boondocks of NV to some four-laned highway just seems absurd.
At 5600 AADT it doesn't even need 4 lanes. Nevada should save its money or spend it where it's needed, in rapidly growing cities. If they want to think ahead, they could maybe reserve ROW for a bypass 40 years from now when the AADT might justify it, if the aquifers aren't dry first.
Quote from: mrsman on November 24, 2015, 05:57:23 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.
I agree. I believe that building a full interstate along US 95 is probably unnecessary. The roadway should be improved to a divided 4-lane roadway with intersections, with small sections of freeway to bypass towns along the way. The goal should be a road similar to US 101 along California's central coast.
Quote from: kkt on November 24, 2015, 11:54:42 AM
At 5600 AADT it doesn't even need 4 lanes. Nevada should save its money or spend it where it's needed, in rapidly growing cities. If they want to think ahead, they could maybe reserve ROW for a bypass 40 years from now when the AADT might justify it, if the aquifers aren't dry first.
Despite the potential I-11 can bring, I would agree with these sentiments. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense to extend I-11 northward at this time, at least not without a clear plan of where it will go and what it will connect to. Some new 4-lane sections in specific areas would be good, but other than that I don't foresee the need. It would be cool, but impractical.
In many rural areas, NDOT maintains a pretty wide right of way around it's highways. So most of the expansion space is available along existing US 95. Even in those places where it would make sense to straighten out alignments or otherwise realign, much of the surrounding land is under the BLM so probably could be acquired for highway ROW fairly easily.
Quote from: Rothman on November 24, 2015, 08:42:11 AM
Pfft. I drove through Tonopah coming from the east on US 6 and continuing on US 6/US 95. There's no need for a bypass or four-laning anything out there. Heck, I was able to stop the car in the middle of the road and take pictures of the scenery for at least ten minutes at a time and I still only moved because I was done and not because another vehicle was coming my way. There just isn't anyone out there to benefit from any major increase in transportation spending.
With all the trips I've made between Reno and Vegas at various days and times in the last 15 years, I find it very unlikely you were able to stop your car in the middle of US 95 for 10 minutes to take pictures and not affect any traffic–unless you were taking pictures at night. I'd believe it on US 6, but not US 95.
Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2015, 02:18:21 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 24, 2015, 05:57:23 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2015, 12:35:32 AM
"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.
I agree. I believe that building a full interstate along US 95 is probably unnecessary. The roadway should be improved to a divided 4-lane roadway with intersections, with small sections of freeway to bypass towns along the way. The goal should be a road similar to US 101 along California's central coast.
Quote from: kkt on November 24, 2015, 11:54:42 AM
At 5600 AADT it doesn't even need 4 lanes. Nevada should save its money or spend it where it's needed, in rapidly growing cities. If they want to think ahead, they could maybe reserve ROW for a bypass 40 years from now when the AADT might justify it, if the aquifers aren't dry first.
Despite the potential I-11 can bring, I would agree with these sentiments. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense to extend I-11 northward at this time, at least not without a clear plan of where it will go and what it will connect to. Some new 4-lane sections in specific areas would be good, but other than that I don't foresee the need. It would be cool, but impractical.
In many rural areas, NDOT maintains a pretty wide right of way around it's highways. So most of the expansion space is available along existing US 95. Even in those places where it would make sense to straighten out alignments or otherwise realign, much of the surrounding land is under the BLM so probably could be acquired for highway ROW fairly easily.
Quote from: Rothman on November 24, 2015, 08:42:11 AM
Pfft. I drove through Tonopah coming from the east on US 6 and continuing on US 6/US 95. There's no need for a bypass or four-laning anything out there. Heck, I was able to stop the car in the middle of the road and take pictures of the scenery for at least ten minutes at a time and I still only moved because I was done and not because another vehicle was coming my way. There just isn't anyone out there to benefit from any major increase in transportation spending.
With all the trips I've made between Reno and Vegas at various days and times in the last 15 years, I find it very unlikely you were able to stop your car in the middle of US 95 for 10 minutes to take pictures and not affect any traffic–unless you were taking pictures at night. I'd believe it on US 6, but not US 95.
Heh. And by "traffic," you'd mean about three or four vehicles that I would have inconvenienced. :D
I don't think Interstate 11 should go beyond Las Vegas. Heck, it probably shouldn't go south of Phoenix. Even more, is an Interstate between these cities necessary? Maybe they could just four-lane all of US 93 and US 60 with bypasses around towns and call it a day.
A 4 lane divided highway with few/no stops can be justified between Phoenix and Vegas based on traffic counts and safety issues. A full-on freeway, no. But, calling it an Interstate increases visibility that might help with funding, especially given how broke Arizona is. Four lane it all, build bypasses around cities and grade-separated interchanges at the busiest crossroads, and preserve enough ROW to cheaply and easily go full freeway if/when traffic volumes warrant.
The compromise $281 billion transportation bill retains the I-11 future extension northwest to Reno:
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/01/reno-las-vegas-interstate-included-us-highway-bill-deal/76624672/
QuoteThe House and Senate have reached agreement on a 5-year, $281 billion transportation bill that would increase spending to address the nation's aging and congested highways and transit systems, including an extension of the future Interstate 11 connecting Las Vegas to Interstate 80. ...
Included in the bill is an extension for the future I-11, which as it currently stands would connect Las Vegas with Phoenix. Nevada's Washington delegation, including Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sen. Dean Heller, has lobbied for an extension to Reno.
Heller said in a news release the inclusion of the Reno extension was a boon for the the state's economy.
"Today's news that the extension of I-11 was included in the final highway bill is a major win for our state," Heller said. "Connecting Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Northern Nevada will spur long-term economic development, create jobs, and bolster international trade."
Andy, I was just going to post that article. Here's another from the Las Vegas Review Journal:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/i-11-extension-proposal-clears-another-congressional-hurdle
Quote
A proposed interstate highway directly connecting Las Vegas and Reno won a major boost Tuesday when key lawmakers formally announced a compromise on a huge five-year transportation bill authorizing funding for the nation's highway, bridge, transit and rail programs.
Language on the Interstate 11 extension has been a top transportation goal for members of the Nevada delegation.
While the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act is an authorization bill and does not provide specific funding for the proposed project, the language in the measure advances the current priority designation of I-11 from Phoenix to Las Vegas north and beyond from Las Vegas to Interstate 80 along the U.S. 95 corridor.
Meg Ragonese, public information officer for the Nevada Department of Transportation, said the new road will meet interstate standards "at a minimum." She said that means the road will be at least four lanes wide and include a divider, which could be made up of space or a railing.
It's an authorization, not an appropriation. It doesn't actually spend money, it's just one hurdle.
Still, of all the projects, even in Nevada, why?