MOD NOTE: Original thread title was "Public Input Sought On Interstate 11" –Roadfro
Link to story is below. I don't know if NDOT or ADOT have asked about the public's opinion of the proposed I-11 before now.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/public-input-sought-on-interstate-11-plan-173919851.html
It's been a very long time since i was on 93 heading south from I-40 near Kingman, but I don't recall it being a super busy stretch of road, though this was at least 10 years ago. I'm assuming I-11 would follow 93, with a possible bypass around Wickenburg and then following 60 into Phoenix? Is there enough traffic along the existing route to justify this?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on October 18, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
It's been a very long time since i was on 93 heading south from I-40 near Kingman, but I don't recall it being a super busy stretch of road, though this was at least 10 years ago. I'm assuming I-11 would follow 93, with a possible bypass around Wickenburg and then following 60 into Phoenix? Is there enough traffic along the existing route to justify this?
It looks like south of Wickenburg, I-11 would follow the proposed Hassayampa Freeway (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/11/interstate-las-vegas-phoenix-works/), which makes sense, as 60 between Phoenix and Wickenburg is hemmed in by the railroad and roadside businesses until Sun City Grand and then by suburban development south of that.
The proposed Hassayampa Freeway sure runs west of Phoenix. Its almost out by Tonopah. That area is not developed at all yet. I wonder if its construction would spur future development? I also noticed its proposed route has it curving around to the south of Metro Phoenix. Sort of like a partial beltway bypass route. Very cool. And if the White Tank Freeway is built, US 60 traffic can easily meet with it to head northwest into Vegas.
Build it from Vegas to Reno, so that our two largest metro areas can finally be connected by Interstate.
^ Is it necessary though? Having driven the Vegas to Reno drive multiple times, I would contend that it is not...
It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.
Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit :)
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.
Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit :)
Jackson to Gulfport, MS - At least it's one number (US 49), but no direct Interstate. (You can get from LV to Reno via I-15 to I-80, just like Jackson to Gulfport via I-55 to I-10.)
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.
Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit :)
even on two-lane US-95, a 90mph speed limit would be appropriate over at least 80% of the mileage.
A bigger problem is that signs are inconsistent. US 95 north is signed for Reno in Vegas, but as best as I can tell not all turns along the route actually have Reno marked.
^ Distance and junction signs on US 95 north don't regularly include "Reno" once leaving the Las Vegas area. Many of them will list Tonopah consistently (signs in Vegas used to say "Tonopah / Reno"). I don't think Reno is used consistently until US 95 intersects US 50 in Fallon, at which point every junction sign points the way to Reno. However, I believe southbound uses Las Vegas as a control on junction and distance signage much more regularly.
However, this sign on I-80 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.617722,-119.277921&spn=0.030149,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.617778,-119.278279&panoid=fX4ARjg9lJdCRVkUAbL2IQ&cbp=12,137.76,,2,-0.2) implies that the route between Vegas and Reno is via Yerington, not Fallon.
Quote from: roadfro on October 30, 2012, 04:45:57 AM
^ Distance and junction signs on US 95 north don't regularly include "Reno" once leaving the Las Vegas area. Many of them will list Tonopah consistently (signs in Vegas used to say "Tonopah / Reno"). I don't think Reno is used consistently until US 95 intersects US 50 in Fallon, at which point every junction sign points the way to Reno. However, I believe southbound uses Las Vegas as a control on junction and distance signage much more regularly.
I wonder if the I-11 freeway gets built, would it bypass Reno, or go into it.
Also since current traffic volumes don't seem to justify I-11, is it a "If they build it they will come" type of plan?
Quote from: NE2 on October 30, 2012, 05:26:01 AM
However, this sign on I-80 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.617722,-119.277921&spn=0.030149,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.617778,-119.278279&panoid=fX4ARjg9lJdCRVkUAbL2IQ&cbp=12,137.76,,2,-0.2) implies that the route between Vegas and Reno is via Yerington, not Fallon.
The Yerington route is also plausible, but the Fallon route is used much more often (it's generally the first option that comes up in driving directions on mapping sites). The Alt route via Yerington is 3 miles longer, and has longer stretches of slightly lower speed limits. Taking Alt 50 and US 50 to Fallon is now completely 4-lane, which is a plus (when you just want to get through the drive).
I think Vegas is mentioned on this sign because the next supplemental sign directs long-distance travelers east (toward Fallon and Ely) as opposed to south (Yerington, Las Vegas). I actually wish NDOT would put up a sign that directs to Vegas via either route.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 30, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
I wonder if the I-11 freeway gets built, would it bypass Reno, or go into it.
Also since current traffic volumes don't seem to justify I-11, is it a "If they build it they will come" type of plan?
The I-11 study proposals look at extending north from Vegas in a multitude of directions towards Canada. A lot of speculation is that it would connect to I-580 in Carson City and Reno, but that is not a given. The goal would be what route efficiently moves trucks and goods, and a direct link to Reno may not be best considering how you'd tie that in to points further north. An earlier idea reported in media had it following much of the US 95 corridor north, and the US 93 general corridor through eastern Nevada would also be a viable option--it all will depend on where the demand will be.
I doubt this will lead to a major "if they build it, they will come" scenario. Look at I-80 through northern Nevada. No new towns have sprung up along that highway since it was constructed through the 60s-80s. Except for maybe Elko, no town served by I-80 has had significant growth due to the I-80. Central Nevada is sparsely populated as it is (much less populous than the region served by I-80), so it is very doubtful that a new north-south interstate will spur significant growth.
Quote from: roadfro on October 31, 2012, 05:45:40 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 30, 2012, 01:41:31 PM
I wonder if the I-11 freeway gets built, would it bypass Reno, or go into it.
Also since current traffic volumes don't seem to justify I-11, is it a "If they build it they will come" type of plan?
The I-11 study proposals look at extending north from Vegas in a multitude of directions towards Canada. A lot of speculation is that it would connect to I-580 in Carson City and Reno, but that is not a given. The goal would be what route efficiently moves trucks and goods, and a direct link to Reno may not be best considering how you'd tie that in to points further north. An earlier idea reported in media had it following much of the US 95 corridor north, and the US 93 general corridor through eastern Nevada would also be a viable option--it all will depend on where the demand will be.
I doubt this will lead to a major "if they build it, they will come" scenario. Look at I-80 through northern Nevada. No new towns have sprung up along that highway since it was constructed through the 60s-80s. Except for maybe Elko, no town served by I-80 has had significant growth due to the I-80. Central Nevada is sparsely populated as it is (much less populous than the region served by I-80), so it is very doubtful that a new north-south interstate will spur significant growth.
It's kinda funny I just realised I asked you this same question on the I-11 Thread in the Mountain Roads.
You do make a good point, I hadn't thought about how Rural I-80 is. I more or less meant more people using I-11 when it's done, attracting more passing through traffic. I agree that most towns will nt grow that much along wherever I-11 would go. I do wonder though if it would be considered an Alternative for I-5 in California. But it would have to connect to the Pacific Northwest to do that.
But given how rural US 95 and US 93 are in Nevada would building a new Freeway be a hard sell?
Having said that, it would be neat to be able to see a new Interstate come to life in my life, as I wasn't even alive when the original Interstates were built.
Removed excess quoting. --Roadfro
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 31, 2012, 10:32:00 PM
But given how rural US 95 and US 93 are in Nevada would building a new Freeway be a hard sell?
Yes. Neither one of these highways is currently divided or four lanes outside of Clark County, except through towns. Without looking at them, I can tell you that current traffic counts do not support a freeway facility along any rural north/south highway in Nevada.
This isn't to say that if you build such an interstate that it wouldn't get used--there's a very wide north/south interstate gap between I-5 and I-15 that Nevada officials would love to fill. But in looking at the grand scheme of travel demands and such, the cost of such improvements would likely far outweigh the benefits.
I think you could 4-lane much of US 95 and US 93 through Nevada and better serve travel demands for the next 20+ years than you would building one interstate (that's pure, semi-informed speculation on my part).
Even without a full upgrade to an 'I-11', I would think it advisable to at least assemble a single 'no intersection turns' highway corridor between the Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City areas.
Also, I would run such a corridor through the East Walker River valley west of Walker Lake, NV and south of Yerington to feed into I-580 via US 395 from the south - it is a much more direct routing than the others and it includes Carson City (the state capitol, BTW) in the corridor.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 01, 2012, 11:24:38 AM
Even without a full upgrade to an 'I-11', I would think it advisable to at least assemble a single 'no intersection turns' highway corridor between the Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City areas.
Also, I would run such a corridor through the East Walker River valley west of Walker Lake, NV and south of Yerington to feed into I-580 via US 395 from the south - it is a much more direct routing than the others and it includes Carson City (the state capitol, BTW) in the corridor.
Mike
The question is whether there's more traffic from Las Vegas to Carson City and Reno, or more traffic from Las Vegas to Boise and the Tri Cities. If this route needs to be developed at all, it might be better off going more nearly N-S, with a branch from Fallon to Fernley to accommodate Reno traffic.
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.
Seriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.
And then push it through Kings Canyon or Yosemite Valley for a direct route to Frisco.
PS: Vegas to Boise traffic would sure as hell not go up US 95. US 93 is over 100 miles shorter.
PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?
Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.
especially given that 15-84 is already a well-established corridor.
I tend to drive 15-395-167-359-95-55-84 between San Diego and Boise (I have surprising amounts of business in that area of Idaho) and there are lots of sections where I'm doing 90mph because there is absolutely nobody else on the road. US-95 in Oregon is extremely desolate.
QuoteSeriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.
I'd utilize the NV-208 corridor. that would give I-11 a big swinging S curve, just like I-25 in New Mexico, but such are the mountains.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 01, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
I'd utilize the NV-208 corridor. that would give I-11 a big swinging S curve, just like I-25 in New Mexico, but such are the mountains.
I was thinking something more like US 6-SR 120 (only 30 miles longer than via Fallon on the current indirect routing of 120) or maybe even farther south. But if there's not enough traffic for four lanes, which is likely, the shorter route will remain fastest and this will be a bunch of pork.
that would work. and certain parts of CA-120 are surprisingly flat.
Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.
I always aim to entertain. Boise, also Pullman and Spokane. If it went as far north as Lewiston it would be a lower-elevation route across the Cascades; I-84 between La Grande and Pendleton gets dicy sometimes.
However, I'm just tossing out ideas. I'm still skeptical that this or any part of I-11 north of Las Vegas is justified.
Quote
Seriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.
And then push it through Kings Canyon or Yosemite Valley for a direct route to Frisco.
Frisco? That's a little town in Texas, isn't it?
Seriously, there's no way in hell anyone's going to go for putting an interstate through King's Canyon or Yosemite. Even if they weren't national parks, the mountains are high and rugged and subject to snow for much of the year. Any gas you save by going a shorter distance would be used up by going up the mountain. If you want a shorter trip from Las Vegas to San Francisco, finish upgrading CA-58 to a freeway as far as I-5.
Quote
PS: Vegas to Boise traffic would sure as hell not go up US 95. US 93 is over 100 miles shorter.
You're right, it would be a compromise between making a shorter trip for Las Vegas-Carson City-Reno and Las Vegas-Boise and Boise-Pullman-Spokane. And probably satisfy none of them very well.
Quote
PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?
Maybe US-93 is the original route and stayed there when NV-318 was built?
Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
Seriously, there's no way in hell anyone's going to go for putting an interstate through King's Canyon or Yosemite.
You haven't spent enough time in
Alanland fictional highwayland.
Quote from: NE2 on November 02, 2012, 06:45:07 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
Seriously, there's no way in hell anyone's going to go for putting an interstate through King's Canyon or Yosemite.
You haven't spent enough time in Alanland fictional highwayland.
It's interesting to think about highways that could be built someday and where they might make sense. Highways that would need an alternate universe to be built, not so interesting, at least to me.
Is sarcasm not an alternate universe?
Quote from: kkt on November 02, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?
Maybe US-93 is the original route and stayed there when NV-318 was built?
That is correct. US 93 was nearly completely paved before SR 38 (which became SR 318 in the 1976 renumbering) showed up on official Nevada maps as a state highway.
US 93 was likely never moved to SR 318 due to it going through the more populated towns of Caliente and Pioche, despite being a shorter route--note that between Crystal Springs and Ely, it's the SR 318 and US 6 route (not US 93) that is on the National Highway System.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 23, 2012, 03:09:17 AM
Build it from Vegas to Reno, so that our two largest metro areas can finally be connected by Interstate.
That would be fine, but I'm afraid life would forget about those cool towns along US 50, one of the coolest (super coolest) desert highways ever. The views, the towns, the expanse - priceless. And I HOPE that the freeway doesn't parallel the old 50, keep that stretch well east to preserve the 'stillderness' of the desert in that area.
If they were to do an I-11 from Vegas to Reno, I'd guess they would use the US 95 corridor; the only portion by US 50 would be in Carson City which will be I-580 anyways.
it's a NAFTA route, build it and they will come.
Quote from: NE2 on November 01, 2012, 02:09:10 PM
Vegas to Boise? Traffic? Bahahahahaha.
Seriously, the only sensible way to build a four-lane route northwest from Vegas is to send it over to US 395 as soon as possible and take advantage of California's work.
And then push it through Kings Canyon or Yosemite Valley for a direct route to Frisco.
PS: Vegas to Boise traffic would sure as hell not go up US 95. US 93 is over 100 miles shorter.
PPS: Why isn't SR 318 part of US 93?
They'll have to pry Kings Canyon and Yosemite Valley from my cold dead hands before they build a freeway through there.
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.)
This route could have Future I-11 Signs.
Quote from: mapman1071 on December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.)
This route could have Future I-11 Signs.
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.)
This route could have Future I-11 Signs.
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
The majority of the land to the E of the row Is federally owned and/or protected (See MIB or Area 51)
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon? if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.
Quote from: mapman1071 on December 07, 2012, 04:16:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: mapman1071 on December 06, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
start by widening US 95 to 4 Lane Interstate Grade From Mercury To Fallon
and either US50west/Alt US 50 to Fernly and I-80 or US95north to I-80
(No overpasses or underpasses (Except for Wash/waterway and railroad) but have the provision to add those later, With temporary Intersections where necessary, Freeway bypass routes can also be added later.)
This route could have Future I-11 Signs.
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
The majority of the land to the E of the row Is federally owned and/or protected (See MIB or Area 51)
Hm? Ellis AFB and the Nevada Test Site appear to be several miles away from US-95, and Area 51 is on the far side of Ellis AFB.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon? if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.
"Never" is a long time. If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable. Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:53:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon? if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.
"Never" is a long time. If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable. Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.
A key question in this discussion is whether there's a concerted effort by western states to reroute truck/commercial traffic off of other north-south freeway corridors (I-5 and I-15) to create a trucking corridor along US 95 or if either corridor is overburdened to the point a third route would be helpful. I'm not sure if, in this scenario, ending such a route in Reno would be sufficient. Instead, it would have to connect at least to Interstate 84. If this scenario is realized, then four-laning could be justified.
Regards,
Andy
Apparently, the CANAMEX was designated as a High Priority Corridor under NAFTA, which states its entire length shall be at least four lanes (sorry, all links I can find to source information are broken). Isn't that still in effect?
The Canamex takes I-15 north from Las Vegas...
Also, the ISTEA (not NAFTA) High Priority Corridors don't require four lanes, unless there's a special clause for this one.
I was going by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANAMEX_Corridor) (links broken, as I said) and AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr26.html)–not that we should ever trust those two sites as accurate.
I was really just pointing that out as pertaining to the discussion of whether US-93 should be four-laned or not (per the post below), but I guess that was pretty far upthread. Sorry.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on October 18, 2012, 09:46:01 AM
It's been a very long time since i was on 93 heading south from I-40 near Kingman, but I don't recall it being a super busy stretch of road, though this was at least 10 years ago. I'm assuming I-11 would follow 93, with a possible bypass around Wickenburg and then following 60 into Phoenix? Is there enough traffic along the existing route to justify this?
Quote from: andy3175 on December 08, 2012, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:53:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon? if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.
"Never" is a long time. If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable. Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.
A key question in this discussion is whether there's a concerted effort by western states to reroute truck/commercial traffic off of other north-south freeway corridors (I-5 and I-15) to create a trucking corridor along US 95 or if either corridor is overburdened to the point a third route would be helpful. I'm not sure if, in this scenario, ending such a route in Reno would be sufficient. Instead, it would have to connect at least to Interstate 84. If this scenario is realized, then four-laning could be justified.
That is a key question, which is a key component of the study process being undertaken by NDOT & ADOT. They are not limiting the study to the US 93 and US 95 corridors either, but pretty much anything north of Las Vegas is fair game to look at. No matter which way a potential I-11 would travel north through Nevada, it won't be hard to for NDOT to get ROW...there's a lot of open space in Nevada owned by BLM.
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:51:19 PM
Hm? Ellis AFB and the Nevada Test Site appear to be several miles away from US-95, and Area 51 is on the far side of Ellis AFB.
What is "Ellis AFB"? Maybe you're referring to the Nellis AFB flight range, which encompasses the test site and Area 51. The test site is accessed from the Mercury exit, where the four-lane US 95 transitions to two. Area 51 is better reached from SR 375 on the opposite side.
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
^ I've recently posted some 2011 traffic counts on various points between Reno and Las Vegas on US 95...can't recall what thread now and it didn't come up in a quick search. Suffice it to say that the majority of US 95 north of Mercury is less than about 6,000 AADT.
US 93 counts would be comparable (or probably slightly less). US 395 is likely slightly higher, due to more regional traffic.
I would suggest asking for more maybe continuous passing lanes on both because you dont need an EIS or ROW and the cost is 1-2 million a mile v 8.5 million a mile. That is a figure form new US 20 in western Iowa which will look like Nevada if the drought continues.
If Harry Reid had earmarks I might suggest something different but Id go for something rather than nothing
When you look at the counts and traffic patterns, even the expense of continuous passing lanes hardly seems justified...
Quote from: roadfro on December 08, 2012, 05:36:22 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on December 08, 2012, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:53:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 06, 2012, 06:02:15 PM
I wouldn't even make it four lanes or sign it as future I-11 at this point. All they should do now is purchase land for the ROW if it isn't in the public sector already and happens to come up for sale, so as to avoid eminent domain later.
when do you anticipate that US-95 will have enough traffic to merit four-laning universally to Fallon? if not ever (which is my opinion), I wouldn't even bother buying the ROW.
"Never" is a long time. If in 30 years there was enough traffic, it would still be worth having bought the ROW now, instead of by eminent domain after the land becomes more valuable. Most of the land probably belongs to the BLM already, so nothing would need to be done.
A key question in this discussion is whether there's a concerted effort by western states to reroute truck/commercial traffic off of other north-south freeway corridors (I-5 and I-15) to create a trucking corridor along US 95 or if either corridor is overburdened to the point a third route would be helpful. I'm not sure if, in this scenario, ending such a route in Reno would be sufficient. Instead, it would have to connect at least to Interstate 84. If this scenario is realized, then four-laning could be justified.
That is a key question, which is a key component of the study process being undertaken by NDOT & ADOT. They are not limiting the study to the US 93 and US 95 corridors either, but pretty much anything north of Las Vegas is fair game to look at. No matter which way a potential I-11 would travel north through Nevada, it won't be hard to for NDOT to get ROW...there's a lot of open space in Nevada owned by BLM.
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2012, 04:51:19 PM
Hm? Ellis AFB and the Nevada Test Site appear to be several miles away from US-95, and Area 51 is on the far side of Ellis AFB.
What is "Ellis AFB"? Maybe you're referring to the Nellis AFB flight range, which encompasses the test site and Area 51. The test site is accessed from the Mercury exit, where the four-lane US 95 transitions to two. Area 51 is better reached from SR 375 on the opposite side.
That's a good point. I think Routing I-11 past Las Vegas would have to go Northwest for this reason, I-15 connects North East. If I-11 doesn't head towards Reno, there really aren't a lot of cities to be routed towards.
But ending I-11 in Reno wouldn't make sense either, if it is going to be built that far then it should connect to I-84 or somehow the Pacific Northwest.
Given that the traffic Counts on US 95 or 93 are not justified, in even passing lanes let alone an Interstate, they are basing this on an Alternative to I-5 so they are planning on more truck Traffic coming, since it is not there now I pressume?
Also wouldn't Nevada want it to connect Reno in some way if there going to build it that far and that much in there state?
Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2012, 04:48:58 PM
I was going by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANAMEX_Corridor) (links broken, as I said) and AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr26.html)–not that we should ever trust those two sites as accurate.
[/quote]
The High Priority Corridor (HPC) pages on AARoads are out of date and are there for reference purposes only. Neither Alex nor I intend to update them again in the near future. As for the general credibility of AARoads, I always say that any given page is 90-95% accurate at the time of publication, and as things change, the pages become less and less accurate (as roads improve/change, development continues, commuting patterns change, etc.). Most of the HPC pages on AARoads are now 7 years old, so you can guess how accurate they are today.
Regards,
Andy
I could see a potential routing of I-11 north of Reno along US 395. It's doubtful that there would be enough traffic from, say, Alturas north to Pendleton, but there already is Interstate between the Pendleton/Hermiston area and the Tri-Cities (I-82), and there already is a decent amount of 4-lane on 395 between Tri-Cities and I-90. This route COULD generate more traffic between Portland and Reno, not to mention draw traffic east from Bend & Klamath Falls.
Quote from: Mark68 on December 18, 2012, 05:20:55 AM
I could see a potential routing of I-11 north of Reno along US 395. It's doubtful that there would be enough traffic from, say, Alturas north to Pendleton, but there already is Interstate between the Pendleton/Hermiston area and the Tri-Cities (I-82), and there already is a decent amount of 4-lane on 395 between Tri-Cities and I-90. This route COULD generate more traffic between Portland and Reno, not to mention draw traffic east from Bend & Klamath Falls.
Perhaps not to Pendleton. But if they DID extend I-11, I could see an extension through Alturas, CA following US-395 and then into Central Oregon using OR-31 and then a US-97 overlap into Bend, Redmond, and Madras, then from Madras, overlapping US-26 over Mount Hood, splitting off near Sandy (where I would create a spur route from Sandy to I-205 near Clackamas), moving I-11 Northwest to end at I-84 near Troutdale in the Portland, OR metro area.
This Jan. 17 article (http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2013/jan/17/experts-less-half-motorists-would-use-toll-road-ar/) reports an official estimate that 44% of motorists driving between Henderson and the Hoover Dam would use a tolled Boulder City Bypass/ Future I-11:
Quote
Transportation experts say a 15-mile toll-road bypass around Boulder City would only be used by about 44 percent of the motorists using what eventually would become a piece of the proposed Interstate 11 between Hoover Dam and Henderson.
Representatives of the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission tried to reassure a skeptical crowd of about 50 people attending a public hearing Wednesday that a four-lane freeway bypassing Boulder City would still achieve the goal of reducing traffic on the city's streets.
Transportation officials took testimony and answered questions during a three-hour open house and public meeting at Boulder City High School.
The estimate that 44 percent of the traffic would use the bypass is based on studies by the Las Vegas-based Louis Berger Group, which was tasked with analyzing prospective toll structures to determine what price point would guarantee maximum revenue.
The estimate was based on a toll of $2.25 per passenger vehicle. Large trucks and commercial vehicles would potentially pay more ....
The reason the majority of motorists aren't expected to use the toll road is that they'd have the option of using the existing U.S. 93 route through Boulder City that would remain free.
NDOT officials said the proposed $2.25 toll could be used the first year of operation, then modified up or down, depending on whether there was a need to increase or decrease demand.
Phase 1 of the project, which would be under the jurisdiction of NDOT, is a short piece that would run from Railroad Pass to a new intersection at U.S. 95 and cost between $20 million and $30 million for right-of-way and $90 million to $110 million for construction. Some of that land, in the Jericho Heights area, currently is the subject of contentious condemnation proceedings.
The longer Phase 2 portion of the highway, where the tolling would occur, is under the RTC's jurisdiction and would cost about $330 million to complete. It's on public land and wouldn't require right-of-way acquisitions.
One of the benefits of allowing tolling is that the bypass would be completed faster. Officials estimate that if tolling were allowed, the project could be completed by 2018 or 2019 with an accelerated construction schedule.
If tolling isn't allowed, the project would go on a list of future projects with an uncertain completion timetable. Because the route is part of the recently designated I-11 corridor, it would be completed eventually.
This map (http://www.nevadadot.com/Micro-Sites/BoulderCityBypass/The_Boulder_City_Bypass.aspx) shows the respective locations of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUAwvXiZ.jpg&hash=4f98e48835a7a4cb3418e21150ce510757d2f732)
I'm at work and don't have time to sift through threads but I noticed google has I-11 signed from LV to and including parts of I-40.
Quote from: lamsalfl on February 26, 2013, 03:39:29 PM
I'm at work and don't have time to sift through threads but I noticed google has I-11 signed from LV to and including parts of I-40.
What sort of asshattery is this! Brilliant.
It's all the way down US-93 to Wickenburg now.
This article (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project) reports on the corridors still under consideration in Nevada:
Quote
Routes through western Nevada that could become part of an Interstate 11 freeway corridor linking Mexico and Canada have made the first cut for future study, local officials and the public were told Wednesday by transportation officials studying the options.
Routes through central and eastern Nevada that would run to Elko or Wells did not make the final list of potential routes for the proposed Intermountain West Corridor, although one of the preferred alternatives would see the freeway head northeast from Fernley to Winnemucca and then on to Idaho close by Boise ....
An Intermountain West Corridor is being evaluated as part of the proposed Interstate 11 project that would connect Phoenix and Las Vegas, but it is years away from reality.
The top-rated route north from Las Vegas would follow U.S. Highway 95 to Fernley, head west to Reno then up U.S. Highway 395 into southern Oregon.
The second option would follow U.S. 95 to Fernley, but then head northeast through Winnemucca to Idaho.
The third option closely mirrors the first but would depart from U.S. 95 at Tonopah, heading west to U.S. 395 in California and running through Douglas County and Carson City before moving through Reno north into southern Oregon ....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzJPuZcO.png&hash=8e17f80dc2b4fa361df8d9d29bb44fa251d7acd5)
Would I-11 ultimately replace US-395 up to Spokane?
authors of this paper: raise your hand if you've ever driven US-95 in Nevada.
I thought not.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on October 17, 2013, 04:04:10 PM
Would I-11 ultimately replace US-395 up to Spokane?
Even if that were interstate quality, taking US 395 all the way would still not be the shortest route - it would be six miles shorter to use US 97 and go through Bend to I-84 and rejoin US 395 at I-82. According to Google that route can currently be done at an average speed of 61.1 MPH. There might be some opportunity to straighten out the doglegs in US 395 by building an Interstate, but the gains would be minimal in terms of travel time - right now Google says it takes 792 minutes to drive 781 miles on US 395 from Reno to Spokane, and average of 59.2 miles per hour.
Quote from: tidecat on January 26, 2014, 10:25:23 PM
[snipped taking a silly question seriously]
I don't know what routes you're measuring, but I'm seeing sticking to US 395 (except around Susanville) as shorter. The Goog gives the following for Phoenix to Spokane (all routes using future I-11 to Vegas):
*1285 mi via US 93 to Twin Falls, I-84 to Boise, and 55-US 95-US 195 to Spokane
*1338 mi via US 93 to Twin Falls, then Interstates (except US 395 in WA)
*1358 mi via 376/305 across butt-fucking Nevada, then US 95-US 195 to Spokane
*1386 mi via 376/305 across butt-fucking Nevada, then US 95-78 to Burns and US 395 to Pendleton
*1404 mi via US 95-US 195 from Vegas to Spokane
*1431 mi via all Interstates (I-15 to I-90)
*1498 mi via Reno and US 395 to Pendleton
*1511 mi via Reno and 139/39-US 97 to Biggs Junction
tldr: poo
Bahahahahahaha... US 395 in Northern California as an interstate? Whoever wrote that paper is smoking meth.
In the 560 miles of US 395 between Reno, Nevada and Pendleton, Oregon.... the biggest city is Susanville, California - micropolitan area population of ~32,000 and change. There is nobody, absolutely nobody living in northeastern California and southeastern Oregon. They are the emptiest corners of their respective states. You could pitch a tent in the middle of the highway north of Alturas - AADT is just 720 vehicles per day at the state line.
If that was ever built (and it has not the slightest chance of being built), it would be the most ridiculously wasteful use of transportation dollars in the history of the known universe.
However, if it is built, they need to add an I-311 spur to Quincy and an I-411 beltway of Alturas. For great justice.
If I-11 goes through California, CalTrans will have to renumber the CA 11 freeway they're currently building down near the border in San Diego.
Quote from: emory on January 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PMCA 11 freeway they're currently building
ha. the 125/905 intersection is as antiquated and counterintuitive as it always has been.
Quote from: emory on January 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PM
If I-11 goes through California, CalTrans will have to renumber the CA 11 freeway they're currently building down near the border in San Diego.
I believe the California State Route Supremacy clause (the one that gave us I-238) would instead force all of I-11 to be renumbered should it ever get built in CA.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2014, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: emory on January 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PMCA 11 freeway they're currently building
ha. the 125/905 intersection is as antiquated and counterintuitive as it always has been.
I keep wondering
where they plan to put that thing. There doesn't appear to be anywhere you could put in even a trumpet (ignoring CA 11, since it makes everything harder to fathom) without being way too close to another ramp.. Given that it's only two years old, I can't imagine that CalTrans is going to rebuild interchanges just to fit CA 11 in there.
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
I keep wondering where they plan to put that thing. There doesn't appear to be anywhere you could put in even a trumpet (ignoring CA 11, since it makes everything harder to fathom) without being way too close to another ramp.. Given that it's only two years old, I can't imagine that CalTrans is going to rebuild interchanges just to fit CA 11 in there.
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_56_16900.pdf
Quote from: polarscribe on January 27, 2014, 05:11:03 AM
Bahahahahahaha... US 395 in Northern California as an interstate? Whoever wrote that paper is smoking meth.
In the 560 miles of US 395 between Reno, Nevada and Pendleton, Oregon.... the biggest city is Susanville, California - micropolitan area population of ~32,000 and change. There is nobody, absolutely nobody living in northeastern California and southeastern Oregon. They are the emptiest corners of their respective states. You could pitch a tent in the middle of the highway north of Alturas - AADT is just 720 vehicles per day at the state line.
If that was ever built (and it has not the slightest chance of being built), it would be the most ridiculously wasteful use of transportation dollars in the history of the known universe.
However, if it is built, they need to add an I-311 spur to Quincy and an I-411 beltway of Alturas. For great justice.
An Alaskan Interstate would be more of a waste. :bigass:
This one has a more exact rendering, though you need to zoom in: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/systplan/26-TransportationBorderCongestionReliefProgramApplicationSR905125InterchangeOtayMesaPOE.pdf
I knew you couldn't fit it in as is! The project involves moving a couple ramp ends. Seems odd to build something then re-align it just a couple years later.
Fun fact: this interchange was supposed to be built last year. Maybe the current ramps were intended as a temporary configuration?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 27, 2014, 09:35:26 PM
An Alaskan Interstate would be more of a waste. :bigass:
You could make a case for upgrading, extending and resigning AK-1/Glenn Highway and AK-3 Parks Highway as Interstate A-1 from downtown Los Anchorage to Wasilla and the exurban hellhole of the Mat-Su Valley. (Interstate A-2, spur to Palmer because reasons.) Dubiously, one could think about designating Interstate A-3 in Fairbanks, running along AK-2 and AK-3 from the international airport to North Pole and Eielson AFB.
Otherwise, pretty much yeah, there's not enough people in Alaska to merit an interstate anywhere else. Hell, there's not enough people to justify roads, period, to a lot of places. But this discussion really belongs on the PNW board ;)
"Los Anchorage", lol
Having sat in traffic in downtown Anchorage where the Glenn and Seward Highways stop short of interchanging with each other as freeways, I don't really consider an Alaska Interstate a joke. Alaska is part of the Great White North with the fourth-smallest US state population in a territory equal to about one-fifth the total land area of the continental US, but when you combine extreme population anisotropy with a very hectic summer driving season, it is no wonder Anchorage is so congested.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 12, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
Having sat in traffic in downtown Anchorage where the Glenn and Seward Highways stop short of interchanging with each other as freeways, I don't really consider an Alaska Interstate a joke. Alaska is part of the Great White North with the fourth-smallest US state population in a territory equal to about one-fifth the total land area of the continental US, but when you combine extreme population anisotropy with a very hectic summer driving season, it is no wonder Anchorage is so congested.
They need that freeway link, but they also need a beefier downtown grid to handle the incoming rush hour. Signal timing in green "waves" is what I envision.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 02, 2014, 05:00:19 PM
"Los Anchorage", lol
They say that if you stand in the right place downtown, you can almost see Alaska.
:pan:
Seriously, it's a well-earned nickname... Anchorage is *that* different from everywhere else in the state.
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/glendale/article_da312be6-f1c9-11e3-98ea-001a4bcf887a.html
QuoteArizona and Nevada transportation officials will hold a series of meetings this month to inform the public of progress on a proposed new interstate highway that would run west of Surprise, linking Las Vegas and Phoenix. Interstate 11 would mark one of the last remaining connections between major Western U.S. cities in the nation's highway system. Meetings are slated June 18 in Tucson, June 25 in Buckeye and June 26 in Las Vegas. In addition, a virtual public meeting will be hosted June 18 through July 18 on the project website, www.i11study.com.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/road-warrior/next-i-11-hearing-focus-best-route-through-las-vegas-valley
Quoten a recent update on the status of the I-11 project, members of the Regional Transportation Commission were told that some of the public comment has been evaluated and the I-11 corridor through Las Vegas is becoming more defined.
There's one more big public meeting for local residents to weigh in on the I-11 routing. It will be later this month on June 26 from 4-7 p.m. with a 5:30 p.m. presentation at the Historic Fifth Street School, 401 S. Fourth St.
Several prospective routes were narrowed to three that would go around or through the city. The prospective routes that have won the most public support:
■ From the point where the northern end of the Boulder City bypass would end – near the Railroad Pass casino – the route, designated Option Y, would use U.S. Highway 95 north to the 215 Beltway, west to approximately Ann Road where a new section of freeway would be built, and north to join U.S. 95 near state Route 157 to Kyle Canyon.
■ A route designated as Option Z would put the route on already existing highways. From Boulder City, it would use U.S. 95 all the way through town. That's a cheap alternative, since all that wold be required would be to plant a bunch of I-11 signs along the route. But city officials have concerns about routing any new truck traffic through the notoriously congested Spaghetti Bowl.
■ A route that presents the most heartburn to residents of Henderson and the greatest expense, Option BB-QQ, would cut north from U.S. 95 on a new right of way east of Frenchman Mountain all the way to Interstate 15 near Nellis Air Force Base. From there, the route runs south on I-15 to the future Beltway interchange, using the Beltway west to U.S. 95. That's about 20 miles of new highway and a route that passes through Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Engineers would analyze the impact of traffic on the Beltway-U.S. 95 interchange which will soon be designed.
I-11 is years, maybe decades, from becoming a reality.
There was a small blurb on the state-by-state news page of Wednesday's (2014-09-10) issue of USAToday about some officials in Nevada looking into extending 'I-11' northwestward from Las Vegas to the Carson City-Reno area, roughly along the US 95 corridor. Is there anything more on-line about this?
Mike
I found this article: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/nevada-board-picks-us-95-i-11-corridor
QuoteAll roads don't lead to Tesla, but Interstate 11 apparently will.
The Nevada Department of Transportation board voted Monday to designate U.S. Highway 95 as the proposed route for the future interstate between Las Vegas and I-80.
State transportation leaders said they were picking U.S. 95 over U.S. 93 in part because of growing industrial development in northwestern Nevada, including Tesla battery factory announced last week.
Another big factor in the decision is where the interstate is likely to go after it leaves Nevada. Following U.S. 95 directs I-11 toward "megapolitan regions" of California and the Pacific Northwest, said Sondra Rosenberg, who is heading up NDOT's work on the project.
By contrast, an eastern route along U.S. 93 could steer I-11 through small cities in Idaho and Montana on its way to what one audience member bluntly called "nowhere Canada."
^ Thanks for that link Andy. I hadn't heard about that decision.
I recall some speculation that if I-11 was routed in the US 95 corridor, they ought to try and find a way to link it with I-580/US 395 via Carson City. But if the point now is to try and make it serve the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, a link somehow via US 95 Alt will be better.
It's going to end up in "nowhere Canada" no matter where they put it. Are they seriously still considering that pipe dream of building an interstate in the middle of nowhere where traffic counts will never even justify four lanes let alone a freeway? The only plus I can think of is that it will be a really good example to use against any argument along the lines of "US 11 doesn't have enough traffic for an interstate from Watertown to Plattsburg".
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.
There's towns along there already. Whether there's a whole lot of people in some of them is another question.
Quote from: roadfro on September 13, 2014, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.
There's towns along there already. Whether there's a whole lot of people in some of them is another question.
I have honestly only driven the part concurrent with US-6. Apart from Tonopah, the only named place I recall looked like the inhabitants had walked away at least a decade prior. So I'm extrapolating off that somewhat limited experience, perhaps incorrectly.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 08:52:22 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 13, 2014, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 05:23:35 PM
They're going to have to build some towns out there to house the people that... do anything along that route.
There's towns along there already. Whether there's a whole lot of people in some of them is another question.
I have honestly only driven the part concurrent with US-6. Apart from Tonopah, the only named place I recall looked like the inhabitants had walked away at least a decade prior. So I'm extrapolating off that somewhat limited experience, perhaps incorrectly.
Understandable assumption, especially if your travel took you along US 6 and not US 95.
The main towns along US 95 north of Las Vegas and before you turn off towards Reno include: Indian Springs (site of Creech AFB, state prisons not too far away), Beatty (Nevada gateway to Death Valley NP), Tonopah (biggest town near many central Nevada mining sites, and parts of Nevada test site), Hawthorne (US Army Depot), Schurz, and Fallon (US Naval Air Station). There's a few other smaller towns which I didn't mention.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 13, 2014, 01:03:49 AM
I found this article: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/nevada-board-picks-us-95-i-11-corridor
QuoteAll roads don't lead to Tesla, but Interstate 11 apparently will.
The Nevada Department of Transportation board voted Monday to designate U.S. Highway 95 as the proposed route for the future interstate between Las Vegas and I-80.
State transportation leaders said they were picking U.S. 95 over U.S. 93 in part because of growing industrial development in northwestern Nevada, including Tesla battery factory announced last week.
Another big factor in the decision is where the interstate is likely to go after it leaves Nevada. Following U.S. 95 directs I-11 toward "megapolitan regions" of California and the Pacific Northwest, said Sondra Rosenberg, who is heading up NDOT's work on the project.
By contrast, an eastern route along U.S. 93 could steer I-11 through small cities in Idaho and Montana on its way to what one audience member bluntly called "nowhere Canada."
I agree on that routing logic, with my thoughts including having it cross over to supplant I-580 in the Reno-Carson City area, to ultimately follow US 395 towards Oregon and Washington, perhaps to continue via US 97 through Bend, OR to connect with I-82 at Toppenish, WA, then replacing I-82 from there to I-90 at Ellensburg, WA.
Mike
I don't think California will ever support the routing of I-11 over their northern section of US 395.
I am not seeing a logical route from Las Vegas to the end of I-580 south of Carson City. Turn on terrain view and you'll see lots of mountain ranges running SW-NE. It could be routed along NV 266, NV 264, US 6, and CA 120 to meet US 395 near Mono Lake, but that would require a partnership with California. The fastest and least grade route is up Alt US 95 to near Lahontan Reservoir and then west on US 50 to Carson City.
There's minimal need for interstate north of Las Vegas and even less need for interstate north of Reno. Maybe Nevada is silly enough to build it anyway, or has few enough other needs, but California, Oregon, and Washington won't.
Go via Yerrington and Wellington - a little twisty, perhaps, but avoids the need for CA to get involved.
Quote from: english si on September 15, 2014, 12:53:53 PM
Go via Yerrington and Wellington - a little twisty, perhaps, but avoids the need for CA to get involved.
Via Yerington, Lahontan Reservoir, and US 50 is 434 miles. Via Yerington and Wellington is 442 miles. So via Lahontan Reservoir requires less construction, a faster trip LV-CC, and a faster trip LV-Reno compared to via Wellington. Even if you built I-11 via Wellington, people wouldn't take it; the 2-lane roads are about as fast as interstates in rural Nevada, so they'd take the shorter road.
Howabout a routing slightly south of Yerrington? Going over maps and aerial images, there looks to be a potentially useful pass that diverges from US 95 about 2-3 minutes north of the north shore of Walker Lake. I wonder if it would be useful for such a road, if it ever became reality.
Mike
This (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=las+vegas&daddr=36.5894898,-117.1673779+to:37.8163474,-119.9295741+to:carson+city&hl=en&ll=37.657732,-117.960205&spn=6.21718,12.689209&sll=36.438961,-117.575684&sspn=3.159453,6.344604&geocode=FdXoJwIdChsj-SnRffWkgre-gDGjebPV5tXMOg%3BFbFPLgId7yoE-SnxGX4w21LHgDHqRwyWqFgj7Q%3BFRsIQQIdGgXa-CnnNRvIfNmWgDEfe8tuqTEqyg%3BFZaXVQIdlX7c-ClxtN74oQqZgDEoOOK9gmyc9w&t=p&gl=us&mra=dvme&mrsp=1&sz=8&via=1,2&z=7) seems to avoid the worst terrain.
Seriously, the alignment for this piece of pork is obvious: follow the valleys traversed by US 95 and the railroad, cutting the corner wherever it gives you wood. Yahwovah gave us these half-buried mountain ranges so we could build empty freeways through the sand-filled valleys, not over the ridges.
Quote from: kkt on September 15, 2014, 02:23:41 PMVia Yerington, Lahontan Reservoir, and US 50 is 434 miles. Via Yerington and Wellington is 442 miles. So via Lahontan Reservoir requires less construction, a faster trip LV-CC, and a faster trip LV-Reno compared to via Wellington. Even if you built I-11 via Wellington, people wouldn't take it; the 2-lane roads are about as fast as interstates in rural Nevada, so they'd take the shorter road.
1) 8 miles is sooo far when you are doing 54 times that distance anyway...
2) you are also serving Tahoe, Minden, etc with a route that comes in from the south rather than east - ditto more small towns than the US95
3) the OP said 'south of Carson City' not east - sure if you wanted CC with no specifics, go the way you said
4) though wouldn't CC be on a 3di, given US95Alt to I-80 would cut off more than 8 miles (I make it 12)? (likewise US95Alt is three miles longer to Reno than via US95/US50Alt - I guess that's a doable detour)
I'm going to back this up just a bit and ask for some helpful input from those with more insight than myself. What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 12:30:36 PM
I'm going to back this up just a bit and ask for some helpful input from those with more insight than myself. What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?
As far as I can tell, the problem Nevada construction contractors don't have enough money.
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 11:53:40 PM
This (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=las+vegas&daddr=36.5894898,-117.1673779+to:37.8163474,-119.9295741+to:carson+city&hl=en&ll=37.657732,-117.960205&spn=6.21718,12.689209&sll=36.438961,-117.575684&sspn=3.159453,6.344604&geocode=FdXoJwIdChsj-SnRffWkgre-gDGjebPV5tXMOg%3BFbFPLgId7yoE-SnxGX4w21LHgDHqRwyWqFgj7Q%3BFRsIQQIdGgXa-CnnNRvIfNmWgDEfe8tuqTEqyg%3BFZaXVQIdlX7c-ClxtN74oQqZgDEoOOK9gmyc9w&t=p&gl=us&mra=dvme&mrsp=1&sz=8&via=1,2&z=7) seems to avoid the worst terrain.
That's awesome. Thanks for the laugh.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 12:30:36 PM
What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?
Reno is decently positioned geographically to become an alternate to Northern California as a commercial and industrial center, considering that the Bay Area is essentially built out and the housing prices and taxes over there present substantial obstacles for both companies and their employees. If Tesla is leading a parade of new employers moving into the Reno area, I could see the Reno-Las Vegas route becoming important for freight transportation, given a 10 to 20 year time frame. I-80 west of Reno becomes extremely vexatious in the winter months, while the US 95 corridor rarely has any weather issues. A four-lane highway with just a few grade separations at places like Hawthorne and Tonopah ought to be sufficient, though.
The notion that a freeway from Reno to, say, Pendleton OR would ever be built is ludicrous. If there is one corridor north of Reno where an upgrade makes sense, it would be the route up US 395 to Susanville, then following CA 36, 44 and 89 to link up with I-5 at Mt. Shasta City. Any route east of there in northeastern California or northern Nevada can be served adequately by two-lane highways, forever.
Quote from: gonealookin on September 16, 2014, 07:55:18 PMA four-lane highway with just a few grade separations at places like Hawthorne and Tonopah ought to be sufficient, though.
This is where my mind is going. This proposal makes it sound like Americans have reached the point where we can't travel long distances without an Interstate, even if there's an adequate road already.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 12:30:36 PM
... What is the problem that exists for which the best solution is an interstate highway between Reno and Las Vegas?
I would say that there currently is no pressing traffic problem that requires an Interstate highway as the best solution.
As Congress lent its support and made the I-11 corridor official between Phoenix and Las Vegas, this has prompted study of where else this Interstate could go within the intermountain west region. There is currently a big void of north south Interstate highways between I-5 in California and I-15 in Utah (roughly 650-700 miles between those two along I-80). People are looking at connectivity with potential industry as well, which leads to freight mobility that could be enhanced by a north-south Interstate highway in the region.
Quote from: gonealookin on September 16, 2014, 07:55:18 PM
... A four-lane highway with just a few grade separations at places like Hawthorne and Tonopah ought to be sufficient, though.
The notion that a freeway from Reno to, say, Pendleton OR would ever be built is ludicrous. If there is one corridor north of Reno where an upgrade makes sense, it would be the route up US 395 to Susanville, then following CA 36, 44 and 89 to link up with I-5 at Mt. Shasta City. Any route east of there in northeastern California or northern Nevada can be served adequately by two-lane highways, forever.
Even before the I-11 study began and extending that route north of Las Vegas was a concept for the Fictional Highways board, I frequently stated that a freeway north from Las Vegas along the US 95 corridor is wildly unnecessary. Even with I-11 gaining traction, I'm still skeptical of the need. Roughly half of the Vegas to Reno route probably sees traffic volumes of less than 10,000 vehicles per day, so it's really hard to justify even four-laning the route, much less making it a full-fledged freeway.
To justify the freight ideas, a proposed I-11 would likely need to hit pretty close to Silver Springs, to make it convenient to the south end USA Parkway and the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (where Tesla will locate) – right now, that complex only has access on the north end, so moving any goods south requires a detour. To hit Silver Springs means diverging from US 95 near Schurz and following US 95 Alt, then also figuring out whether it's better to cut over to Carson City/Reno via I-580 or taking a straight shot north towards Fernley and I-80.
Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2014, 02:58:02 AM
Even before the I-11 study began and extending that route north of Las Vegas was a concept for the Fictional Highways board, I frequently stated that a freeway north from Las Vegas along the US 95 corridor is wildly unnecessary. Even with I-11 gaining traction, I'm still skeptical of the need. Roughly half of the Vegas to Reno route probably sees traffic volumes of less than 10,000 vehicles per day, so it's really hard to justify even four-laning the route, much less making it a full-fledged freeway.
I-11 is an "if you built it they will come" concept, where I-11 can provide a (relatively) traffic free route between Mexico and Canada without having to use I-5 or pass through congested Southern California. The most useful stretch under current traffic volumes is obviously between I-17 and I-15 (Phoenix to Vegas, but for those aiming toward Portland and Seattle, I-11 would be the route to take. I think there's a thought that the I-11 corridor could reduce freight passing through San Diego and Los Angeles and instead go inland. But any highway construction of I-11 magnitude would have to be backed up with facilities that help push commercial freight traffic onto the corridor, and that might include more ports of entry from Mexico and have more commercial transfer yards. A rail corridor might find its way into the picture. Would freight handlers move from the I-5 corridor to I-11 to get items from Mexico to the Pacific Northwest? That remains to be seen. First someone has to find the money to build it!
Quote from: andy3175 on September 19, 2014, 11:29:42 PM
Would freight handlers move from the I-5 corridor to I-11 to get items from Mexico to the Pacific Northwest? That remains to be seen. First someone has to find the money to build it!
And NDOT certainly doesn't have the money to build it... They're struggling to find money to finance needed big money projects as it is... (i.e. Project Neon and the I-515 widening in Las Vegas, although I'm not sure that the I-515 project is even on the radar anymore...)
The I-11 feasibility study was issued by ADOT and NDOT ... see http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/I-11CCR_Report_2014-11-05.pdf
I provided a more thorough review on the Mountain West section of the Forum.
MOD NOTE: This post (and subsequent posts from 1/18-28/2017) was originally made in reply to another post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15134.msg2199781#msg2199781) in the "I-11/US 93 - Boulder City Bypass" thread. This was done to combine general I-11 alignment thoughts/speculation/commentary to one thread, separated from the thread on a specific I-11 project already under construction. –Roadfro
If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).
Where are they getting this idea that the "mountain west region" is going to add 32 million residents between now and 2030? What exactly makes up the "mountain west region?" For reference, the 2016 projected population of Texas is 28 million people and the same projections estimate 39 million residents in California. The 2016 projected population for Nevada is 2.86 million people. Arizona is currently projected to have 6.9 million residents.
Considering the high cost of living and lack of certain natural resources (like water), I sure wouldn't expect a population boom that would radically increase populations in those states. Nevada's population would have to multiply a few times over for such a high growth projection to be realized.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).
I agree.
Quote from: LM117 on January 27, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).
I agree.
If you're going to build a complete bypass loop around a city or metro area, it is best -- for simple navigation purposes alone -- that it carries one consistent number; in this instance, I-215 is more than adequate in its present configuration (presuming the I-designation will eventually supplant County 215 when the presently planned 3/4-loop is finished) and would also be if the eastern quadrant is planned & built. I-11 may as well stay on US 95 through the metro area; through traffic that wants to use the south and west part of I-215 as a bypass will do so absent additional I-11 signage on the loop.
Quote from: sparker on January 29, 2017, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 27, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
If I had a vote, I'd vote that Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 corridor. To me, this makes more sense than sending it westward up 215, or building a new eastern freeway (which if necessary should be an extension of 215 IMHO).
I agree.
If you're going to build a complete bypass loop around a city or metro area, it is best -- for simple navigation purposes alone -- that it carries one consistent number; in this instance, I-215 is more than adequate in its present configuration (presuming the I-designation will eventually supplant County 215 when the presently planned 3/4-loop is finished) and would also be if the eastern quadrant is planned & built. I-11 may as well stay on US 95 through the metro area; through traffic that wants to use the south and west part of I-215 as a bypass will do so absent additional I-11 signage on the loop.
For that reason, I also say take I-11 through Vegas instead of around it. That would be the most logical thing to do!
I would still maintain that route numbers don't really matter. 90% of drivers from outside the region are going to go where the little voice from their phone tells them to go, and that voice's ideas are dictated by distance and traffic volumes. Google seems to have few qualms about going through interchanges (provided they built a direct connector from 215 E to 11 N at the northern end), but it seems that 215 would add at least 11 miles, so the traffic would have to be pretty bad for it to actually be quicker.
Back when the route for I-69 was being chosen for Houston, there were proposals that put it on I-610, instead of through Downtown on US 59. The problem was that I-610 was, at that time (and I think even now), in much worse shape than was US 59 through the city, so I think that partially led to the final choice of heading through the city.
There was a recent thread about bypasses that are not really bypasses. I don't know if I-215 was listed, but it potentially could have been. Seems to me that it's mostly a freeway serving some outlying suburban areas.
Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.
Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit :)
LA and San Jose are not connected by an interstate. They are sort of connected by a single route number, but only one that takes a pronounced turn of approximately 90 degrees.
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 31, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.
It might not be modern Interstate standards for shoulder width, but I'm fairly certain it meets at least AASHTO minimum shoulder widths for freeway settings along most of that stretch (and, honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, if any). Most of that has been reconstructed/widened (again) within the last 5-10 years and sits on plenty of ROW, so there's no good reason why it wouldn't meet minimums.
Keep in mind that the most recent widening was designed before I-11 was officially designated. Even if the I-11 concept was in discussion when the last widening was being designed, that original I-11 concept was Phoenix-to-Vegas only–talks of northward extension only really gained traction after the number was signed into law.
I think it would be easier to justify upgrading US-101 between the L.A. area and San Jose fully to Interstate standards than building a Las Vegas to Reno Interstate link. That's even with some of the fairly sharp turns along the way, like the one at Gaviota State Park.
Most of US-101 along that way is limited access. Dozens of entrance/exit ramps and many shoulders would have to be upgraded to bring it up to Interstate standards. And there is dozens of drive ways and at-grade intersections along the route. An Interstate upgrade of US-101 would be far more expensive to do than extending I-40 to Bakersfield. The traffic is there to justify it though.
Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.
It's just ridiculous between Tonopah and Carson City or Reno. There's at least 2 really big mountain ranges standing in the way of a reasonably direct path between those cities.
The existing highways in Nevada and Eastern California have to go way around all these different mountain ranges, adding many miles and hours to the drive. A new Interstate would need to have a more direct route, but that would involve going through 2 or more of those mountain ranges. Tunnels would be necessary to keep the grade at or below 6%. Other countries (Japan, China) don't seem to have so much of a problem building new tunnels. The United States has no ability to build tunnels without completely destroying the budget. It's all about the price gouging here.
There's certainly not enough traffic to justify tunneling. The benefit to making an interstate out of the existing US routes is pretty marginal anyway. It would be a slight safety improvement, and follow US 95 from Las Vegas to Fallon to I-80 near the Fallon Rest Area, with a 3di from Fallon to I-80 at Fernley. Minimal mountains, no tunneling, relatively low elevation route that would stay open year around without needing to be plowed.
But I bet there are other investments in safety that would have a bigger payoff for the money.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.
Nevada is funny in that the majority of the center of the state is federal land, so building new highways on new ROW would encounter less public resistance when compared to other states. US 95 follows a deliberately flat path to avoid mountains, just for the sake of path of least resistance in terms of terrain. I don't think an interstate routing would move that far from the US 95 path, simply because it's easier to upgrade much of the existing ROW rather than create a new routing, and it would be prudent to utilize the existing limited services available in the towns on that corridor.
I would be interested to see how the routing happened if it were decided that I-11 should connect to I-580, instead of following the current path of Vegas-Reno traffic: west at Fallon to I-80. There's no good, existing path between US 95 and US 395, and a new path would, conversely, meet with a lot of resistance. Going to Fallon with the route seems like the better choice.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.
Nevada is funny in that the majority of the center of the state is federal land, so building new highways on new ROW would encounter less public resistance when compared to other states. US 95 follows a deliberately flat path to avoid mountains, just for the sake of path of least resistance in terms of terrain. I don't think an interstate routing would move that far from the US 95 path, simply because it's easier to upgrade much of the existing ROW rather than create a new routing, and it would be prudent to utilize the existing limited services available in the towns on that corridor.
I would be interested to see how the routing happened if it were decided that I-11 should connect to I-580, instead of following the current path of Vegas-Reno traffic: west at Fallon to I-80. There's no good, existing path between US 95 and US 395, and a new path would, conversely, meet with a lot of resistance. Going to Fallon with the route seems like the better choice.
It's likely that an I-11 alignment more or less via Fallon and intersecting I-80 near Fernley would be the most likely (as well as the topographic path of least resistance). There aren't a lot of major obstacles between Tonopah and Fallon to a freeway facility along US 95 -- the main one, Walker Lake, can be obviated by running the Interstate around the east side of the lake following the railroad. Also, a Fernley intersecting point would be relatively "neutral" in regards to the trajectory of any further northward extension (Boise or Oregon), while remaining somewhat near Reno, the population center of the region.
I would also guess that the towns along US 95, that currently receive all of that cross-state traffic, would be pretty upset if I-11 went a different way. Fallon seems to be pretty heavily reliant on the traffic.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 06:13:15 PM
I would also guess that the towns along US 95, that currently receive all of that cross-state traffic, would be pretty upset if I-11 went a different way. Fallon seems to be pretty heavily reliant on the traffic.
Actually, Fallon has found favor as a retirement community due to its relatively low cost of living; it also is partially supported by the nearby Fallon NAS. Traveler services don't comprise much of the immediate area's economy.
If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain. The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway. The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain. The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway. The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.
Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.
Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2017, 10:38:51 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain. The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway. The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.
Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.
I can just see the brothel billboards alongside the freeway: "Stop in and see us.....what else have you got to do on I-11?"
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2017, 10:38:51 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain. The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway. The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.
Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.
I can just see the brothel billboards alongside the freeway: "Stop in and see us.....what else have you got to do on I-11?"
Actually, there are no brothels currently operating in or around Tonopah. I don't think there has been any near Tonopah along US 95 in the last 15-ish years, as I've never seen any (I've driven Vegas-to-Reno or vice versa at least once a year since 2001).
Quote from: roadfro on February 02, 2017, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 11:17:09 PM
Quote from: michravera on February 01, 2017, 10:38:51 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
If I-11 were built, it would bypass Tonopaw about 2 miles to the west, west of Siebert Mountain. The town is higher elevation and kind of wedged in between hills with no easy place to put a freeway. The bypass would be a couple of miles shorter, too.
Not sure how the Tonopaw residents would feel about being bypassed, though.
Not that it much matters, but Tonapah is on US-6 and, even if bypassed by I-11, would still be on the route east. It is also the place with all of the food, gas, and casinos and one of the few places to stop. If I recall correctly, the legal whorehouses are also literally just outside of the city limits. My guess is that some of them would likely move over to I-11 (which would certainly be outside the city limits) or new ones would open. My guess is that I-11 being routed 2 miles to the west would be a boon to the town.
I can just see the brothel billboards alongside the freeway: "Stop in and see us.....what else have you got to do on I-11?"
Actually, there are no brothels currently operating in or around Tonopah. I don't think there has been any near Tonopah along US 95 in the last 15-ish years, as I've never seen any (I've driven Vegas-to-Reno or vice versa at least once a year since 2001).
I was going to say, the last time I drove this over Thanksgiving, the brothel I remembered around (read: within 15 miles of) Beatty was gone. They usually push them well out of town. Even the Chicken Ranch is on the edge of Pahrump.
I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.
I suspect the young ladies work there because they don't feel they have any alternatives, not because it's such an attractive job.
I didn't intend to suggest that was an "attractive" line of work. But for red-light district type work, there's a lot of it in far more populated cities. Prostitution may not be legalized. But I think there is a far larger customer base looking for regular topless bar thrills in cities. A stripper's pay per stage dance or lap dance isn't nearly as high as a brothel transaction, but the cash flow might actually be better. I can't imagine there is a great deal of "bunny ranch" customers willing to drive up US-95 to some very remote spot in Nevada. I would think a brothel in a remote area would struggle pretty badly to stay in business.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.
They may not live there.. I would suspect that many of the " working girls" have other gigs as research scientists... Just kidding.
Most proably work in Las Vegas as strippers or escorts most of the week with a night or 2 a week in the country
LGMS428
Quote from: roadfro on February 01, 2017, 11:01:45 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 31, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.
It might not be modern Interstate standards for shoulder width, but I'm fairly certain it meets at least AASHTO minimum shoulder widths for freeway settings along most of that stretch (and, honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, if any). Most of that has been reconstructed/widened (again) within the last 5-10 years and sits on plenty of ROW, so there's no good reason why it wouldn't meet minimums.
Keep in mind that the most recent widening was designed before I-11 was officially designated. Even if the I-11 concept was in discussion when the last widening was being designed, that original I-11 concept was Phoenix-to-Vegas only–talks of northward extension only really gained traction after the number was signed into law.
IIRC current Interstate standards require 10 foot inside shoulders if there are 3 or more lanes in each direction, and 10 foot outside shoulders always. A lot of the shoulders look like they're only about 8', and some of the underpasses have no shoulder at all. It's fine in its current condition for what it is, but getting approval for that blue sign beyond Vegas (which is what that discussion was about) might be tough, at least without demolishing a bunch of bridges.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.
As I understand it from some reading on the subject, they typically aren't allowed to leave during their shifts, which can be up to 3 weeks long. Part of the whole public health aspect of legalized brothels is that they are required to get medical testing (including an STD test) before each shift, and if they could just leave and do anything with anyone it would undermine that. And as for jwolfer's comment, the whole point of doing it legally is to do it legally. Stripping, sure, or serving cocktails, waiting tables, dealing blackjack, going to class at UNLV to become a research scientist, whatever, but not working as an escort.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
I think it would be easier to justify upgrading US-101 between the L.A. area and San Jose fully to Interstate standards than building a Las Vegas to Reno Interstate link. That's even with some of the fairly sharp turns along the way, like the one at Gaviota State Park.
Most of US-101 along that way is limited access. Dozens of entrance/exit ramps and many shoulders would have to be upgraded to bring it up to Interstate standards. And there is dozens of drive ways and at-grade intersections along the route. An Interstate upgrade of US-101 would be far more expensive to do than extending I-40 to Bakersfield. The traffic is there to justify it though.
Mountains are the main problem with the Vegas to Reno I-11 concept. US-95 from Vegas to Tonopah isn't too bad. It's curves around a bit, but that's as good as that segment can be.
It's just ridiculous between Tonopah and Carson City or Reno. There's at least 2 really big mountain ranges standing in the way of a reasonably direct path between those cities.
The existing highways in Nevada and Eastern California have to go way around all these different mountain ranges, adding many miles and hours to the drive. A new Interstate would need to have a more direct route, but that would involve going through 2 or more of those mountain ranges. Tunnels would be necessary to keep the grade at or below 6%. Other countries (Japan, China) don't seem to have so much of a problem building new tunnels. The United States has no ability to build tunnels without completely destroying the budget. It's all about the price gouging here.
True, but nearly all of the freeways in Japan and China are tolled (quite expensively), so with toll revenues being shared across all of each country's freeway network, not just the roads from which the tolls are collected. That's why both countries can afford big highway building binges with expensive tunnels through areas that would not otherwise be buildable.
Quote from: dfwmapperAs I understand it from some reading on the subject, they typically aren't allowed to leave during their shifts, which can be up to 3 weeks long. Part of the whole public health aspect of legalized brothels is that they are required to get medical testing (including an STD test) before each shift, and if they could just leave and do anything with anyone it would undermine that. And as for jwolfer's comment, the whole point of doing it legally is to do it legally. Stripping, sure, or serving cocktails, waiting tables, dealing blackjack, going to class at UNLV to become a research scientist, whatever, but not working as an escort.
The comparison I was drawing was total money making potential between legal activites in either place. Yes, a prostitute working in a legal brothel way out in the middle of nowhere could potentially make a lot of money. But that depends totally on a steady supply of customers will to pay for those services. A really remote location might reduce the amount of customer traffic down to where the worker's cash flow is less than what she would make stripping legally at topless bar in a city.
Quote from: abqtravelerTrue, but nearly all of the freeways in Japan and China are tolled (quite expensively), so with toll revenues being shared across all of each country's freeway network, not just the roads from which the tolls are collected. That's why both countries can afford big highway building binges with expensive tunnels through areas that would not otherwise be buildable.
I think there's more to it than that. Both China and Japan do put tolls on most of their super highways and I imagine the current prices are not cheap. I lived in Japan when I was a kid, but can't remember what some of the toll prices were back then. It has been over 30 years. There has to be a balance with toll prices. If they're too expensive not enough vehicles will use the road to help it pay for itself.
The United States has let its road building costs rise out of control while not allowing its infrastructure funding mechanisms to either rise and account for that price inflation or do something to limit the price inflation. It's expensive as hell to build anything in Japan since land prices are so high. For what ever reason China can build roads, bridges and tunnels at a mere fraction of what it costs in the United States. I think some of those reasons are likely inhumane. The Chinese government can quickly force a new transportation project in any direction it likes, no matter what villages get bulldozed in the process.
It would be nice if the United States could find some sort of happy medium, like new advancements in highway building techniques and technology that bring about cost savings rather than balloon the project costs even worse.
If we can get this thread off the subject of hookers, escorts, and strippers (welcome to NV!) for a bit it might be useful to speculate on if and where this corridor might extend north of I-80 -- not as a fictional exercise, but to address where the already designated I-11/HPC 68 corridor actually would intersect the E-W route. I've already forwarded the guess that Fernley (via somewhere near Fallon) would be a "compromise" intersection location because it would allow egress northeast or west along I-80 toward either Winnemucca/Boise or Reno/Oregon. Still others have suggested turning the corridor west via Yerington and Dayton to Carson City before subsuming I-580 north to Reno. Looking at this option, one would need to weigh the positive aspects of this routing (attracting more local traffic, placing the corridor nearer to the Virginia City and Lake Tahoe recreational areas, putting the growing Carson City area on a through corridor) versus the negative (increased cost of deploying a freeway through the mountains east of Carson City -- although it would be closely paralleling US 50 for a large portion of its alignment, the "backtracking" trajectory that takes a northbound route WSW into Carson City -- and the likely added expenses and hassles of property takings along US 50). However, a Fallon/Fernley option isn't a piece of cake either; the housing growth in & around Fallon would require a bypass route to the southwest, as most of that growth is west of the town center. And if eventually Boise is selected as the corridor's ultimate aim, it's likely that a direct connection from the Fallon area north along US 95 to I-80 will be considered, along with a spur to Fernley to mollify Reno interests; arranging such a network around what's on the ground in that area won't be simple.
Legislatively, the Vegas-to-I-80 corridor is a done deal; whether it ever gets built is a matter of conjecture. Right now, anything north of I-80 is simply fictional speculation -- if I address it, it'll be in a thread there. But the beyond-vague nature of the HPC 68/I-11 legislation within its current language does make the northern terminus of that corridor up for grabs, so to speak. If anyone here has any other "best guesses" as to corridor and/or terminus location (and please, something thoughtful; not simple dismissal of the corridor itself), please contribute!
The mountainous route to get to the south end of Carson City would be a problem. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, occassional winter closures. I'd look at bypassing Fallon on the east side, between the warehouses and big box stores. It'd probably hit I-84 around Caldwell, Idaho.
However, still doubtful that building north of Las Vegas will be undertaken in the next 40 years or so. Arizona is enthusiastic about building new interstates, Nevada wants to see a favorable cost-benefit analysis first.
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 05, 2017, 04:58:46 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 01, 2017, 11:01:45 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 31, 2017, 07:10:05 PM
Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.
It might not be modern Interstate standards for shoulder width, but I'm fairly certain it meets at least AASHTO minimum shoulder widths for freeway settings along most of that stretch (and, honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, if any). Most of that has been reconstructed/widened (again) within the last 5-10 years and sits on plenty of ROW, so there's no good reason why it wouldn't meet minimums.
Keep in mind that the most recent widening was designed before I-11 was officially designated. Even if the I-11 concept was in discussion when the last widening was being designed, that original I-11 concept was Phoenix-to-Vegas only–talks of northward extension only really gained traction after the number was signed into law.
IIRC current Interstate standards require 10 foot inside shoulders if there are 3 or more lanes in each direction, and 10 foot outside shoulders always. A lot of the shoulders look like they're only about 8', and some of the underpasses have no shoulder at all. It's fine in its current condition for what it is, but getting approval for that blue sign beyond Vegas (which is what that discussion was about) might be tough, at least without demolishing a bunch of bridges.Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2017, 10:45:35 AM
I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.
As I understand it from some reading on the subject, they typically aren't allowed to leave during their shifts, which can be up to 3 weeks long. Part of the whole public health aspect of legalized brothels is that they are required to get medical testing (including an STD test) before each shift, and if they could just leave and do anything with anyone it would undermine that. And as for jwolfer's comment, the whole point of doing it legally is to do it legally. Stripping, sure, or serving cocktails, waiting tables, dealing blackjack, going to class at UNLV to become a research scientist, whatever, but not working as an escort.
Escorts dont have sex [emoji6]
LGMS428
Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2017, 03:07:32 PM
The mountainous route to get to the south end of Carson City would be a problem. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, occassional winter closures. I'd look at bypassing Fallon on the east side, between the warehouses and big box stores. It'd probably hit I-84 around Caldwell, Idaho.
However, still doubtful that building north of Las Vegas will be undertaken in the next 40 years or so. Arizona is enthusiastic about building new interstates, Nevada wants to see a favorable cost-benefit analysis first.
Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects
LGMS428
Quote from: jwolfer on February 12, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects
Reno.
Low tax state, so they're not rolling in money for projects that aren't clearly necessary.
Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2017, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on February 12, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects
Reno.
Low tax state, so they're not rolling in money for projects that aren't clearly necessary.
No disrespect to Reno but i am talking metro areas over 1 million..
Florida has no income tax but other taxes and fees are high compared to other states. Florida makes the most of tourists spending money here
LGMS428
Reno and Vegas could use an Interstate connection between them, cost be damned.
Quote from: Henry on February 13, 2017, 09:14:59 AM
Reno and Vegas could use an Interstate connection between them, cost be damned.
Based on what? The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic. Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what? Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements. Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?
LV would be helped more by additional lanes on I-15 so weekenders from LA could get there quicker.
Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Based on what? The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic. Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what? Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements. Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?
I'm usually the first to say "Let's be careful spending what limited transportation funding we have right now," but I disagree with you on I-11, for a few reasons:
- West Coast freight needs an I-5 reliever route. If you think of I-11 as a phased approach to providing that, then the Vegas to Reno segment is the second phase with an eventual connection to the Northwest ports as a third phase.
- Induced demand. People will make the trip because they can do it at 80 mph when they couldn't at 70 mph. It may only be a few hundred a day, but it will happen.
- The most expensive part of the project would be coupling — which is probably justified anyway — not the interchanges. We're talking, what, two-dozen interchanges needed between Las Vegas and Fernley?
- Depending on route selection, NDOT could cut considerable mileage off the Vegas to Reno drive by realigning I-11 off US 95 — depending on how aggressive they wanted to be with re-routing (and bypassing existing communities), up to 75 miles.
Now, would I rather see Vegas and Reno connected by true high speed rail, that blazed past US 95 motorists at 200 mph and connected the two cities in two hours w/ no airport hassle? Sure. But that's not a political reality we live in. The next best option to cut pollution, save time and make the corridor safer is a coupling with the option of building the limited number of interchanges needed to justify an 80 mph speed limit.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 13, 2017, 01:05:52 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 13, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Based on what? The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic. Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what? Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements. Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?
I'm usually the first to say "Let's be careful spending what limited transportation funding we have right now," but I disagree with you on I-11, for a few reasons:
- West Coast freight needs an I-5 reliever route. If you think of I-11 as a phased approach to providing that, then the Vegas to Reno segment is the second phase with an eventual connection to the Northwest ports as a third phase.
I-5 does get crowded, but where do you see freight origins and destinations that would use the LV-Reno segment? The natural reliever routes would be CA 99 through the Central Valley, US 395 from greater LA to Reno, US 97 from Weed to the Dalles. For that matter, widening I-5 would probably save more traveler-minutes for less money than an entirely new freeway route.
Reno isn't a big industrial city and neither produces nor consumes a lot of freight. Tesla isn't going to be big enough to change this for many years, if ever.
Quote
- Induced demand. People will make the trip because they can do it at 80 mph when they couldn't at 70 mph. It may only be a few hundred a day, but it will happen.
Very few. The casinos and shows attract people from outside Nevada to come in: L.A. residents to Las Vegas, San Francisco and Bay Area residents to Reno. Once you're in one of those cities, tourists do their gambling and go to shows and such, and then go home. They don't need to go from one to the other much.
Quote
- The most expensive part of the project would be coupling — which is probably justified anyway — not the interchanges. We're talking, what, two-dozen interchanges needed between Las Vegas and Fernley?
- Depending on route selection, NDOT could cut considerable mileage off the Vegas to Reno drive by realigning I-11 off US 95 — depending on how aggressive they wanted to be with re-routing (and bypassing existing communities), up to 75 miles.
True, but we're talking about low traffic here. By bypassing what towns there are and raising the speed limit they might save as much as an hour off an almost 7 hour trip. How much is that hour worth for a low traffic route? That's still pretty far to do just for fun or to go there and back in a single day and not be thoroughly sick of driving by the end.
Quote
Now, would I rather see Vegas and Reno connected by true high speed rail, that blazed past US 95 motorists at 200 mph and connected the two cities in two hours w/ no airport hassle? Sure. But that's not a political reality we live in. The next best option to cut pollution, save time and make the corridor safer is a coupling with the option of building the limited number of interchanges needed to justify an 80 mph speed limit.
LV-Reno would be a really bad choice of route for HSR. You need big cities at both ends with existing high traffic. Also, you'd have two bad choices for route: either lots of turns to go around mountain ranges, or lots of mountain climbing and/or tunnels.
Now, LV-LA could be a good choice. I-15 gets pretty backed up sometimes and there is a lot of tourist traffic, and it's possible to get around LV pretty decently without a car I'm told.
I reckon it will be a while before sizable portions of Interstate 11 are constructed in Nevada and Arizona. If anyone disagrees, let me know.
The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.
For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 13, 2017, 04:29:17 PM
The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.
For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.
I agree and as much as I love interstates and freeways, I'm not so keen on the portion between Reno and LV. I rather like the two lane roads out there.
If NDOT isn't raising I-80 to 80 mph, I'm not sure if they would for I-11.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 13, 2017, 04:29:17 PM
The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.
For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.
Don't get too hung up on "Interstates have to start and end at other important roads" I-11 could just run from Phoenix to NV-375 "The Extraterrestrial Highway" and, thus technically, right off the face of the earth!
I'm personally not hung up on making Interstate highways only terminate at another major intersection, such as another Interstate highway or at least an intersection with a US highway. I'm under the impression that's a current government rule regarding how such roads are signed.
I've looked closely at mountains around the Carson City area. The most difficult thing standing in the way of a reasonable I-11 route to Vegas is the Pine Nut Mountains just East of Carson City. If a highway could somehow be built through that range over to Yerington it would open possibilities for a somewhat direct path down to Tonopah (far more direct than what is available now via US-95 and US-50).
Sunrise Pass Road goes through the Pine Nut Mountains cutting between Bismark Peak and Mineral Peak and around Mount Como. The road comes out near Artesia Lake and a wildlife refuge there. Yerington is just East of that. A super highway cutting through this mountain range would probably have to follow near this route, and possibly have to tunnel through parts of it due to steeper grades and sharp turns. Nevertheless a highway connection between Carson City and Yerintgon could open a lot of development possibilities in the Walker River valley.
If I-11 could be built from Carson City direct to Yertington the road could then follow Alt US-95 to Schurz and then continue ESE across fairly open territory until meeting up with the junction of NV-361 and NV-89 and then follow NV-89 right down to US-95 just outside Tonopah. The only downside of this route is it would cut through the Walker River Reservation. There's no telling whether the tribe would welcome such a highway and the potential business it brings or block it for any destructive effect it would have on their lands.
It would cost a shit-ton of money to build an Interstate quality freeway through the mountains East of Carson City. There's no way to justify the cost for local and regional use. But the concept could fly as part of a larger "big picture" corridor for the Mountain West.
Still, I think the Vegas to Phoenix part needs to be built first.
I'm going to pull in traffic counts here for the demonstration of the bogusness of this idea of a critical need for an interstate connection between the Nevada metros (or I-11 to I-80, for that matter).
Assuming that traffic from the south destined for Reno will follow US 95 to US 50 to I-80, we can look at the Wadsworth interchange, just west of Fernley: 24,500 in 2015.
https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2015Washoe.pdf
Compare that with just west of the US 95 interchange, north of Fallon: 7,900 in 2015.
https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2015Churchill.pdf
So, by that measure, you have a liberal estimate of 16,600 that would be directed on I-11, provided it go through Fallon and Fernley.
Conversely, look at the traffic counts for US 95 north of Schurz, where I-11 would likely cut off if it were to follow a route west to Carson City: 2,700.
https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2015Mineral.pdf
Even at its most liberal estimate, you're well below what even the existing I-80 corridor can handle. I'm not an expert on this stuff though, so feel free to correct me if I'm not understanding these numbers.
Every time I've driven east of Reno though, the traffic has been sparse, to say the least. And it's even sparser on US 95. Add some road improvements, including some widening and intersection improvements, and you have all you need. You don't need an interstate.
I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.
Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 10:45:55 PM
I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.
Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.
US 395 is very different. Like you mention, it's already almost completely 4-lane and divided. Additionally, the freeway bypass of Olancha is already under construction. For comparison's sake, the traffic counts for 395 also show a very different roadway in comparison to US 95 in Nevada: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d9/planning/docs/d9_aadt_count_data_1992to2015.pdf
There are always vulnerable towns that will be easily killed by any sort of change in the roadway. The "town" of Little Lake was killed off by a bypass of 395 around the middle of the last century. But places like Bishop, Lone Pine and Independence I think have a low chance of dying. The fact is that they're more reliant on the tourist traffic that comes through as opposed to the actual long-distance highway traffic, and them offering the few services that they do will keep them around. Plus, 395 is almost a freeway right now anyway, so you're not looking at significant speed limit changes so the story of the interstate killing the small town when it bypassed the two-lane blue highway would not really be repeated.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 15, 2017, 12:01:22 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2017, 10:45:55 PM
I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.
Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.
US 395 is very different. Like you mention, it's already almost completely 4-lane and divided. Additionally, the freeway bypass of Olancha is already under construction. For comparison's sake, the traffic counts for 395 also show a very different roadway in comparison to US 95 in Nevada: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d9/planning/docs/d9_aadt_count_data_1992to2015.pdf
There are always vulnerable towns that will be easily killed by any sort of change in the roadway. The "town" of Little Lake was killed off by a bypass of 395 around the middle of the last century. But places like Bishop, Lone Pine and Independence I think have a low chance of dying. The fact is that they're more reliant on the tourist traffic that comes through as opposed to the actual long-distance highway traffic, and them offering the few services that they do will keep them around. Plus, 395 is almost a freeway right now anyway, so you're not looking at significant speed limit changes so the story of the interstate killing the small town when it bypassed the two-lane blue highway would not really be repeated.
A freeway would kill those speed traps through Lone Pine and Independence, though. The cops love those towns.
Quote from: Quillz on February 15, 2017, 12:04:21 AM
A freeway would kill those speed traps through Lone Pine and Independence, though. The cops love those towns.
I don't think it's the cops so much loving the speed traps as the Angelenos loving to speed through them. It's a town. There are houses. There are schools. Slow the fuck down.
It does underscore the need for bypasses though. Personally, I think Bishop is the worst. The town is a slog during the summer or when Mammoth is open. Too much local traffic combined with the long-distance drivers on a narrow, congested business strip with street parking. It's just a bad scene. There are existing streets that could be upgraded to be used as a bypass, but they mostly lead to the Paiute, and I would guess that they want nothing to do with it. But I don't think it's totally far-fetched or that far away from happening.
And this segues into a return to I-11. I think the most practical way to improve the Vegas-Reno corridor would be to just do these sort of selected bypasses. I'd say Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 15, 2017, 11:14:19 AM
And this segues into a return to I-11. I think the most practical way to improve the Vegas-Reno corridor would be to just do these sort of selected bypasses. I'd say Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne.
Actually, it may be a damn good idea to deploy 4-lane expressway bypasses (with access control) around the towns cited (I'd add Goldfield, Schurz, and Fallon to the mix) as a near-term appropriate use of any funds available for the HPC 68 corridor; any upgrades (grade separations, interchanges, etc.) could come if & when the full I-11 is developed. In the meanwhile, you have locally beneficial "SIU's".
Quote from: coatimundiEvery time I've driven east of Reno though, the traffic has been sparse, to say the least. And it's even sparser on US 95. Add some road improvements, including some widening and intersection improvements, and you have all you need. You don't need an interstate.
You're observing existing traffic counts on existing roads, none of which provide any sort of easy, direct route between Las Vegas and Reno. The current counts may be primarily local traffic. A route that is much more friendly to long distance drivers and commercial vehicles might attract quite a few vehicles. But that's only going to happen if the route serves a much bigger picture purpose, at least something bigger than merely providing a better link between Reno and Vegas. One bigger purpose would be giving traffic coming from the Phoenix area and Mexico another route to the Pacific Northwest that bypasses the traffic in Southern California.
As it stands there isn't enough national interest in building a new Interstate corridor from far Northern California or Oregon down the Phoenix area or even Nogales (especially now with all the anti-Mexico and anti-NAFTA furor coming from the new administration). So in the near term Vegas to Phoenix is the only part of I-11 that has a shot of getting traction.
Yes, pretty sure traffic on I-80 in Nevada once you get east of the Reno suburbs is mostly long-haul truckers and occasional cars heading for SLC and the northern midwest and NE via Wyoming. I-80 through Wyoming is faster and has gentler grades than I-70 through the Rockies.
I am very skeptical there's a huge demand for freight traffic from Phoenix or Nogales or Vegas to/from the Pacific Northwest that's unwilling to take low-traffic US routes but would take a direct interstate.
In spite of its failings, I-10 to I-5 is generally the preferred long-haul truck and trailer route from the Southwest to the Northwest, especially in the winter, simply because it avoids a lot of the problematic mountainous terrain. This is why most on this board seem to understand the importance of completing the SR 58 segment west of Barstow to I-5: Tehachapi Pass is annoying, but it's got nothing on Donner, so its viability as an alternative to the LA routing becomes all the more important if you think about that sort of inter-regional traffic.
And I don't know that bringing I-11 to I-80 would necessarily bring any of that traffic away. Not solely due to Donner, but also the routings involved in getting back to I-5. I-80 into Sacramento is a pretty big detour. The shortest route is SR 20, but that's in no condition to be used as a regional thoroughfare. Everything north of that closes regularly in the winter and has some serious mountainous terrain.
I understand the "if you build it, they will come" thinking in general on interstates (that's part of how I-69 is justified), but I don't think it applies here. The only way it would apply is if they could get it up to I-5, and I just don't see that happening. Ever.
That said, I think this sort of thing lends credence to the idea of routing I-11 to Boise instead of to Reno. That would provide a good cut-off where surface highways, I-15, I-5, or a combination of one or more are used for this travel pattern now.
And if Donner Pass is bad, then Siskiyou Pass probably is too. If the weather is rotten and you have to head from Phoenix to Seattle, your best bet is US 93 to Twin Falls, I-84 to Portland, I-5 to Seattle. But even in winter there's a pretty good chance of getting through those passes without any problem.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 16, 2017, 02:48:12 PM
In spite of its failings, I-10 to I-5 is generally the preferred long-haul truck and trailer route from the Southwest to the Northwest, especially in the winter, simply because it avoids a lot of the problematic mountainous terrain. This is why most on this board seem to understand the importance of completing the SR 58 segment west of Barstow to I-5: Tehachapi Pass is annoying, but it's got nothing on Donner, so its viability as an alternative to the LA routing becomes all the more important if you think about that sort of inter-regional traffic.
And I don't know that bringing I-11 to I-80 would necessarily bring any of that traffic away. Not solely due to Donner, but also the routings involved in getting back to I-5. I-80 into Sacramento is a pretty big detour. The shortest route is SR 20, but that's in no condition to be used as a regional thoroughfare. Everything north of that closes regularly in the winter and has some serious mountainous terrain.
I understand the "if you build it, they will come" thinking in general on interstates (that's part of how I-69 is justified), but I don't think it applies here. The only way it would apply is if they could get it up to I-5, and I just don't see that happening. Ever.
That said, I think this sort of thing lends credence to the idea of routing I-11 to Boise instead of to Reno. That would provide a good cut-off where surface highways, I-15, I-5, or a combination of one or more are used for this travel pattern now.
Quote from: kkt on February 16, 2017, 03:50:37 PM
And if Donner Pass is bad, then Siskiyou Pass probably is too. If the weather is rotten and you have to head from Phoenix to Seattle, your best bet is US 93 to Twin Falls, I-84 to Portland, I-5 to Seattle. But even in winter there's a pretty good chance of getting through those passes without any problem.
Actually, Siskiyou Pass is about 2900 feet below Donner Pass and along an east-west ridge rather than a north-south; while it
does see quite a bit of snow in winter (there's a ski resort near the summit!), that snow tends to melt off quicker than at the higher altitudes -- and the storms tend to drop less snow at 4300 feet than at 7200, so recovery times are quicker -- and those storms that come Siskiyou's way tend to skip along the ridge rather than dwell over it, dumping precipitation all the while (they're usually following the Klamath valley to the south or the upper branches of the Rogue to the north). It certainly doesn't have the closure history of Donner.
Since the subject of I-11 as a "relief route" for I-5 has been breached, an alternative that hasn't been explored in depth for a north-of-Reno routing is a more or less direct route to I-5 rather than any destination east of the Cascades. A real relief route isn't necessarily a parallel route to the entire facility; it's intended to address the chokepoints along the original route. To this end I'm suggesting an alignment extending north of Reno following US 395 to CA 36 east of Susanville, then CA 36 west to CA 44, CA 44 northwest to CA 89, and CA 89 north and west to I-5 at Mt. Shasta. This route mostly uses a "saddle" across the mountains; it's functionally along the dividing line between the Cascades and the Sierra -- and has the added advantage of posing the least difficult crossing of the mountains, requiring some enlargement of the CA 44 segment over the Old Station escarpment (most of the rest of that route is already a 2-lane "California expressway" alignment and one of the later deployed routes in that area [ca. 1962-63]). The sole major structure on the route would be a bridge over the Pit River near Burney Falls. Most of the remainder of the route is either through forested area or in "high desert" southeast of Susanville (which itself will require a bypass facility).
So what happens to Eastern Oregon? It could, eventually, be addressed independently by a facility following US 97 from I-5 at Weed northward to wherever regional plans deem appropriate. Most of the I-11 traffic would have its origins or destinations somewhere along the I-5 corridor in any case; the same would apply to an Interstate corridor along US 97 except in a reverse direction. I'd venture a guess that compared to that traffic, there would be relatively little flowing from inland Oregon to Reno or Las Vegas; such traffic could use the short section of I-5 around Mt. Shasta to segue from one inland corridor to the other. Also -- Boise-related traffic would be addressed by another independent corridor from Winnemucca north to somewhere around Nampa, ID.
Please excuse the interregional and/or slightly fictional nature of this post in this thread -- but the viability of any I-11 extension is germane to this particular discussion -- and, IMO, positioning it as a
real relief route rather than just a potential line through sparsely populated territory is an appropriate subject here.
Some folks know how to use webcams to find out conditions in the passes. Here's the ODOT website that does a great job of covering the state. Take a look at Siskiyou Summit and see how clear it is! Then click on any of the Cascade passes and you're looking at ground central for a snowcone factory...LOL!
YMMV depending on date/time.
Rick
This is getting to be fictional territory, but: If what's wanted was a reliever for I-5, wouldn't the obvious way be upgrading CA 99 to interstate standards (whether the number was changed or not)? Combine that with the upgrades to CA 70 to Yuba City that have already been done and you've have a good bypass route. For that matter, most of I-5 in the Central Valley has enough right of way to be six lanes.
Upgrading US 97 could help too. I wouldn't seriously recommend interstate status, but 4 lanes divided from Weed to Madras would be a help.
Beckwourth Pass (CA 70) is another low-elevation pass.
Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?
Quote from: sparker on February 16, 2017, 04:51:34 PM
To this end I'm suggesting an alignment extending north of Reno following US 395 to CA 36 east of Susanville, then CA 36 west to CA 44, CA 44 northwest to CA 89, and CA 89 north and west to I-5 at Mt. Shasta. This route mostly uses a "saddle" across the mountains; it's functionally along the dividing line between the Cascades and the Sierra -- and has the added advantage of posing the least difficult crossing of the mountains, requiring some enlargement of the CA 44 segment over the Old Station escarpment
So we're making the leap from fictional - where I-11 gets north of I-80 - to fantastical? 44 to 89? Plow through Lassen NF and right through the backyard of Lassen Volcanic NP? It's hard enough to build new roads in the state, anything like this would require a near-catastrophic event, or I-5 through the Sacramento Valley becoming a parking lot.
And, really, why does the interstate have to get dumped into CA? Is there that much Vegas-Redding traffic out there that I'm just not that aware of?
Dumping more traffic onto I-5 in Oregon is not the solution. If you build something on the east side of the Cascades, it needs to continue north until it reaches an existing east-west interstate. Susanville - Bend - Madras - The Dalles - Yakima? I think that's more likely to happen than anything crossing the mountains into Jefferson.
However, I do think 395 will eventually be expressway-ed up to Susanville. It just won't carry an interstate designation.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 16, 2017, 08:34:11 PM
So we're making the leap from fictional - where I-11 gets north of I-80 - to fantastical? 44 to 89? Plow through Lassen NF and right through the backyard of Lassen Volcanic NP? It's hard enough to build new roads in the state, anything like this would require a near-catastrophic event, or I-5 through the Sacramento Valley becoming a parking lot.
And, really, why does the interstate have to get dumped into CA? Is there that much Vegas-Redding traffic out there that I'm just not that aware of?
Dumping more traffic onto I-5 in Oregon is not the solution. If you build something on the east side of the Cascades, it needs to continue north until it reaches an existing east-west interstate. Susanville - Bend - Madras - The Dalles - Yakima? I think that's more likely to happen than anything crossing the mountains into Jefferson.
However, I do think 395 will eventually be expressway-ed up to Susanville. It just won't carry an interstate designation.
I figured I'd get some flack about this concept -- but it's actually based on several interlocking realities. The first is the need to address the points of origin of traffic that would be likely to utilize the I-11 corridor. Three such points in the Northwest come to mind -- the Puget Sound extended metro area, the Portland/Willamette Valley area in Oregon, and Southern Oregon, where much of the remaining NW lumber business is situated -- operating mills are still primarily located along I-5 from Ashland north to Eugene, with Roseburg being the most active wood processing center. The second reality is ODOT and its relationship to current Oregon policy matters. Constructing an Interstate-grade facility across the Cascades is a non-starter in the state; not only does ODOT frown upon new freeway construction in general, but to do so in the old-growth forests of the west Cascade slope would be not only costly but politically infeasible. Also, none of the available cross-range pathways (US 26, US20 and/or OR 22, OR 58) would feature simple construction -- US 26 has exurban development and/or popular recreation areas from Gresham east to Wapinitia Pass while the other two routes feature extensive side-of-canyon alignments that would require route features likely to enrage the state's potent environmental community. The singular exception to the bias against freeways is sited east of the Cascades as a concession to the more conservative nature of that area; this is manifested with the Bend parkway (despite its shortcomings as a full limited-access facility) and the US 97 freeway in the Sunriver area. The only viable freeway corridor within the state follows US 97. But the problem with a I-11 extension along that route as far south as Klamath Falls is that it's way, way out of the way for traffic to and from Portland and environs if the only practical all-freeway routing heads due east from Portland along I-84 before turning south at The Dalles or Biggs. While that portends well for a possible Interstate corridor along US 97, it correspondingly does little to address traffic originating at Portland or points to the south along I-5.
The third "reality", so to speak, is the fact that the corridor I cited across northern CA is already in use as one of the main thoroughfares for traffic from the I-5 corridor to Reno & environs. I've used this routing myself, in both directions, at least a dozen times since the late 1980's, and have observed not only substantial truck traffic -- a large portion of which are lumber trucks which, according to the mill logos painted on the side of the loads, originated in Roseburg or Medford -- and were destined for either Reno or other points east of the Sierras. There were also substantial empties headed in the opposite direction as well. This was interspersed with a good deal of interregional recreational traffic (in fact, I was rear-ended heading southbound at the 89/299 junction back in '87 by an older gentleman heading to Reno on a gambling junket who -- believe it or not -- thought that the rumble strips prior to the stop sign at the intersection were meant to slow down his 1979 Cadillac -- the CHP officer who took the accident report was trying his best not to break out in laughter!). But the gist of this is that the combined routing is not only regularly
used as an interregional corridor, but is signed as such at the 5/89 interchange at Mt. Shasta City (SB auxiliary signage listing Susanville & Reno as exit destinations). From my observations, this is a viable corridor to consider.
Redding isn't even in the mix here; the 5/89 junction is some 55 miles north of that city. And yes, I'm even a bit reluctant to utilize I-5 in southern Oregon to potentially handle even more traffic than at present considering its physical configuration and challenges. But unless there's a drastic change of policy direction within the Oregon transportation establishment, getting traffic from anywhere along the I-5 corridor over to Reno will likely have to occur in another jurisdiction. If a Reno-Klamath-US97 routing were eventually to be developed, I'll concede that it may attract traffic to and from Portland and points to the north -- but certainly not from any points south of there.
All that having been said, I certainly wouldn't complain -- or be surprised -- if I-11 were to be redirected up through Winnemucca to the Boise area.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 16, 2017, 07:28:25 PM
Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?
I can't really speak to I-5, but that I-15 segment desperately needs to be widened. NDOT has widened it's share of I-15 to at least three lanes south of Vegas but that third lane drops at Primm (the state line) which is the start of significant backups when all the SoCal traffic heads back after holiday weekends.
Quote from: roadfro on February 17, 2017, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 16, 2017, 07:28:25 PM
Shouldn't I-15 from Barstow to Vegas be widened to six lanes before I-5 from LA to SanFran is six laned?
I can't really speak to I-5, but that I-15 segment desperately needs to be widened. NDOT has widened it's share of I-15 to at least three lanes south of Vegas but that third lane drops at Primm (the state line) which is the start of significant backups when all the SoCal traffic heads back after holiday weekends.
From my time in L.A., having made about 15 trips to Vegas, was that traffic on I-15 was horrific during the weekend rush (Fridays/Sundays/holidays), but free and clear at other times (accidents and weather notwithstanding).
On the other hand, I-5 has issues almost constantly, regardless of day of the week.
It's kind of a shame that I-15 was built directly over US-91. That stretch from Barstow to Vegas might have been a good example of where maintaining a parallel US highway (not necessarily a frontage road, however) might have been useful. If nothing else, at least could provide a decent backup when the 15 is crowded.
Quote from: sparker on February 17, 2017, 04:22:34 AM
I figured I'd get some flack about this concept -- but it's actually based on several interlocking realities.
No, no problem. Feel free to totally ignore my point about the issues of pooping out an interstate next to a national park... :-D
My bringing up an Oregon routing was to illustrate how ridiculous the California routing would be, from my perspective. There would have to be a significant policy shift on the part of one stakeholder group. Here, it's not Caltrans but, rather, the fact that Caltrans listens to the local population, and that local population would never let a new highway push through, failing something totally catastrophic.
I'm stating it for the benefit of others because I know you already realize this, but it's exceedingly difficult to make any determination on logging areas with respect to where the trees are going and when and if it's going to be logged. Even on NFS land. This is by design to try and protect against environmental activism and sabotage. That said, seeing a truck with a Rogue River Valley logo means as much as seeing a semi-trailer with an Indiana plate. It doesn't necessarily tell you where it's going or where it came from. Boise Cascade has a large presence in that area as they do in most of Northern California, and as they do in Mississppi, and Georgia, and Louisiana, etc.
I went up to that region a couple of years ago on a rare clear and mild (it was still f'in cold, but there wasn't much snow) February, and there was very little traffic. When those roads close, they close hard, and you have what I call a Yellowstone effect, where everyone mobs in for the few months that the recreational opportunities are available. Year-round tourism does not seem to exist up there. Anything going over the Sierras there, in terms of a major highway, is going to be another burden on the state. Donner is extremely tough to keep open at this time of year, and no one wants another Donner.
Quote from: Quillz on February 17, 2017, 07:22:03 PM
It's kind of a shame that I-15 was built directly over US-91. That stretch from Barstow to Vegas might have been a good example of where maintaining a parallel US highway (not necessarily a frontage road, however) might have been useful. If nothing else, at least could provide a decent backup when the 15 is crowded.
You know, I think this is a good point. There was definitely a lack of foresight in the design of the original interstate system, where original surface routings were bypassed for the sake of cost and convenience while, in reality, it would have been advantageous to keep most of them in tact for the purpose of emergency detour routings. There is a thread on the Mountain West forum where ADOT is proposing an emergency reversible lane on I-17 north of Phoenix, because the hordes of Phoenicians can't seem to take a curve on their way to Flag and constantly cause wrecks. Instead of building what looks to be a really ridiculous configuration, the original highway could have potentially been retained, and the need wouldn't necessarily exist.
That said, Angelenos all seem to go to and from Vegas all at the same times. Fly (you guys have
five airports with flights to Vegas), don't bitch about the traffic, or don't go. If you drive I-15 on a Wednesday afternoon, it's no worse than I-40. And, of course, I-40 is a totally acceptable alternate routing to I-15 between Barstow and Vegas. But you would never know it with the contrast in traffic between the two roads on Fridays.
Pooping out an interstate? If only it were that easy. :) Somehow, I don't think there would be all that much locally-sourced opposition to placing an Interstate along the route I outlined. This part of CA is among the "reddest" zones in what is, in terms of population aggregate, a blue state. Susanville, the largest town en route, provided the highest Republican percentage of any incorporated city in CA. Every county along the route posted similar if not quite as robust results. If any area of CA would welcome a project that would promise (at least for the construction period) additional jobs plus the potential for commercial ventures, it would be this one. You might get some squawking from a few Bay Area transplants in the Lake Almanor area (more than a few of those on the Almanor peninsula), but objections are more likely to emanate from the usual objectors who tend to denigrate road projects in general and Interstate projects in particular. And the observation that Caltrans tends to listen to the locals is correct -- but we're not on the coast here -- we're in the inland NE pine forests.
No, it wouldn't be the locals who'd object -- it'd be Caltrans itself not wanting to take on a major new project. It would take a massive level of political pressure -- from regional legislators and business groups from the area -- to get such a project going. And then there's the prospect of getting the folks behind the legislated extension of I-11 as far as Reno on board regarding a CA terminus of their baby! There's still stars in the eyes of some planners regarding pushing on into eastern Oregon (Bend, Burns, or bust!). But if any of that takes place, the corridor will likely pass near the Susanville/Johnstonville area (I don't see Burning Man territory being on the radar!). Most speculation to date that I've seen cites the corridor extending up CA 139/OR 39 to Klamath Falls, with an alternative up 395 to Alturas before heading west and NW. Continuing up 395 through Lakeview and shunting over OR 31 is a possibility as well, but one that really is geared toward long-distance traffic only without serving any significant population centers along the way. It does, however, keep the proposed facility east of the Cascades, where to all but the most vehement OR objectors I-11 would be largely "out of sight, out of mind" -- and hitting I-84 either at The Dalles or Biggs. What my alternative to Mt. Shasta does is keep the corridor relatively short and on the path of least developmental cost of any alternative heading north from Reno. Here's an exercise: find a map of western U.S. and lay a ruler or straight-edge along a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas -- and continue that trajectory northwest. It crosses I-80 just east of Reno, and intersects I-5 near Weed, a few miles north of Mt. Shasta. The concept here is to position I-11 as a western counterpart to I-85 or I-81 (this being the more sparse West, one such facility is sufficient), shunting traffic intended for the inland SW US away from I-5 (and out of L.A.!), while serving Reno and Las Vegas along the way.
But I don't think either my concept nor one accessing Eastern Oregon will fly in the foreseeable future; a link to Boise remains more likely. We'll just have to see where influence & pressure will be applied north of I-80.
While Susanville and the majority of Lassen County is quite red, politically, there's also a significant prison employee population. That population tends to lean red, but the population is also traditionally transient. So there's stats that would make it look like the highway-loving climate of Texas or Oklahoma but, from what I've learned in the area, the "true locals" (not the prison guards) are very much into the preservation of their rural lifestyle, specifically availability of hunting, which is already a bit of a problem in the state. Routing an interstate through Lassen NF would be seen as opening up the region, and I don't believe most people there would want that, nor would they be willing to sacrifice the open landscape for any potential economic boom. People, from my experience, are very status quo-oriented up there.
It's somewhat similar here: Monterey County tends to vote a bit more red than many of the other coastal counties in the state, but we still have very much an anti-road crowd that is easily mobilized. I chalk this up to the military presence locally, who also tend to vote more Republican but do not necessarily get involved in local affairs because they don't stick around more than a year or two, typically. Meanwhile, those focused on environmentalism are a much more entrenched population.
While I-85 is a totally different roadway due to its connection of major cities (mainly Atlanta and Charlotte), I-81 is a bit of a similar case study. However, with I-81, it's clearly a bypass of I-95, which goes through the heart of the major cities on the Eastern Seaboard, while I-5 specifically avoids the entire Bay Area and all of the Central Valley cities, making it essentially a bypass of the former north-south US highways. A new corridor is not what's needed for I-5 relief, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that. Since, past LA, it doesn't really go through any major cities besides Sac and Stockton, simply widening it wouldn't have the same futility as, say, widening I-95, as the urban areas and their exits on that road are too close together for an extra lane, alone, to be of tremendous benefit. Conversely, in Oregon, you have one north-south road directly serving the major population centers.
My point here is that there would be no benefit in dumping I-11 traffic into California. For long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.
Quote from: sparkerHere's an exercise: find a map of western U.S. and lay a ruler or straight-edge along a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas -- and continue that trajectory northwest. It crosses I-80 just east of Reno, and intersects I-5 near Weed, a few miles north of Mt. Shasta.
There are no existing routes between I-5 and US-395 over the Cascades in Northern California that are friendly to truck traffic. Regarding Mount Shasta, there are no possible highway corridors that lead from that area and Weed, CA down to the Southeast toward Reno.
A route following CA-89 around the South side of Mount Shasta would have to make hard turns at CA-299 and CA-139 to avoid Lassen Peak. Lots of miles would be added to the route. If this was an alternative it would be more simple to just go from Susanville, CA over to Red Bluff CA. Even that route would go over some difficult, weather prone terrain.
US-97 from Weed to US-395 and points Southeast would make even less sense. I-11 would have to go North quite a ways until it could either take a new terrain path through mountains to get to CA-139 and turn South. Or the road would go clear into Oregon before turning South.
I think it would be easier and cheaper to just make I-11 follow US-395 up to Susanville. That stretch would be relatively easy to upgrade since it's going through a lot of wide open valleys. From Susanville, build near the CA-139/OR-139 corridors up to Klamath Falls, OR. Sierra Army Depot, Amedee Army Air Field and Honey Lake force US-395 on a very out of the way C-shaped path. If I-11 stayed with US-395 through here it would have to go to North to Alturas before taking a hard turn left to Canby and Klamath Falls. From Klamath Falls, push the highway West to either Ashland or White City along one of those exiting highway corridors through the mountains. It's either that or send I-11 North along US-97 to Bend before pushing over the mountains to Corvallis or Salem.
Quote from: coatimundiFor long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.
I think most of the traffic headed Northwest into that region is going to the Portland and Seattle areas, not bypassing them. I don't think The Dalles and Yakima are big enough to make I-11 completely avoid I-5. I think I-11 in the very long term would be dove-tailed into I-5 in Southern Oregon. I-81 connects some interior Appalachian cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, Binghamton, Syracuse)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:09:30 PM
Quote from: sparkerHere's an exercise: find a map of western U.S. and lay a ruler or straight-edge along a line from Phoenix to Las Vegas -- and continue that trajectory northwest. It crosses I-80 just east of Reno, and intersects I-5 near Weed, a few miles north of Mt. Shasta.
There are no existing routes between I-5 and US-395 over the Cascades in Northern California that are friendly to truck traffic. Regarding Mount Shasta, there are no possible highway corridors that lead from that area and Weed, CA down to the Southeast toward Reno.
A route following CA-89 around the South side of Mount Shasta would have to make hard turns at CA-299 and CA-139 to avoid Lassen Peak. Lots of miles would be added to the route. If this was an alternative it would be more simple to just go from Susanville, CA over to Red Bluff CA. Even that route would go over some difficult, weather prone terrain.
US-97 from Weed to US-395 and points Southeast would make even less sense. I-11 would have to go North quite a ways until it could either take a new terrain path through mountains to get to CA-139 and turn South. Or the road would go clear into Oregon before turning South.
I think it would be easier and cheaper to just make I-11 follow US-395 up to Susanville. That stretch would be relatively easy to upgrade since it's going through a lot of wide open valleys. From Susanville, build near the CA-139/OR-139 corridors up to Klamath Falls, OR. Sierra Army Depot, Amedee Army Air Field and Honey Lake force US-395 on a very out of the way C-shaped path. If I-11 stayed with US-395 through here it would have to go to North to Alturas before taking a hard turn left to Canby and Klamath Falls. From Klamath Falls, push the highway West to either Ashland or White City along one of those exiting highway corridors through the mountains. It's either than or send I-11 North along US-97 to Bend before pushing over the mountains to Corvallis or Salem.
Quote from: coatimundiFor long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.
I think most of the traffic headed Northwest into that region is going to the Portland and Seattle areas, not bypassing them. I don't think The Dalles and Yakima are big enough to make I-11 completely avoid I-5. I think I-11 in the very long term would be dove-tailed into I-5 in Southern Oregon. I-81 connects some interior Appalachian cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, Binghamton, Syracuse)
The CA 89/CA 44 combination features plenty of truck traffic, largely dominated by finished lumber shipments out of southern Oregon heading toward Reno and/or Vegas. It's also the "cutoff of choice" for recreational traffic from the more populated NW areas toward Reno and Tahoe. The eastern section of CA 44 is a fast route with the typical characteristics of a CA 2-lane expressway. And there's no real reason to give Lassen Peak a wider berth than the 89/44 routing presently does; the corridor hardly impinges on the park, skirting it well to the north.
The principal reason I came up with this routing -- besides having driven it several times -- was to avoid coming to loggerheads with ODOT regarding some sort of cross-Cascade routing, which would almost definitely be a non-starter with them -- particularly in regards to the old-growth forests on the east side of the Willamette watershed. As I've iterated earlier, they tend to be more accommodating of road development east of the Cascades but decline to accept the same west of the ridgeline. But maybe Bobby's on to something here -- ODOT had no problem plowing the OR 140 corridor across the lower Cascades in the late '70's -- and in my own experience it's a relatively benign route, topography-wise. Perhaps a I-11 corridor could utilize the oft-proposed CA 139 (& OR 39, of course) alignment from Susanville to Klamath Falls and simply head west to I-5 along the OR 140 corridor, merging with I-5 just north of Medford. A US 97-based corridor could then be considered separately as need or political will dictates.
Such a corridor would be at a lesser altitude than the 44/89 "Shasta" corridor I outlined (about 5200' maximum elevation vs. 6300' along CA 44 east of CA 89), and would serve the Klamath Falls area, with its active lumber industry as well as the site of Oregon Tech. IF ODOT doesn't get a bug up their ass about such a corridor, it would certainly pose a viable alternative -- and peeling Nevada-bound traffic off I-5 prior to Siskiyou Pass supplies an additional dividend. Good eye, Bobby -- you caught a potential routing I never considered in an area I've scrounged around extensively -- and one that might not make the picky folks at ODOT throw a shit-fit!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2017, 11:09:30 PM
Quote from: coatimundiFor long-term goals, it's the Oregon and Washington sections of I-5 that would need to be bypassed.
I think most of the traffic headed Northwest into that region is going to the Portland and Seattle areas, not bypassing them. I don't think The Dalles and Yakima are big enough to make I-11 completely avoid I-5. I think I-11 in the very long term would be dove-tailed into I-5 in Southern Oregon. I-81 connects some interior Appalachian cities (Harrisburg, Scranton, Binghamton, Syracuse)
The idea there was something similar to I-5 in CA, or even I-81, where the principal cities are directly avoided and other routes are used to connect, similar to how I-580 connects I-5. In this case, I-84 would be used to reach Portland and I-82 to reach Seattle. Both those routes are well below capacity outside of Portland for I-84 and Yakima for I-82.
And maybe someone out there in the country still gives a shit about "CANAMEX Corridors." Maybe not in this region, but surely somewhere. That's how I-69 was sold.
I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.
Regional super highway bypasses can be a good thing. But they all must end up going somewhere significant otherwise they're a waste of money to build.
Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.
I think the national effort on I-69 is a joke. The route is so needlessly crooked for one thing. The even bigger joke is it's largely an unfunded mandate dumped off on individual states. If I-69 was really so important for national interests why isn't the federal government ponying up the 90%/10% ratio of funding like it did for the original Interstate highway system? I think most of us will be long dead before roads like I-69 or even I-11 are substantially completed under the current, very broken funding model.
New I-69 is funded at 80/20? Weird. I would have thought it was being funded with NHPP under the 90/10 exceptions.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.
Right: "other routes are used to connect." 66 for DC, 76 for Philly, 78 for NYC, 88 for Albany, Boston and Montreal.
AFAIK, I-81 was planned as a continuous segment, not built to I-78 and then added on to Syracuse and Canada as an afterthought.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane.
Okanogan Valley. I-11 would make my cherries and apples cheaper. It's a little absurd what we pay for cherries here, even when they're in season.
I don't believe I-69 will ever be totally finished. It was left up to individual states too much, and too many people don't care about it (mainly Louisiana). Similarly, even if I-11 were proposed to the Canadian border, I don't believe that it would ever be built. I just point it out as a way to sell it. Selling something that could be proactive in terms of relief on an existing corridor is too difficult. People just can't think that way.
Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2017, 05:56:46 AM
The CA 89/CA 44 combination features plenty of truck traffic, largely dominated by finished lumber shipments out of southern Oregon heading toward Reno and/or Vegas. It's also the "cutoff of choice" for recreational traffic from the more populated NW areas toward Reno and Tahoe. The eastern section of CA 44 is a fast route with the typical characteristics of a CA 2-lane expressway. And there's no real reason to give Lassen Peak a wider berth than the 89/44 routing presently does; the corridor hardly impinges on the park, skirting it well to the north.
This is part of the reason SR 44 was built east of Lassen in the 1960s: http://archive.org/stream/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich#page/n37/mode/2up
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
I-81 bypasses the Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, but it ends up pointing directly at metro New York City. The main lanes of I-81 East of Harrisburg actually turn into I-78. The highway signed as I-81 takes a hard left turn North.
Regional super highway bypasses can be a good thing. But they all must end up going somewhere significant otherwise they're a waste of money to build.
Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.
I think the national effort on I-69 is a joke. The route is so needlessly crooked for one thing. The even bigger joke is it's largely an unfunded mandate dumped off on individual states. If I-69 was really so important for national interests why isn't the federal government ponying up the 90%/10% ratio of funding like it did for the original Interstate highway system? I think most of us will be long dead before roads like I-69 or even I-11 are substantially completed under the current, very broken funding model.
I've always had a sense of a corridor along US 97 from I-5 at Weed through KFalls and Bend along 97 and then shifting over to 395 at the Tri-Cities (Pasco-Richland-Kennewick) towards Spokane, then up 95 through Coeurd d'Alene into BC and Alberta towards Calgary and Edmonton, basically connecting the Bay Area and Sacramento to Spokane, Calgary, and Edmonton.(I-15 is more oriented towards Southern California, so is not useful here). US 95 in North Idaho carries a fair amount of truck traffic from Alberta, although maybe not enough to justify an interstate. That being said Idaho has upgraded the route north of Coeur d'Alene including ten miles of freeway near Silverwood and Arthol and a two lane bypass around Sandpoint. Also 395 is four lanelargely limited access with a 70 mph speed limit from Pasco, WA to I-90 at Ritzville. If I-11 connected Phoenix to Vegas and perhaps Reno in a northwestern heading, and managed to work its way through NE California, then it could bow to the northeast again to absorb this corridor. Also it would briefly join 84 at The Dalles, which would provide a convenient connection to Portland and Seattle (which could also use 97, 82, and 90 over Snoqualmie)..
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2017, 11:29:00 AM
Regarding CANAMEX corridors, there are no major destinations in Canada directly North of cities like Yakima or Spokane. There's no real justification to upgrade a corridor like US-97 to Interstate quality to the Canadian border when there's no freeways/turnpikes in Canada to meet it at the border, much less major cities farther North up the road. Vancouver is the biggest and most important Canadian destination in the Pacific Northwest. But the I-5 corridor is the only practical way to reach it from Washington state. There are way too many mountains between the I-5 and US-97 corridors to make a Seattle bypass towards Vancouver practical to build at all. I-15 in Montana is the US route to reach the Calgary and Edmonton areas.
Yes, this.
The destinations in Canada would be Calgary, Edmonton, and the Alberta oil industry. The oil coming out will probably go by pipeline, but some equipment and supplies will go by truck. The Mexico and US to the Canadian midwest is served by I-15, pointed at Calgary and Edmonton.
The other destination is Vancouver, and I-5 points to it.
We really don't need an interstate pointed towards Penticton.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 21, 2017, 12:02:00 PM
Okanogan Valley. I-11 would make my cherries and apples cheaper. It's a little absurd what we pay for cherries here, even when they're in season.
Cherries are expensive mainly because of high demand in Japan. If you want them to be cheaper, maybe expanding air freight from Yakima to Japan would help more than an interstate to Reno.
I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.
Quote from: inkyatari on February 21, 2017, 02:32:25 PM
I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.
No problem in studying it now, whether there ends up being a justification for building it north of Vegas or not. An EIS study can be updated later if conditions significantly change.
Sometimes having the study done way in advance helps so that the project can proceed once the money is ready and the demand is met. The Hoover Dam Bypass and Boulder City Bypass projects were somewhat like this. Studies were done in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but construction didn't get going until this decade (partially due to the recession), and the projects already had approvals once finding was identified.
Quote from: roadfro on February 21, 2017, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on February 21, 2017, 02:32:25 PM
I say let's connect Phoenix and Vegas first, then 10 years (or so. Whatever works) afterwards study to see if the traffic between Vegas and Reno justifies a I-11 connection.
No problem in studying it now, whether there ends up being a justification for building it north of Vegas or not. An EIS study can be updated later if conditions significantly change.
Sometimes having the study done way in advance helps so that the project can proceed once the money is ready and the demand is met. The Hoover Dam Bypass and Boulder City Bypass projects were somewhat like this. Studies were done in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but construction didn't get going until this decade (partially due to the recession), and the projects already had approvals once finding was identified.
Regardless of what happens north of I-80, I still think that the best use of any funding that becomes available courtesy of HPC 68 be directed toward projects such as 4-lane access-controlled expressway bypasses of the more sizeable towns along US 95 (Beatty, Tonopah/Goldfield, Hawthorne, Fallon) that can for the time being stand on their own as SIU's but can, if & when I-11 plans become reality, be upgraded to serve as parts of that facility.
Since certain politicians are using links between military bases as a means of selling I-14 projects why not try the same thing with I-11?
There is a number of military installations in Nevada. Some of them would be along or near what could be the I-11 corridor (Nellis AFB, Creech AFB, Hawthorne Army Depot, Reno-Tahoe AFB, Fallon Station NAS). Sierra Army Depot is North of Reno just across the border into California. Klamath Falls, OR shares its airport with Kingsley Field AFB.
Let's not forget about installations in Arizona. Luke AFB is near Phoenix. Gila Bend has an Air Force auxiliary field. Davis-Monthan AFB is in Tucson. There's a huge Air Force range in Southern AZ.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2017, 02:18:50 PM
Since certain politicians are using links between military bases as a means of selling I-14 projects why not try the same thing with I-11?
There is a number of military installations in Nevada. Some of them would be along or near what could be the I-11 corridor (Nellis AFB, Creech AFB, Hawthorne Army Depot, Reno-Tahoe AFB, Fallon Station NAS). Sierra Army Depot is North of Reno just across the border into California. Klamath Falls, OR shares its airport with Kingsley Field AFB.
Let's not forget about installations in Arizona. Luke AFB is near Phoenix. Gila Bend has an Air Force auxiliary field. Davis-Monthan AFB is in Tucson. There's a huge Air Force range in Southern AZ.
The concept of stringing together military installations via a new Interstate corridor does not resonate in the "blue state" West as it does in TX and other regions along the Gulf. That being said, it
might just be an argument at the national level, especially with this iteration of Congress.
An aside: if indeed a I-11 route selection includes a segment from the Susanville-Johnstonville area to Klamath Falls, an alignment "cutting the US 395 corner" more or less along county A3 and using the combination of US 395 and CA 299 via Alturas might be somewhat more conducive to development of a freeway than one staying along CA 139 north of Susanville, as the latter would require skirting Eagle Lake as well as difficult territory north of there -- plus having to surmount Adin Summit on the 139/299 multiplex. While US 395
is somewhat hilly, it has only one obstacle, the "Peanut" summit near Likely, where the road (and the old SP Modoc rail line as well) exited the Pit River watershed into the high desert. But overall, construction along the 395/299 combination would likely pose fewer issues than that along CA 139 south of CA 299. From CA 299 north to Klamath Falls is pretty much a straight shot through gently rolling hills and flat farmland and should pose few problems save placating the agricultural interests in that area (horseradish and sugar beets being the primary cash crops up there).
Today I am thinking that US 95 north of Vegas be given the US 395 freeway/expressway treatment, then finish off US 395 itself to the same standards from SoCal to Reno. That covers the SW section of the US being connected.
In Oregon with a start at Weed CA, give US 97 the 395 treatment to Madras, then to connect with PDX, do the same for US 26. There's the I-5 alternative.
There really is not enough traffic to demand an I-11 north of Vegas unless one wants to spend the extra it takes to bring US 95 up to Interstate standards, thus the idea of simply going with the 395 setup, which should handle all traffic between Vegas and Reno for some decades, with metro area upgrades performed as those cities expand.
Rick
If there were to be a possible I-11 north of Reno, I could see it along the US 395 corridor toward Susanville, cutting the corner south of Susanville (maybe Janesville-Standish to parallel 395 at a more gradual angle than 395 takes from CA 36 east). Then it would follow 395 north to around Likely (just north of the hills) and cut NW to catch CA 139 at Canby. Then it would follow CA 139 then OR 39 to Klamath Falls, then US 97 through Bend to north of Madras, then either follow US 197 straight north to The Dalles or NNE to Biggs Jct. Either of these points would be on I-84, so some traffic would go through the Gorge to Portland, some would head north to Yakima (via US 97), some would head east to I-82, then to the Tri-Cities and Spokane, and some would continue east on I-84 to Pendleton and Boise.
It would be a feeder route between Reno and the Pacific Northwest, and a (relatively) quick route and all-weather route from Seattle to Reno (depending on Snoqualmie Pass, of course). It would serve the growing city of Bend and some other small cities in Klamath Falls, Alturas (via US 395) and Susanville (via CA 36). This would be similar to I-70 in Utah...not necessary to serve local populations, but a good long-distance feeder route between far-flung metro areas (Seattle/Tacoma/Portland and Reno/Las Vegas on I-11, Denver and Salt Lake/Las Vegas on I-70).
Quote from: Mark68 on March 21, 2017, 02:10:45 PM
If there were to be a possible I-11 north of Reno, I could see it along the US 395 corridor toward Susanville, cutting the corner south of Susanville (maybe Janesville-Standish to parallel 395 at a more gradual angle than 395 takes from CA 36 east). Then it would follow 395 north to around Likely (just north of the hills) and cut NW to catch CA 139 at Canby. Then it would follow CA 139 then OR 39 to Klamath Falls, then US 97 through Bend to north of Madras, then either follow US 197 straight north to The Dalles or NNE to Biggs Jct. Either of these points would be on I-84, so some traffic would go through the Gorge to Portland, some would head north to Yakima (via US 97), some would head east to I-82, then to the Tri-Cities and Spokane, and some would continue east on I-84 to Pendleton and Boise.
It would be a feeder route between Reno and the Pacific Northwest, and a (relatively) quick route and all-weather route from Seattle to Reno (depending on Snoqualmie Pass, of course). It would serve the growing city of Bend and some other small cities in Klamath Falls, Alturas (via US 395) and Susanville (via CA 36). This would be similar to I-70 in Utah...not necessary to serve local populations, but a good long-distance feeder route between far-flung metro areas (Seattle/Tacoma/Portland and Reno/Las Vegas on I-11, Denver and Salt Lake/Las Vegas on I-70).
NE CA topography is tricky -- what you see on a map (and even G.E.) can be deceiving. The railroads mapped out the most viable low-grade routes (both the old SP Modoc line and the former WP/now BNSF "Inland Gateway" feeder from the Feather River watershed north to Klamath Falls) a long time ago, and the highways tended to follow them (except for the portion of the BNSF from CA 44 north to CA 299 at Bieber, which follows a convoluted route in order to maintain a low gradient, with no through roads following the tracks). There's a series of E-W ridges between the Feather and Pit River watersheds that need to be surmounted; US 395 and the old Modoc line took the most benign of these, while CA 139 maintains an up-and-down ridge-hopping profile that isn't too conducive to construction of a relatively high-speed freeway alignment. Thus, as I iterated in a couple of previous posts, sticking to the 395/299/139 alignment (with easily-deployed cutoffs where feasible) is likely the most efficient pathway from Reno to Klamath Falls.
I'll stick to my revised concept (thanks, Bobby 5280, for the basic idea) of taking any such Klamath Falls extension west more or less along OR 140 to a terminus at I-5 near Medford. This will bypass the bidirectional slog that is Siskiyou Summit, while providing a diverging facility to the southeast, serving Reno and Vegas en route to Phoenix -- more or less the function of I-85
vis-Ã -vis I-95 on the East Coast (of course, with far fewer population centers than the Piedmont). And this would allow a separately considered prospective US 97-based facility, if deployed along that full route from I-5 at Weed, CA north to I-84, several connectivity options -- toward southward I-5 or southeast I-11 and vice-versa, with Klamath Falls as the crux. I've already outlined the rationale -- topographic and political -- for this particular concept in previous posts. The idea here is to
eventually serve as many regional and interregional traffic needs as possible with feasibly deployed facilities.
I've been along several of those roads in the last few years and never seen any reason they should be freeways. Maybe US 97 should have more 4-lane stretches, but certainly doesn't need limited access. It would be right up there with I-15 north of Helena for a useless waste of concrete. Putting thick red lines where there weren't any before may feel like we're accomplishing something, but a better use of actual construction money would be additional lanes and geometric improvements in congested areas. I-5, CA 99. Not new freeway routes.
Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2017, 07:09:43 PM
I've been along several of those roads in the last few years and never seen any reason they should be freeways. Maybe US 97 should have more 4-lane stretches, but certainly doesn't need limited access. It would be right up there with I-15 north of Helena for a useless waste of concrete. Putting thick red lines where there weren't any before may feel like we're accomplishing something, but a better use of actual construction money would be additional lanes and geometric improvements in congested areas. I-5, CA 99. Not new freeway routes.
Agreed. I really have never understood the point of extending I-11 north of Reno since there aren't really any major cities (or even lots of small towns) that it could connect to.
Quote from: compdude787 on March 22, 2017, 12:39:57 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2017, 07:09:43 PM
I've been along several of those roads in the last few years and never seen any reason they should be freeways. Maybe US 97 should have more 4-lane stretches, but certainly doesn't need limited access. It would be right up there with I-15 north of Helena for a useless waste of concrete. Putting thick red lines where there weren't any before may feel like we're accomplishing something, but a better use of actual construction money would be additional lanes and geometric improvements in congested areas. I-5, CA 99. Not new freeway routes.
Agreed. I really have never understood the point of extending I-11 north of Reno since there aren't really any major cities (or even lots of small towns) that it could connect to.
Pretty much all the plans for any I-11 extension north of I-80 can be characterized as regional interests flexing their political muscles in an attempt to attract development to their various areas. When I first heard of the original concept of simply taking it straight up US 395 through Oregon -- via one of the least populated areas of the state -- I had a bit of a WTF reaction. That response was backtracked to "yeah, right!" when a shunt over to the Bend area was proposed as an alternative. But I can see how folks from central-inland Oregon might want an primary interregional arterial passing through their region; while the area's growing, it remains functionally isolated from not only the more populated areas to the west but also from most of the rest of the western U.S. Since the Bend-Redmond-Prineville-Madras metro area sits at about 225K in terms of population right now, it's marginal as to whether that warrants an Interstate-grade connector to the outside world. And it's unlikely that ODOT, with its internal bent toward more urban matters, would consider such a facility connecting it to PDX or anywhere in the Willamette Valley (the environmental uproar would be deafening!). As I've iterated before, a corridor straight up US 97 (and/or US 197 at the north end) is the most politically feasible within the state -- more a case of "we don't have to look at it, so let 'em have their road". This has resulted in the Bend bypass facility and the freeway south of town being deployed. At this point, I would have to concur that an Interstate facility along US 97 is decades away at best. What
would be an interim (and upgradeable in the future if warranted) possibility would be a "Avenue of the Saints" type of solution deployed, let's say, between the US 97/OR 31 junction at the south end and the north end of Madras at the north: a 4-lane expressway with freeway segments through/around the towns and more densely populated areas. It wouldn't be a solution to the regional connectivity issue, but it would provide a more efficient means of egress within the greater Bend area (and would likely, at least for the near term, mute much of the push for a full Interstate facility along US 97).
All that being said, I'd be willing to wager that
if I-11 ever reaches northern Nevada, the next "leg" will aim at Boise rather than central Oregon; that area's population is rapidly approaching 1M -- with a strong corporate presence in a number of fields -- and its political & economic "clout" is likely to outstrip anything from competing regions in a much more timely fashion. I don't think I'll see an Interstate in Bend within my own lifetime!
Sure, and then from Boise you could just hop onto I-84 west to Portland.
Quote from: Henry on March 23, 2017, 09:29:43 AM
Sure, and then from Boise you could just hop onto I-84 west to Portland.
I don't think anyone traveling from Reno to Portland or Seattle would ever take a route through Winnemucca and Boise/Nampa, even if it's all freeway (except weather related reasons, but the Blue Mountains are no cake walk in the winter, or "just to take the long way"). It's over 150 miles longer to Seattle (and more like 250 to Portland) than going through Klamath Falls and taking OR-58 to hit I-5.
Now from Las Vegas, it's a bit more plausible, assuming proposed I-11 stays farther to the east (no farther than Fallon; a freeway spur from I-11 near Fallon to I-80 could be built to serve Reno-Vegas traffic). The Boise option does seem more plausible than going through Central Oregon though (any freeway there should be straight north up US-97 from Weed). But it wouldn't be useful for Reno to Portland traffic. Even then though, from Winnemucca to Portland, it's still 130 miles shorter to go through Burns and Prineville or Bend (which is largely easy 65-70 MPH highway, except US-26 over the Cascades) than to take US-95 to I-84.
Quote from: Henry on March 23, 2017, 09:29:43 AM
Sure, and then from Boise you could just hop onto I-84 west to Portland.
I don't think serving Portland would even be on the radar of anyone suggesting or planning a I-11 (or whatever) extension up US 95 toward the Boise area; the principal purpose here would be to provide a southern outlet for the growing Treasure Valley region.
Does Interstate 11 beyond Interstate 15 really need to be an Interstate highway? How much traffic uses the US 95 corridor between Las Vegas and Interstate 80 near Fallon, anyway?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2017, 04:52:18 PM
Does Interstate 11 beyond Interstate 15 really need to be an Interstate highway? How much traffic uses the US 95 corridor between Las Vegas and Interstate 80 near Fallon, anyway?
The Vegas-Reno I-11 corridor has always been presented more as a speculative regional server than something to address current traffic levels. The fact that an outsized portion of that admittedly sparse traffic is commercial trucks has fueled the fire somewhat; the 2015 re-designation of HPC 68 (primarily US 95 with other clustered routes) as future I-11 has added additional fuel. My comments on any extension beyond I-80 also pertain to this segment as well -- except for the fact that it's gotten formal recognition (albeit without any funding whatsoever); the corridor is, for better or worse, a manifestation of state and regional politics.
But I'll stand by my notion that any near-term funding should be to place (upgradeable) bypasses around the larger towns along US 95, even if they're only an enhanced 2-lane facility. That'd do a lot to increase the efficiency of the route, even if Interstate status is a long, long way off!
Having driven this route over the past weekend, from Reno to Vegas, then later down to Phoenix my thoughts have changed to that I-11 from Vegas to Reno is needed, or at least needs to get started.
The I-80 portion from Reno to Fernley is fine, but getting through Fernley and the roundabouts is problematic, there is already a lot of truck traffic that causes backups here, even for a weekend. Fernley to Fallon is fine with the upgraded divided Alt 50, but again once you get into Fallon with the slow speed limits and stoplights, the truck traffic was problematic and I would imagine the locals are negatively affected by this- kind of reminds me of US 93 through Wickenburg AZ before the bypass where truck traffic was backing up the downtown enough where it was a safety issue.
South of Fallon to Walker Lake is still fine at 2 lanes for now, but getting around Walker Lake with the curves and lower speed limits, and the inability to pass slow traffic for a long stretch causes traffic to bunch up quite a bit for miles. A four lane stretch on the east side of the lake would alleviate that, and keep the recreation area better served.
Hawthorne at least has sort of a bypass around it which helps. Another big issue are these small towns, specifically the ones that have a population of around 50 like Schurz, Luning, Mina. There are no services or seem to be any extra traffic in these places, but the speed limit drops to 25 through them. A short road around them would be easy and help traffic flow. Hawthorne did seem to have a lot of vehicles bunched up coming into town all in a group while I was driving out, likely due to the inability to pass on the way in for several miles.
I could certainly see that a route several miles west of Tonopah would be a likely route since that area seems flat and Tonopah is elevated and out of the way. Only thing is Tonopah now has the only services on a stretch of over 200 miles now, not even a gas station open between Beatty and Hawthorne with the exception of those in Tonopah- even Goldfield no longer has one, so Tonopah would be kept as a Business 11 route. (there are even signs warning of no gas for 110 miles, etc put up by NVDOT)
Goldfield is interesting to drive through but that's the longest stretch of 25 MPH limits along this route and really slows things down. A route around it would help, although it may kill off what's left hanging on in this town- which seemed to be a small restaurant and a gift shop that had a "business for sale" sign on it. Pretty sad there, town just felt to be in decline.
Beatty seems to be booming though with tourist traffic, by far the most activity beyond Fallon. Seems to be because of being the Death Valley gateway.
From Beatty to Mercury there is certainly a need for a full freeway, or at least a divided, limited access highway today. The 2 line highway there was very crowded, and slow. Way too much traffic and no opportunities to pass and traffic seemed to "bunch up" here. I'm assuming it was Las Vegas-Death Valley traffic? Was stuck at slow speeds until where it opened up to four lanes near Mercury for the rest of the way into Las Vegas. The four lane section seemed to have traffic levels at similar counts to 93 between Las Vegas and Kingman. Worked fine as a 4 lane divided route but could be easily converted to a full freeway.
So yes, some of these areas have traffic that's a little light but driving it made it seem more plausible for upgrades. Even on the light traffic areas there were times where it took me a while to pass a truck just because of the number of vehicles on the other side. Another thing is there aren't any extra right side passing lanes along this route with the exception of truck climbing lanes into and out of Tonopah.
I wonder how many head-on collisions occur along the 2-lane portions of this route. The issue could be justification enough to four lane more stretches of the road and then add Texas-style passing lanes on other parts.
A friend who splits his time between San Jose and Nevada recently moved his NV residence from Henderson to Reno because his GF got a new job there. Thus he was shuttling up and down US 95 for several weekends securing their new residence and moving household goods up in advance of the actual move. Since he's quite familiar with US 95, I asked him to evaluate the traffic levels. After about 3 round trips, he reported that he'd never seen more traffic using the route in his 20-odd years of regular usage of the highway than on these trips. He opined that in his calculation about a third were large trucks. In particular he noticed that congestion in and around Fallon was considerably higher than in previous trips -- and that traffic levels on Alternate 50/95 between there and Fernley were similar to that on I-80 west toward Reno.
I realize this is simply an anecdotal snapshot of this route -- but it bolsters what I've personally seen as of late with many CA connecting corridors, even outside commute zones -- there's just a hell of a lot more traffic -- general and commercial -- out there than there was even 10 years ago. In & of itself that may not be a situation that would fully warrant deploying 4 lanes of I-11 along the US 95 corridor -- but by these accounts it seem to be heading in that direction.
Nevada should work on reserving rights-of-way through Fallon for bypass US 95 and US 50, whether they're called I-11 or not.
Quote from: kkt on October 12, 2017, 07:06:12 PM
Nevada should work on reserving rights-of-way through Fallon for bypass US 95 and US 50, whether they're called I-11 or not.
Fully agree -- and the sooner the better. Fallon has become somewhat of a "mecca" for retirees due to its relatively benign climate as well as its proximity to Reno and Carson City for commercial purposes. Much of the area west of town is being developed into community clusters, most copies of longstanding senior complexes such as Del Webb's Sun City and Lincoln (CA) developments. The most efficient I-11 routing would be west of town; unfortunately, that's where most of the housing additions are being sited (flatter land). But at this point I don't expect NDOT to be ready to begin purchasing land -- but setting corridors space aside is another thing. There will probably be developer backlash about this, but it needs to be done sooner than later. With the increased traffic in the area (see my prior post above -- plus the traffic generated by the new-arrival residents) even a "placeholder" facility like a 2-lane expressway would be sufficient for the present -- and enough easement could be preserved to make the process of future expansion relatively simple.
I just wish there was a more direct path, practical and possible, between Carson City and Las Vegas. Between all the rows of mountains and certain small towns (like Tonopah) that would dry up and die if bypassed it would be very costly and quite an engineering achievement to build a road that spanned between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area directly. Fallon is 60 miles East of Reno and Carson City.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2017, 04:14:05 PM
I just wish there was a more direct path, practical and possible, between Carson City and Las Vegas. Between all the rows of mountains and certain small towns (like Tonopah) that would dry up and die if bypassed it would be very costly and quite an engineering achievement to build a road that spanned between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area directly. Fallon is 60 miles East of Reno and Carson City.
The mountains east and southeast of Carson City are not terribly conducive to E-W road corridors -- which is why there are none to this day. US 50 takes the only practical path NE from CC; the next feasible route to the south is NV 208, which "backtracks" up to Yerington -- and that wouldn't make a terribly efficient corridor. Unless one wanted to snake the corridor along US 50 just to serve Carson City, the more optimal route intersects I-80 near Fernley. By the time plans for I-11 are finalized, Fallon and environs will likely have 60K+ residents; it would be difficult to imagine the I-11 corridor
not in some way serving that city. Blame Mother Nature for all the problems in the vicinity with the plethora of towering N-S oriented mountain ranges from that area all across NV; the geological term is
horst und graben (after the German, obviously!), meaning "mountain and valley", used to denote a repeating pattern of this type. Granite and/or basalt mountain ranges interspersed with alluvial valleys -- if they didn't exist, the premise for the exceptionally entertaining film "Tremors" (the 1990 original, not the substandard sequels!) would be moot!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2017, 04:14:05 PM
I just wish there was a more direct path, practical and possible, between Carson City and Las Vegas. Between all the rows of mountains and certain small towns (like Tonopah) that would dry up and die if bypassed it would be very costly and quite an engineering achievement to build a road that spanned between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area directly. Fallon is 60 miles East of Reno and Carson City.
Geography generally gets the last word. It can be overcome, but only at great expense.
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2017, 05:24:46 PM
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?
Not likely -- this isn't China!
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2017, 05:24:46 PM
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?
Not likely -- this isn't China!
Not to shave half an hour off the drive from Reno to Vegas.
Quote from: kkt on October 13, 2017, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 13, 2017, 05:24:46 PM
It would be really cool to see more direct path with multiple tunnels to make that happen. I'm guessing somewhere in the 10-20 billion dollar range is what it would take to make that happen?
Not likely -- this isn't China!
Not to shave half an hour off the drive from Reno to Vegas.
Not likely is the exact outcome.
Nevada currently has exactly three road tunnel pairs: I-80's Carlin Tunnels, US 50 at Cave Rock, and the Airport Connector in Las Vegas. We're much more adept at forging mountain passes or circumnavigating mountain ranges.
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 04:31:03 PM
Blame Mother Nature for all the problems in the vicinity with the plethora of towering N-S oriented mountain ranges from that area all across NV; the geological term is horst und graben (after the German, obviously!), meaning "mountain and valley", used to denote a repeating pattern of this type. Granite and/or basalt mountain ranges interspersed with alluvial valleys -- if they didn't exist, the premise for the exceptionally entertaining film "Tremors" (the 1990 original, not the substandard sequels!) would be moot!
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).
Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
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
Quote from: mgk920 on October 14, 2017, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
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.
Quote from: kkt on October 14, 2017, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 14, 2017, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
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.
Quote from: 3467 on December 08, 2012, 06:11:17 PM
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!
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15134.msg2288178#msg2288178). 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2017, 01:32:50 AM
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". :hmmm:
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2017, 01:32:50 AM
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.
Quote from: sparker on October 13, 2017, 09:33:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 13, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
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."
Quote from: roadfroBoth 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.
Quote from: sparkerFortunately 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.
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.
Quote from: sparker on December 31, 2017, 12:25:48 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2017, 11:14:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280
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
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2017, 04:53:13 PM
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.
Quote from: michravera on December 31, 2017, 11:12:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2017, 04:53:13 PM
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.
Quote from: roadfroCurrently, 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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 03:36:17 AM
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: roadfro on January 01, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
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?
QuoteAlso 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 01:10:15 PM
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!).
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.
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 01, 2018, 03:08:56 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 01, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
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?
Yes, same situation. When US 93 was extended south through central Nevada via preexisting state routes, SR 38, the precursor to SR 318, was barely established as a dirt road. (Note today that it's SR 318 route and not US 93 that is part of the National Highway System.)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 12:07:20 AM
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.
As far as being a NAFTA corridor, I-11 could just go as far as Las Vegas and stop. Traffic for Portland, Seattle, Hanford, Spokane, Bend, etc., could take I-15 to Salt Lake City and then I-84. That would usually be an easier route than being dumped on I-5 through the Siskiyous and southern Oregon -- less direct, but much less traffic and less likely to get delayed by snow.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 12:07:20 AM
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.
I think this has been previously discussed, but my basic thought was to take I-11 up 395 to Alturas, then use CA 299 and CA 139/OR 39 to reach Klamath Falls. From there, I'd just take it west along OR 140 to junction with I-5 north of Medford; in that way, lumber traffic from Roseburg down to the Rogue Valley could utilize I-11 to access the interior parts of the West down, of course, as far as Phoenix. If a corridor would be planned for US 97, it could be designated as something else (I-7 comes to mind). Also -- a Cascade crossing that far south would be less likely to cause shitfits at ODOT and friends, since it wouldn't come close to disturbing the Willamette Valley and the old-growth forests around its perimeter. Bonus -- avoidance of Siskiyou Summit. But for the time being getting it up to I-80 should be the initial concern; defining a corridor that will satisfy -- or at least placate -- the various parties concerned will incite enough controversy in and of itself!
Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:02:31 AM
As far as being a NAFTA corridor, I-11 could just go as far as Las Vegas and stop. Traffic for Portland, Seattle, Hanford, Spokane, Bend, etc., could take I-15 to Salt Lake City and then I-84. That would usually be an easier route than being dumped on I-5 through the Siskiyous and southern Oregon -- less direct, but much less traffic and less likely to get delayed by snow.
I disagree with this, for reasons that I've debated elsewhere but love to rehash:
- The 26/97 Oregon corridor is increasingly important, and ODOT at some point needs to look into twinning it from Sandy to Klamath Falls.
- Las Vegas to Portland is 1,184 miles via 15/84. Las Vegas to Seattle is 1,258 miles via 15/84/82/90.
- Las Vegas to Portland is 988 miles via Reno, Klamath Falls, Bend and Government Camp.
- Blue Box Pass on 26 is 4,024 feet and, aside from the Columbia River, is the lowest pass on the Western Cordillera between Snoqualmie and Tehachapi.
- When the Cascadia earthquake happens, Redmond is the established staging area for relief. That stuff needs good, new infrastructure to get there — and to get people out.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 02, 2018, 11:05:23 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:02:31 AM
As far as being a NAFTA corridor, I-11 could just go as far as Las Vegas and stop. Traffic for Portland, Seattle, Hanford, Spokane, Bend, etc., could take I-15 to Salt Lake City and then I-84. That would usually be an easier route than being dumped on I-5 through the Siskiyous and southern Oregon -- less direct, but much less traffic and less likely to get delayed by snow.
I disagree with this, for reasons that I've debated elsewhere but love to rehash:
- The 26/97 Oregon corridor is increasingly important, and ODOT at some point needs to look into twinning it from Sandy to Klamath Falls.
- Las Vegas to Portland is 1,184 miles via 15/84. Las Vegas to Seattle is 1,258 miles via 15/84/82/90.
- Las Vegas to Portland is 988 miles via Reno, Klamath Falls, Bend and Government Camp.
- Blue Box Pass on 26 is 4,024 feet and, aside from the Columbia River, is the lowest pass on the Western Cordillera between Snoqualmie and Tehachapi.
- When the Cascadia earthquake happens, Redmond is the established staging area for relief. That stuff needs good, new infrastructure to get there – and to get people out.
Read an ODOT message that came my way which indicated US 97 from Sunriver to Klamath Falls does not have enough passing lanes. More will be added in a 4-lane fashion, with the idea being to link these sections together to form a 4-lane US 97 at some point in the future. ODOT does not move fast so don't expect this to happen soon but I do expect the passing lanes to be built over the next several years.
Rick
I see the desire for a 4-way expressway along US 97 from Weed to Madras. I don't think it warrants a freeway, however. There are a lot of driveways and at-grade interchanges that would be very expensive to separate, and there's not the amount of traffic that would justify it. Take those billions and add a third lane to I-5, which could use it.
There's nothing stopping automobile drivers or truckers from driving through northeastern California from Reno to Klamath Falls. The roads are fine and uncrowded. You don't have to have a freeway in order to drive.
Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:17:03 PM
I see the desire for a 4-way expressway along US 97 from Weed to Madras. I don't think it warrants a freeway, however. There are a lot of driveways and at-grade interchanges that would be very expensive to separate, and there's not the amount of traffic that would justify it.
I don't disagree, but I think US-97 justifies it more than US-95 through Nevada does.
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 02, 2018, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 02, 2018, 01:17:03 PM
I see the desire for a 4-way expressway along US 97 from Weed to Madras. I don't think it warrants a freeway, however. There are a lot of driveways and at-grade interchanges that would be very expensive to separate, and there's not the amount of traffic that would justify it.
I don't disagree, but I think US-97 justifies it more than US-95 through Nevada does.
I agree, although it's been a few years since I've driven along it. But my inclination would be to end I-11 at Las Vegas rather than continue north.
Las Vegas to Phoenix has to be the top priority for I-11 development. Other possible parts of the corridor should simply be identified and maybe some ROW bought and reserved for future use once an alignment was chosen.
I don't mind seeing I-11 simply end at I-80 if it ever gets built up that far. But if it had to terminate at another Interstate beyond I-80 I'd rather see it go over to I-5 in Oregon, but to Southern Oregon in the Medford area. Over 200,000 people live in the Medford-Grants Pass MSA. From there I-5 could be widened. I-11 could come near Klamath Falls, skirting the South side going over to Medford. US-97 is on a pretty narrow ROW North of Klamath Falls. It would be difficult enough just building that road 4-lane undivided.
Redding, CA is another possible option for a North terminus of I-11, partly since CA-44 is a freeway in Redding and on a freeway wide ROW East of Redding. Unfortunately the trip between Redding and Susanville pretty mountainous and not truck friendly. That would be a really expensive stretch of road to build.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 01:55:19 PM
Las Vegas to Phoenix has to be the top priority for I-11 development. Other possible parts of the corridor should simply be identified and maybe some ROW bought and reserved for future use once an alignment was chosen.
I don't mind seeing I-11 simply end at I-80 if it ever gets built up that far. But if it had to terminate at another Interstate beyond I-80 I'd rather see it go over to I-5 in Oregon, but to Southern Oregon in the Medford area. Over 200,000 people live in the Medford-Grants Pass MSA. From there I-5 could be widened. I-11 could come near Klamath Falls, skirting the South side going over to Medford. US-97 is on a pretty narrow ROW North of Klamath Falls. It would be difficult enough just building that road 4-lane undivided.
Redding, CA is another possible option for a North terminus of I-11, partly since CA-44 is a freeway in Redding and on a freeway wide ROW East of Redding. Unfortunately the trip between Redding and Susanville pretty mountainous and not truck friendly. That would be a really expensive stretch of road to build.
Since it was the first section out of the blocks, I don't think anyone would quibble with prioritizing Phoenix-Vegas; my guess is that there won't even be any studies on anything north of LV until at least Vegas-Kingman is completed as a full freeway and a Phoenix alignment has been selected. But considering the NV corridor routing controversy in this thread alone, I'm certain interests in Gardnerville, Fallon, and other interim points will be pressing for the corridor to come their way, which will stretch out the decision process.
Your original idea about taking I-11 to Medford certainly prompted my similar OR 140 alignment concept -- but even that involves some mountainous terrain, albeit along the most benign crossing south of US 26 And I've often driven US 97 along the east short of Klamath Lake and wondered just where they would even think of putting a freeway -- it would have to either take a broad arc around the lake area, or ODOT would have to carve a 4-lane K-railed alignment out of the existing route (and not disturb the joint UP/BNSF line next door). If any sort of corridor improvements occur on 97 in these parts, it'll certainly be interesting to see how the project is tackled.
I don't see a Redding option as being particularly efficient; traffic heading north would still have to slog through Sacramento Canyon and over the Dunsmuir-Shasta grade. Pretty much everyone here thought my original I-11 plan of a few months back following CA 44 & 89 to Shasta City wasn't terribly feasible or efficient; after reconsidering -- principally because of Siskiyou Summit and Anderson Grade -- I'd have to concur with this (hence the Klamath Falls-Medford option) -- and a Redding destination would utilize quite a bit of that original routing. While the only really bad mountainous portion, where CA 44 surmounts the ridge east of Old Station/CA 89, would pose construction problems, the fact that much of the route east of there sits at over 6000 ft. elevation and is prone to heavy snow drifts during the winter mitigates against an all-year freeway in that region.
I think that if I-11 gets extended north of I-80 (I'm not saying it should, I'm just saying what I think would be best if it did hypothetically), the best option would be to follow US-395 N from Reno (if it's coming from Fernley, maybe a northern bypass of Reno would be a good fit), going through/near Susanville, roughly following CA-139 to Klamath Falls. From there, extend over US-97 to Madras, and US-26 to Portland. This provides better access to the growing Bend area, especially the crucial link to Portland, as well as a bypass of I-5 and the Siskiyou pass (while the US-97 corridor is higher, it is often drier, and US-26 is not bad for a cross-Cascades highway).
Other options would be to follow US-97 from Madras to Yakima (which would provide a long term bypass of the Portland/Salem area for people traveling between California and Seattle, though at about 40 miles longer that's a bit of a stretch), but US-26 gets a lot more traffic so I'd prefer that. Now, this is fictional territory at this point and I'm not saying any of this should happen any time remotely soon.
Extending to Boise doesn't make sense because it's 624 miles from Boise to Las Vegas via US-93/NV-318 through Twin Falls and Ely. Simply following the existing US-95 (and ID-55), it is 771 miles. Totally not worth it, especially since if you require a full freeway, I-84 to I-15 is 759 miles. Routing I-11 to Boise simply makes no sense (unless you're routing it along US-93, but nobody, including me, would suggest that; it's even lower traffic than US-95 and goes nowhere near Reno, which is the main goal of extending it to I-80).
Quote from: sparkerSince it was the first section out of the blocks, I don't think anyone would quibble with prioritizing Phoenix-Vegas; my guess is that there won't even be any studies on anything north of LV until at least Vegas-Kingman is completed as a full freeway and a Phoenix alignment has been selected. But considering the NV corridor routing controversy in this thread alone, I'm certain interests in Gardnerville, Fallon, and other interim points will be pressing for the corridor to come their way, which will stretch out the decision process.
One thing on Nevada's side for I-11 is the state's population growth. Nevada led the entire in percentage gain of population between the 2000 and 2010 US census -well over 30%. Much of that growth has been in the Las Vegas region, but the Reno-Carson City metro is growing well too.
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 02, 2018, 04:18:24 PM
I think that if I-11 gets extended north of I-80 (I'm not saying it should, I'm just saying what I think would be best if it did hypothetically), the best option would be to follow US-395 N from Reno (if it's coming from Fernley, maybe a northern bypass of Reno would be a good fit), going through/near Susanville, roughly following CA-139 to Klamath Falls. From there, extend over US-97 to Madras, and US-26 to Portland. This provides better access to the growing Bend area, especially the crucial link to Portland, as well as a bypass of I-5 and the Siskiyou pass (while the US-97 corridor is higher, it is often drier, and US-26 is not bad for a cross-Cascades highway).
Other options would be to follow US-97 from Madras to Yakima (which would provide a long term bypass of the Portland/Salem area for people traveling between California and Seattle, though at about 40 miles longer that's a bit of a stretch), but US-26 gets a lot more traffic so I'd prefer that. Now, this is fictional territory at this point and I'm not saying any of this should happen any time remotely soon.
Extending to Boise doesn't make sense because it's 624 miles from Boise to Las Vegas via US-93/NV-318 through Twin Falls and Ely. Simply following the existing US-95 (and ID-55), it is 771 miles. Totally not worth it, especially since if you require a full freeway, I-84 to I-15 is 759 miles. Routing I-11 to Boise simply makes no sense (unless you're routing it along US-93, but nobody, including me, would suggest that; it's even lower traffic than US-95 and goes nowhere near Reno, which is the main goal of extending it to I-80).
If US 97 is going to get the Interstate treatment, it's likely that the southern end will be two-pronged -- one toward the "inland" (I-11) corridor, the other heading toward the populated areas of Northern California (i.e., straight down to I-5 at Weed). Ideally, the concept of the 97/26 continuum to Portland is probably the most useful corridor concept for the region -- but it would garner tremendous political backlash from Portland interests, particularly PDX Metro, which really would rather not see any additional freeway corridors serving the area (hence my notion of taking I-11 straight across to Medford -- "out of sight, out of mind"). Just the though of seeing "Boring/Oregon City" on an Interstate corridor makes me very happy! -- but, hey, I've got to consider reality here -- Metro would likely stick the project in a semi-permanent holding pattern.
As far as Boise/Treasure Valley goes, any routing up 95 from I-80 is a separate consideration from the I-11 corridor -- unless one
really likes a convoluted alignment! That's one of the reasons I think Fernley is an obvious selection for I-11 to intersect I-80 from the south: it's only 30 miles or so west to Reno, and east on I-80 puts one on the right track for a NE trajectory toward the Boise/T.V. area. True, some truck traffic will come right up US 93 (and NV 318, for that matter!) -- but during winter months, a regularly plowed Interstate corridor might be useful. Besides -- it expedites Boise-bound/originating traffic to and from NorCal points via I-80 as well. Nevertheless, and deliberately ignoring the various politicos who have projected an "intermountain" corridor through every NV valley -- even the Burning Man site -- anything serving Boise or any Idaho point is something that needs to be judged on its own merits -- not as an integral part of the I-11 concept.
I just don't see an Interstate upgrade along US-26 going into Portland being feasible at all. There's too much development all over the US-26 corridor on the East side of Portland. US-26 twists and turns around the base of Mount Hood. Bypassing Portland to the South to connect into I-5 is one idea. But splitting off from East of Sandy what route do you take without still kicking a political hornet's nest?
If US-97 was to get the Interstate treatment through Klamath Falls, Bend and Redmond (which would not be easy or cheap at all) you might as well run the freeway along US-197 up to The Dalles. Routing it along US-97 up to Yakima, WA is another idea. But all that extra Interstate mileage would cost a fortune. And for how much benefit? It might be just as good to push I-11 into Medford.
As for pushing I-11 up US-95 to Boise, that's another thing I just don't see. Very little of US-95 between Winnemucca and the Boise area is just a dinky 2-lane route, and one that is extremely crooked at that. Jeez, the 100+ degree turn at Jordan Valley epitomizes the nature of that route. That's not the kind of thing fitting for an Interstate.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2018, 11:33:19 PM
I just don't see an Interstate upgrade along US-26 going into Portland being feasible at all. There's too much development all over the US-26 corridor on the East side of Portland. US-26 twists and turns around the base of Mount Hood. Bypassing Portland to the South to connect into I-5 is one idea. But splitting off from East of Sandy what route do you take without still kicking a political hornet's nest?
If US-97 was to get the Interstate treatment through Klamath Falls, Bend and Redmond (which would not be easy or cheap at all) you might as well run the freeway along US-197 up to The Dalles. Routing it along US-97 up to Yakima, WA is another idea. But all that extra Interstate mileage would cost a fortune. And for how much benefit? It might be just as good to push I-11 into Medford.
As for pushing I-11 up US-95 to Boise, that's another thing I just don't see. Very little of US-95 between Winnemucca and the Boise area is just a dinky 2-lane route, and one that is extremely crooked at that. Jeez, the 100+ degree turn at Jordan Valley epitomizes the nature of that route. That's not the kind of thing fitting for an Interstate.
100 degrees? That's nothing for the Northwest; I-5 does a 115-degree turn at Myrtle Creek, OR (marked for 45 mph both ways) -- and I-84, with its split carriageways, has several such (albeit single-direction) turns coming down out of the Blue Mountains toward Pendleton. If there are calls from the Treasure Valley/Boise region for a southward Interstate -- and those calls persist for years on end -- and a way is found to subsidize the route through Oregon (which stands to benefit very little from such a corridor -- and virtually
none NE of the OR 78 junction) -- then a Winnemucca-Treasure Valley Interstate is a possibiliby. But, as the saying goes, all the ducks have to be lined up just right for that to happen!
The only available number for a Vegas-Boise corridor would be I-13, and NV wants no part of it, especially due to its bad luck connections.
Getting back to I-11, I guess swinging it to the west to reach Carson City could work, although I see more of an AR situation, where I-49 gets its own route east of Fort Smith instead of absorbing the southern half of I-540. Sure, it won't be an easy task (and then again, nothing is), but we'll see how things work out on that part, if and when they get to it.
Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
The only available number for a Vegas-Boise corridor would be I-13, and NV wants no part of it, especially due to its bad luck connections.
Getting back to I-11, I guess swinging it to the west to reach Carson City could work, although I see more of an AR situation, where I-49 gets its own route east of Fort Smith instead of absorbing the southern half of I-540. Sure, it won't be an easy task (and then again, nothing is), but we'll see how things work out on that part, if and when they get to it.
If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!). Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
The only available number for a Vegas-Boise corridor would be I-13, and NV wants no part of it, especially due to its bad luck connections.
Getting back to I-11, I guess swinging it to the west to reach Carson City could work, although I see more of an AR situation, where I-49 gets its own route east of Fort Smith instead of absorbing the southern half of I-540. Sure, it won't be an easy task (and then again, nothing is), but we'll see how things work out on that part, if and when they get to it.
If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!). Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!
I do have a feeling that if there was going to be an I-13, it's signs would quickly fall victim to theft. (But then again, there's US 13, which hasn't had any signs get stolen, as far as I'm aware. So that could help...)
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
The only available number for a Vegas-Boise corridor would be I-13, and NV wants no part of it, especially due to its bad luck connections.
Getting back to I-11, I guess swinging it to the west to reach Carson City could work, although I see more of an AR situation, where I-49 gets its own route east of Fort Smith instead of absorbing the southern half of I-540. Sure, it won't be an easy task (and then again, nothing is), but we'll see how things work out on that part, if and when they get to it.
If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!). Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!
I do have a feeling that if there was going to be an I-13, it's signs would quickly fall victim to theft. (But then again, there's US 13, which hasn't had any signs get stolen, as far as I'm aware. So that could help...)
CA 13, even within a dense urban area and partially signed over city streets, doesn't seem to have a particularly problematic theft issue. But then the city involved is Berkeley -- and the citizens there may be less inclined to even want to possess a highway sign than a broad cross-section of folks. But unlike the late and lamented CA 69, the US 95 alignment between Winnemucca and any corridor's likely Idaho terminus is relatively remote; miscreants would have to drive dozens if not hundreds of miles to snag one of the potential I-13 shields. If deployed, there might be a trailblazer or two that occasionally goes missing near the more populated Treasure Valley end of the route -- but probably not out of line with normal thefts of any numbered route's shields save 69, 420, and the like with "giggle" factor! But I-69 -- arguably one of the numbers with the greatest theft potential -- is being extended thousands of miles, and AFAIK, no DOT along the corridor has raised this concern -- at least to the level of public discussion. Bottom line -- I don't see a particular problem with an I-13, particularly considering its likely rural/desert environment.
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 04:51:49 PM
But unlike the late and lamented CA 69, the US 95 alignment between Winnemucca and any corridor's likely Idaho terminus is relatively remote; miscreants would have to drive dozens if not hundreds of miles to snag one of the potential I-13 shields.
I feel like this potential I-13 would have its likely terminus around Caldwell or Nampa, not exactly remote. The only other reasonable place would be around Payette which is more rural (but not remote), but that wouldn't make a lot of sense because it wouldn't directly serve Boise (only way it would make sense on that routing is if it continued on to Lewiston, etc). But I agree that theft shouldn't be much of a concern with I-13. Though, milepost 420 on US-95 in Idaho did have issues so who knows (but people care more about that number, I feel like a majority of people don't care about 13, except Vegas).
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!). Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion? Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.
Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!). Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion? Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.
Just throwing in my two cents: I feel like Vegas-Idaho traffic would rather take I-15 and/or I-84. US 93 goes through some pretty big service deserts, but at least I-15 passes through plenty of cities and towns. That said, if there was enough demand for an upgraded north-south highway in eastern Nevada, I would recommend moving US 93 onto NV 318.
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 05, 2018, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!). Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion? Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.
Just throwing in my two cents: I feel like Vegas-Idaho traffic would rather take I-15 and/or I-84. US 93 goes through some pretty big service deserts, but at least I-15 passes through plenty of cities and towns. That said, if there was enough demand for an upgraded north-south highway in eastern Nevada, I would recommend moving US 93 onto NV 318.
I-15/84 is a bit out of the way -- and dealing with traffic from Spanish Fork to Ogden might present an additional issue to LV-Idaho traffic. But the rub is
how much traffic between those two points can be expected both now and in the foreseeable future. If Idaho continues growing at its present pace -- and that growth extends up the Snake River Valley from Boise and environs -- then something like this corridor might be a consideration. But the one thing that a Winnemucca-Nampa (or thereabouts) corridor provides that a US 93 alignment does not is access from Northern California as well as southern NV points. No one, especially commercial drivers, would consider going east from the Bay Area or Sacramento all the way to Wells, turn north to Twin Falls, and backtrack on I-84 to Boise unless it was during a dead-of-winter storm and that was the only route plowed! A US 93-based Interstate corridor would be useful for one thing -- expediting through traffic from Phoenix or Las Vegas directly to Idaho (unless you
really, really wanted to visit Ely!). And seeing how the Reno vicinity routing was selected for I-11 over alternatives that approximated the US 93 corridor -- to borrow a TV phrase, ''the tribe has spoken". And somehow I don't think that once I-11 planning and construction commences north from LV, there will be much impetus to tackle a second N-S corridor on the heels of the Reno server. If considered at all, it would be a
long-range prospect at best.
Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2018, 04:50:46 PM
I'll try to make the following point without venturing too much into Fictional -- but it appears, according to another thread in this regional board, that while I-11 is now legally designated to head up (more or less) US 95 toward the Reno area, there's being some attention paid to the US 93 (and likely NV 318 as well, being the local NHS artery) corridor up the east side of the state (including one weird-ass interchange!). Possibly roadfro or other NV-based posters might know if that attention extends beyond Vegas and environs -- i.e., is that corridor through Ely and Wells penciled in for capacity expansion? Not that I'm trying to find a place to stick an I-13 -- but it seems that if a direct Vegas-Idaho corridor is sought, that might be an alternative to a I-11/I-80/US 95 convolution.
The original I-11 feasibility study seemed to indicate that I-11 could go practically any direction northward from Vegas. There was a map image showing arrows extending northward along several corridors (US 93, US 95, plus a few others that likely made use of some existing state highways).
I seem to recall mention somewhere that while it is preferred I-11 head along US 95 corridor/Reno-ish vicinity, there was mention that the US 93 corridor should not be completely abandoned as a Vegas-Idaho corridor didn't seem without merit. This may have been more in the concept of using 93 as a freight train corridor than expanding roads to Interstate standards. (I can't quite recall where I saw this and can't locate at the moment.)
Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2018, 12:46:19 PM
The original I-11 feasibility study seemed to indicate that I-11 could go practically any direction northward from Vegas. There was a map image showing arrows extending northward along several corridors (US 93, US 95, plus a few others that likely made use of some existing state highways).
I remember that map. Its message to me was, "We have no idea where I-11 should go next. Maybe if we show it going everywhere, the people who support all possible routes will support the project."
Quote from: kkt on January 06, 2018, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2018, 12:46:19 PM
The original I-11 feasibility study seemed to indicate that I-11 could go practically any direction northward from Vegas. There was a map image showing arrows extending northward along several corridors (US 93, US 95, plus a few others that likely made use of some existing state highways).
I remember that map. Its message to me was, "We have no idea where I-11 should go next. Maybe if we show it going everywhere, the people who support all possible routes will support the project."
That's probably precisely the mindset of the I-11 project backers -- give everyone a chance, and the ones with the most clout will get their corridor where they want it -- and hoping that that same clout will eventually translate into actual developmental action. In reality, there were two feasible corridors north from LV: US 93 and US 95. And the latter was chosen, as it functionally linked the two most populous areas of the state. But -- also in reality -- the primary function of the US 93 corridor would be to convey traffic into Idaho; except for the Ely railroad museum (among other local lore artifacts), there's not much along that corridor.
Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2018, 12:46:19 PM
This may have been more in the concept of using 93 as a freight train corridor than expanding roads to Interstate standards. (I can't quite recall where I saw this and can't locate at the moment.)
Such a freight line would likely branch off the UP main near Caliente, then head up US 93; there would be significant tunneling involved to get it up to Ely. Once in Ely, any freight line might well follow the old Nevada Northern, once a mining-access railroad but now the path of a steam-powered tourist operation. From Wells up to Twin Falls, ID, following US 93, is the path of the Wells UP branch abandoned in the late '60's; the last time I drove up that way the RR alignment, which closely followed the highway for most of its length, remained intact albeit overgrown. But in any case, all the rail activity in the area is dependent upon Union Pacific activity -- they own all the active tracks (save the tourist line) in NV and southern ID;
their needs would be the determining factor in whether an additional freight line up US 93 would be feasible -- and given the freight patterns of late, I would have serious doubts about the necessity of such an additional rail line.
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 03, 2018, 09:47:01 AM
The only available number for a Vegas-Boise corridor would be I-13, and NV wants no part of it, especially due to its bad luck connections.
Getting back to I-11, I guess swinging it to the west to reach Carson City could work, although I see more of an AR situation, where I-49 gets its own route east of Fort Smith instead of absorbing the southern half of I-540. Sure, it won't be an easy task (and then again, nothing is), but we'll see how things work out on that part, if and when they get to it.
If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!). Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!
I do have a feeling that if there was going to be an I-13, it's signs would quickly fall victim to theft. (But then again, there's US 13, which hasn't had any signs get stolen, as far as I'm aware. So that could help...)
CA 13, even within a dense urban area and partially signed over city streets, doesn't seem to have a particularly problematic theft issue. But then the city involved is Berkeley -- and the citizens there may be less inclined to even want to possess a highway sign than a broad cross-section of folks. But unlike the late and lamented CA 69, the US 95 alignment between Winnemucca and any corridor's likely Idaho terminus is relatively remote; miscreants would have to drive dozens if not hundreds of miles to snag one of the potential I-13 shields. If deployed, there might be a trailblazer or two that occasionally goes missing near the more populated Treasure Valley end of the route -- but probably not out of line with normal thefts of any numbered route's shields save 69, 420, and the like with "giggle" factor! But I-69 -- arguably one of the numbers with the greatest theft potential -- is being extended thousands of miles, and AFAIK, no DOT along the corridor has raised this concern -- at least to the level of public discussion. Bottom line -- I don't see a particular problem with an I-13, particularly considering its likely rural/desert environment.
Good point; there'd hardly be anyone traveling that road, and I doubt anyone would even consider taking a sign, of those few that do go that route.
At this point, any planning for an Interstate corridor (basically) following US 95 from I-80 to the Treasure Valley in Idaho would be based on projected growth of that portion of Idaho and perceived need for connectivity to other populated areas of the West; presently US 95 adequately handles the current traffic load. If the growth trends continue or increase, there may be some movement toward such measures if only to stay ahead of inflation; nevertheless, I wouldn't expect any activity of this sort to even emerge until the 2030's at the earliest.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2018, 03:53:43 PM
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.
That's a great creative solution. The Carson City backers could still get reasonable access to I-11 by finishing the four laning of US 50 between Carson City and Fallon. (There's only about 25 miles left.) The overall distance from Las Vegas to Carson City is probably still less using your "shortcut" and US 50 than the expensive routing to get I-11 to US-395.
The corridor from Tonopah to Gabbs is pretty much a given. I see a couple options from Gabbs north to get to Fallon and the I-80/US-50 interchange. I won't speculate to keep this out of fictional territory.
I don't think the military will care about it not running by the Hawthorne Depot. If they were, they'd have built a four-lane US-95 to Fallon.
Quote from: skluth on January 08, 2018, 06:36:47 PM
I don't think the military will care about it not running by the Hawthorne Depot. If they were, they'd have built a four-lane US-95 to Fallon.
The only concern with the military is not that a 4-lane facility serves Hawthorne; rather problems posed by running a I-11 corridor around the east side of Walker Lake, which would put it along the rail line flanking the depot on the northeast. At this point, I don't think the Army much cares about such things; US 95 actually bisects two depot sections east of Hawthorne itself (and it's weird driving through there at night!) and has for several decades. Besides, any particularly bulky or heavy movements requiring more than an normal flatbed or semi-truck would likely be handled by rail (the reason that branch line hasn't been pulled up so far). So a Gabbs option almost certainly wouldn't faze the Army in any way -- and its likely a closer alignment wouldn't as well, as long as it didn't pass directly through the depot.
The military doesn't move very much tactical equipment and supplies by way of highways. Air and rail are used far more (which is a big reason why I think a bunch of the I-14 stuff to link various Southern bases is ridiculous). The most common thing the military moves by road is personnel, their families and moving trucks when they're transferring to a new duty station within the lower 48 states.
Quote from: sparkerThe only concern with the military is not that a 4-lane facility serves Hawthorne; rather problems posed by running a I-11 corridor around the east side of Walker Lake, which would put it along the rail line flanking the depot on the northeast.
A route going thru Tonopah, Gabbs, the Rawhide Landing Strip and to US-95 at the South boundary of Fallon Naval Air Station would be well away from Walker Lake. Roughly 30 miles to the East behind a couple layers of mountain ranges. The road wouldn't affect the Hawthorne Facility at all.
Now if I-11 were routed into Carson City from the South, then I think a bypass of Tonopah would be necessary to cut off a big chunk of mileage. And I-11 would cannibalize US-95 thru the Hawthorne Facility. But then it would need to punch through that mountain range on the West side of Walker Lake to open a passage directly West over to the gateway to Minden, Gardnerville and Carson City.
There is no perfect way to get I-11 into the Reno-Carson City area. Any alignment is going to involve some level of compromise. Routing I-11 over US-95 the whole way from Vegas to Fallon would be its own crappy compromise. No towns would be bypassed, but the road would be a lot longer and ultimately be even more expensive to build.
Starting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore. But if the Gabbs option ends up being selected, the optimal place for it to go once past NV 839 (old 31) is to skirt the north end of the Walker River reservation, cross US 95 south of Carson Lake, and curve it around the SW side of Fallon in order to avoid the housing area that occupies the southwest quadrant of the town and its environs. It'd cross Alternate 50 near Hazen and terminate at I-80 a couple of miles east of Fernley; that would optimize access to both directions of I-80 -- which is about the best outcome for this corridor.
At the risk of sliding into Fictional -- if the Carson Valley wants a through interstate, something up US 395 from the greater L.A. area -- way off into the distant future -- might be their best bet (if it were even politically possible to punch a freeway through the West Walker river canyon in CA).
Quote from: sparkerStarting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore.
US-95 gets pretty tightly squeezed next to the lake between the town of Walker Lake and Sportsman's Beach Campground a few miles North. That's the most challenging point to build a 4 lane freeway
if it got built that far North. One option is using the pass West of the town of Walker Lake. Currently Cottonwood Canyon Road goes well into the mountain next to the dry creek bed. It's possible to route I-11 along that. A tunnel or two isn't out of the question to get the road to the other side of the mountains and keep it from back-tracking South to Pike Peak. Still, it would be a pretty expensive stretch of road to engineer and build. That's would make a Tonopah to Gabbs thing more attractive (bear in mind the route I have in mind would only come near those towns and bypass them).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 09, 2018, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: sparkerStarting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore.
US-95 gets pretty tightly squeezed next to the lake between the town of Walker Lake and Sportsman's Beach Campground a few miles North. That's the most challenging point to build a 4 lane freeway if it got built that far North. One option is using the pass West of the town of Walker Lake. Currently Cottonwood Canyon Road goes well into the mountain next to the dry creek bed. It's possible to route I-11 along that. A tunnel or two isn't out of the question to get the road to the other side of the mountains and keep it from back-tracking South to Pike Peak. Still, it would be a pretty expensive stretch of road to engineer and build. That's would make a Tonopah to Gabbs thing more attractive (bear in mind the route I have in mind would only come near those towns and bypass them).
Anything through the Wassuk range and down the West Walker canyon tracing NV 208 would be a massive undertaking, requiring either tunnels or absolutely huge cuts and fills; the canyon portion would likely resemble the Pisgah River section of I-40 across the Great Smokies -- narrow, curving, and with occasional tunnels at least on the cliff-side lanes. Reasons #1-20 inclusive why, as I said before, I'm starting to warm to the Gabbs routing (thanks for doing the GSV work to find it out!). I wouldn't worry too much about bypassing anything along the US 95 corridor; as long as it comes near enough to Beatty or Tonopah so services can be provided and the residents have some extra work opportunities. Fallon's doing all right itself with an active NAS and the retirement communities being built around its edges, and Hawthorne is Hawthorne, for better or worse (being in the middle of an Army ammo depot doesn't allow for much in the way of growth opportunities).
NDOT has some public meetings scheduled in various cities in late March (notice posted here) (https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=12956) regarding potential alignments of I-11 from Las Vegas to I-80.
QuoteThe Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is initiating the I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis. The goal of this Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL) process is to advance the congressionally designated I-11 corridor of US 95 between Las Vegas and Interstate 80 as identified in the I-11 Intermountain West Corridor Study (2014) by considering a range of potential corridors. The result will be a smaller range of potential corridors to be analyzed under future environmental study process(es).
At the bottom of the notice, it states there will be full presentation on Facebook Live on March 29 at 2:30 Pacific time.
I suspect it will be a long time before US 95 between Interstate 15 and Interstate 80 becomes an extension of Interstate 11. Heck, it will probably be a long time before Arizona builds substantial portions of Interstate 11 in its state.
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2018, 11:29:32 AM
If an I-13 started in Winnemucca, it shouldn't have any psychic effect on Vegas folks (out of sight, out of mind!). Hey, if Dan Marino can have the career he did wearing that number, then maybe the "hex" isn't what it used to be!
Well, he never did win that Super Bowl...
(Though Kurt Warner did wearing #13)
Quote from: sparker on January 09, 2018, 05:36:36 AM
Starting to warm to the Gabbs routing option; if nothing else it would put an effective end to the convoluted Carson City option, which is really complicated by the presence of Walker Lake -- if dragged right up US 95, the most efficient place to put the corridor would be on the east side of the lake; US 95, on the west, is sandwiched between the lake and the Wassuk mountains -- and the sole decent passage through those mountains is well south of the north end of the lake; the freeway corridor would have to overlay US 95 to access that pass, which itself would be a construction nightmare as there's barely room for the present 2-lane facility along much of the lakeshore. But if the Gabbs option ends up being selected, the optimal place for it to go once past NV 839 (old 31) is to skirt the north end of the Walker River reservation, cross US 95 south of Carson Lake, and curve it around the SW side of Fallon in order to avoid the housing area that occupies the southwest quadrant of the town and its environs. It'd cross Alternate 50 near Hazen and terminate at I-80 a couple of miles east of Fernley; that would optimize access to both directions of I-80 -- which is about the best outcome for this corridor.
At the risk of sliding into Fictional -- if the Carson Valley wants a through interstate, something up US 395 from the greater L.A. area -- way off into the distant future -- might be their best bet (if it were even politically possible to punch a freeway through the West Walker river canyon in CA).
Almost any re-routing imaginable would beat US-95. I just planned the flight from Las Vegas to Reno as 300 NM = 556 km and the road trip as 448 mi = 721 km. Now the flight takes you right across the mountain tops, but still. It has to be reasonable to cut off at least 100 of those additional 165 km! (the last 50 km are likely to be backtracking on I-80 anyway)
This disparity, in percentage terms, has to be almost as bad as San Jose to Fresno. I know that the SJC-FYI flight is less than 100 NM (180 km) because I couldn't use it as the long cross county leg for my FAA private pilots license. It's 246 km by road (not all of which is even 4-lane).
NDOT is holding public meetings this month about the future I-11 corridor north of Las Vegas. They're starting with Las Vegas next week, then stopping in Tonopah, Hawthorne and Fallon before wrapping up in Reno and Carson City the following week.
NDOT traveling to 6 Nevada cities to discuss need for I-11 (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/ndot-traveling-to-6-nevada-cities-to-discuss-need-for-i-11/),
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/13/18
Quote
The Nevada Department of Transportation is going on a road trip this month to discuss Interstate 11, with the first stop scheduled for Las Vegas.
The six-city tour is aimed at explaining the importance of building the new freeway and gathering public input on where I-11 should be routed north of Las Vegas.
"A lot of people get excited about I-11, and rightly so, because it is a game-changer for economic vitality and freight mobility and safety," NDOT Director Rudy Malfabon said during the agency's board meeting on Monday.
EDIT: Added omitted word in 2nd sentence.
Looking at NDOT's webpage for the above I-11 meeting notice, I found a flyer describing the "I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis" background and purpose.
https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=12958 (PDF)
Bonus on that document is that it has a map showing the alternatives under consideration, which I assume will be discussed in further detail at the upcoming meetings. Segment A is Las Vegas to Tonopah, and will basically follow the current alignment of US 95.
Segment B is Tonopah to I-80, and has four alternatives under consideration:
- B1 - "Fallon Connection": A new highway alignment more directly connecting Tonopah to US 50 near Salt Wells, bypassing Fallon to the northeast, then reconnecting with US 95 to I-80
- B2 - "Fernley East Connection": Follows US 95 (with jog on east side of Walker Lake) to south of Fallon, bypassing Fallon to the southwest, then connecting to US 50 Alt to Fernley and I-80
- B3 - "Fernley West Connection": Follows US 95 (with jog on east side of Walker Lake) to Schurz, then following the US 95 Alt corridor (bypassing Yerington to the north) to Fernley and I-80
- B4 - "Reno Connection": Follows US 95 (with jog on east side of Walker Lake), departs westward just north of Walker Lake through mountains on new highway (possibly old NV 2C), connects to SR 208 in Smith Valley, then follows US 395/I-580 north to I-80 in Reno
Several of these incorporate ideas previously discussed in this thread. But they are four very different corridors. I think NDOT will need to further define the ultimate goal(s) of I-11, as that would greatly impact the preferred alternative. If trying to push I-11 further north than I-80 into Oregon and beyond, B1 is best. If trying to facilitate freight travel within Nevada, B3 is best. If trying to connect Nevada's population centers, B4 is best (although possibly still a bit circuitous).
Interesting that B1 is very similar to the Gabbs Pole Line Road option discussed earlier. That means skipping Hawthorne completely could happen. There are also options between the alternatives so that parts of different alternatives can be combined. IMO, Option e which connects the majority of B1 with the Fallon-Fernley part of B2 would satisfy most everyone except those who want the route to go through Carson City. It may also be the least expensive build. The B4 alternative is probably the most expensive (as previously discussed) and really only satisfies Carson City business interests that want to force traffic to Carson City. I wish there was an Option h connecting US 95 north of Fallon to the intersection of US 50/Alt US 50 west of Fallon, but that's slipping into Fictional territory so I won't go down that rabbit hole.
If option B1 is given serious consideration, it's likely that Reno-area interests will press for a Fallon-Fernley connecting corridor to expedite service to their area. Interesting that B2 does make a detour around the east side of Walker Lake (following the RR rather than the cliffside US 95); that would likely decrease construction costs considerably. B2 vs. B3 will be an interesting discussion: the existing commercial center of the east-of-Reno area (Fallon) or the growing retirement areas around Yerington and Silver Springs. That just might come down to property acquisition costs, particularly between Fallon and Fernley south of US 50 and/or Alternate 50. And unless Carson Valley interests can conjure up the additional $$ that B4 would require -- and whine loud enough to get their way -- IMO that alternative will be the first to be discarded. If I were a betting man, my money would be on B2 (unless B1 is modified to go to Fernley rather than up US 95 north of Fallon).
The B1 option would only be good for a long term option to multiplex I-11 with I-80 up to Winnemucca and then follow US-95 North up to the Boise area.
I would prefer to see I-11 go more along the lines of the B4 alternative into Carson City and Reno (consuming I-580 in the process). However, I don't really like the route path all that much. Forcing the route through Tonopah takes it way out of the way. That town could be bypassed and cut a big chunk of mileage off the route. I understand the politics of including Tonopah in that route, but what's the bigger priority? Tonopah or the Reno-Carson City metro? I think the latter priority would place a much larger premium on building a more direct route rather than something even more curvy than I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky. If they were willing to build a mountain pass route directly West of Walker Lake they could cut off another significant chunk of mileage. The project would be an expensive engineering feat, but that version of I-11 would be far more useful for more Nevada residents and long distance traffic using the I-11 corridor.
If connecting Tonopah is really that much of a priority then it would make variations of the B1 alternative more attractive. Although I would prefer the B1 option to diverge at Salt Wells and then head over to meet I-80 at Fernley. At least that would point I-11 in the direction of Reno. Ultimately I-11 could multiplex with I-80 to Reno and then be extended farther North via US-395 and then maybe to Medford, OR and the I-5 corridor.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2018, 12:29:31 AM
I would prefer to see I-11 go more along the lines of the B4 alternative into Carson City and Reno (consuming I-580 in the process). However, I don't really like the route path all that much. Forcing the route through Tonopah takes it way out of the way. That town could be bypassed and cut a big chunk of mileage off the route. I understand the politics of including Tonopah in that route, but what's the bigger priority? Tonopah or the Reno-Carson City metro? I think the latter priority would place a much larger premium on building a more direct route rather than something even more curvy than I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky. If they were willing to build a mountain pass route directly West of Walker Lake they could cut off another significant chunk of mileage. The project would be an expensive engineering feat, but that version of I-11 would be far more useful for more Nevada residents and long distance traffic using the I-11 corridor.
If connecting Tonopah is really that much of a priority then it would make variations of the B1 alternative more attractive. Although I would prefer the B1 option to diverge at Salt Wells and then head over to meet I-80 at Fernley. At least that would point I-11 in the direction of Reno. Ultimately I-11 could multiplex with I-80 to Reno and then be extended farther North via US-395 and then maybe to Medford, OR and the I-5 corridor.
This goes back to needing to define the desired purpose. That seriously affects how you consider the alternatives.
I do think it is (somewhat) important for this route to serve Tonopah, no matter what happens north of there. Tonopah is the only "major" population center and services (food, gas, lodging) in that part of the state. Bypass that, and you have a ~200 mile gap in services between Beatty and Hawthorne (probably closer to 230 if B1 is chosen to bypass Hawthorne).
There is not a viable location to build a route directly west from Walker Lake, other than the point where old NV 2C comes in just north of the lake. That's the narrowest part of that mountain range, and is a natural valley--anything else would require significant cuts or more significant tunneling that makes things infeasible.
A very rough approximation of alternative B4 (using existing roads) from downtown Reno to Tonopah versus the existing route of US 95/50/50A via Fallon is that the B4 route is about 10-15 miles longer. So long-distance traffic between Reno and Vegas is likely better served by one of the other alternatives. But again, things go back to what is the long-distance travel pattern that is expected/desired to be served?
Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2018, 03:49:34 AM
I do think it is (somewhat) important for this route to serve Tonopah, no matter what happens north of there. Tonopah is the only "major" population center and services (food, gas, lodging) in that part of the state. Bypass that, and you have a ~200 mile gap in services between Beatty and Hawthorne (probably closer to 230 if B1 is chosen to bypass Hawthorne).
I just disagree with this. I-11 can serve Tonopah even if it only gets as close as Goldfield and Coaldale Junction. Services will open in Goldfield, shifting some of the economic benefit — but let's be honest, an interstate bypass of Tonopah isn't going to be a boon to any tourism economy in Tonopah. Tonopah's going to have to attract people on its own merits no matter what the alignment is, because people who are just passing through for gas are going to stop & go.
If you can cut 25-or-so miles off the drive, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me to make that investment in construction, maintenance and carbon generation to serve a town of 2,400 people.
Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2018, 03:49:34 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2018, 12:29:31 AM
I would prefer to see I-11 go more along the lines of the B4 alternative into Carson City and Reno (consuming I-580 in the process). However, I don't really like the route path all that much. Forcing the route through Tonopah takes it way out of the way. That town could be bypassed and cut a big chunk of mileage off the route. I understand the politics of including Tonopah in that route, but what's the bigger priority? Tonopah or the Reno-Carson City metro? I think the latter priority would place a much larger premium on building a more direct route rather than something even more curvy than I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky. If they were willing to build a mountain pass route directly West of Walker Lake they could cut off another significant chunk of mileage. The project would be an expensive engineering feat, but that version of I-11 would be far more useful for more Nevada residents and long distance traffic using the I-11 corridor.
If connecting Tonopah is really that much of a priority then it would make variations of the B1 alternative more attractive. Although I would prefer the B1 option to diverge at Salt Wells and then head over to meet I-80 at Fernley. At least that would point I-11 in the direction of Reno. Ultimately I-11 could multiplex with I-80 to Reno and then be extended farther North via US-395 and then maybe to Medford, OR and the I-5 corridor.
This goes back to needing to define the desired purpose. That seriously affects how you consider the alternatives.
I do think it is (somewhat) important for this route to serve Tonopah, no matter what happens north of there. Tonopah is the only "major" population center and services (food, gas, lodging) in that part of the state. Bypass that, and you have a ~200 mile gap in services between Beatty and Hawthorne (probably closer to 230 if B1 is chosen to bypass Hawthorne).
There is not a viable location to build a route directly west from Walker Lake, other than the point where old NV 2C comes in just north of the lake. That's the narrowest part of that mountain range, and is a natural valley--anything else would require significant cuts or more significant tunneling that makes things infeasible.
A very rough approximation of alternative B4 (using existing roads) from downtown Reno to Tonopah versus the existing route of US 95/50/50A via Fallon is that the B4 route is about 10-15 miles longer. So long-distance traffic between Reno and Vegas is likely better served by one of the other alternatives. But again, things go back to what is the long-distance travel pattern that is expected/desired to be served?
Unfortunately for those who are trying to get a more definitive handle on this corridor, the legislated definition (via the HPC 68 amendment) merely states I-80 as the northern terminus zone. That was likely deliberate and derived from the Nevada congressional delegation to "kick the can down the road", so to speak, regarding the final selection. With that in mind, it's likely that the four "B" options presented won't be the final iterations of the routing choices, as two of the four (B1 & B4) represent two vastly contradictory purposes: Boise vs. the US 395 corridor. B2 & B3 are simply choices that won't please anyone in particular but also don't fully disadvantage anyone either (save the residents of Carson Valley and points south).
IMO something will be cobbled together out of the first three options (given that B1 represents an efficient Tonopah-Fallon routing that avoids Walker Lake altogether) -- but I'll also take an educated guess that Reno interests will prevail even if a Fallon-area server is selected; if there's enough clamoring for a route aiming toward Idaho, it'll be tacked on as a spur (unless B3 is selected, in which case the NE bend of I-80 at Fernley would probably be sufficient to address both Boise and Reno destinations). Carson Valley folks may just have to wait until someone down the line plans an additional corridor up US 395 from SoCal.
I favor B4 since it does the best job of connecting the places with actual population. If NV wants to do a cheaper routing, I could live with B2 or B3. B1 IMO doesn't even bother to pay lip service to the stated objective of connecting Vegas and Reno in favor of an Idaho connection that is pure Fictional Highways (as is anything else north of I-80).
Going through the middle of nowhere just to save a bend around Tonopah is idiotic. Tonopah may only have a couple thousand people, but in that part of the country, that's the big city. It's also not that big of a bend for the distance traveled, and serving Tonopah also puts I-11 on easier terrain. Compare to the bend to go around Boulder City, or I-87 in North Carolina.
I know why they want it going through Fernley, ease of future connection north and all that, but I think they should take B3 up 439 (US Parkway). Keeps it 20 miles closer to Reno.
B4, judging from the terrain, almost looks like a no-go to me, even though it's probably the best routing they can get through the mountains there.
I say B3. B4 would be painfully expensive, vulnerable to closure in the winter storms, and more expensive in fuel. B3 is pretty close to as as fast, while not nearly as expensive to build. B2 would also require more expensive construction with not much payback, and B1 even more so. If there was going to be heavy traffic up to Idaho, one could argue for B1, or B2 with the f option, and making a spur to Fernley. But I'm not sure Idaho traffic justify it. (I remain unconvinced that any extension north of Las Vegas is justified, frankly.)
Quote from: inkyatari on March 20, 2018, 02:55:07 PM
I know why they want it going through Fernley, ease of future connection north and all that, but I think they should take B3 up 439 (US Parkway). Keeps it 20 miles closer to Reno.
B4, judging from the terrain, almost looks like a no-go to me, even though it's probably the best routing they can get through the mountains there.
When it comes to B4, it's not just getting through the Wassuk range west of Walker Lake; it's also negotiating the canyon along NV 208; I've driven that one a few times, and it's narrow with steep canyon walls. Between the mountain pass (which is essentially new-terrain, as the old NV 2C was little more than a couple of tire tracks) and the canyon, expect per-mile construction cost 3-4X what any of the other "B" options would be (and that's not including acquiring relatively prime properties for the segment through Minden and Gardnerville). If anything will sink B4, it'll be the raw cost.
I don't see how B4 gets built. It will cost significantly more to cut through all those mountains compared to the cost to build any other alternative. B4 will have a bigger environment impact because of all the road cuts and other land modifications needed. There will be environmental lawsuits over every leg of B4 through the mountains. Going through the mountains adds to the maintenance of the highway once built, both in stress on the road by the mountains (rock slides, etc) and winter snow removal. It's also longer from Reno to LV than any other route. The only people B4 helps are those in Carson City and only because it forces through traffic through their tiny metro. There is a minimal difference in distance and convenience to get to LV (even Google Maps routes Carson City-Las Vegas through Fallon) as long as they finish four-laning US 50 from Carson City to I-11 (including a bypass of Fallon, if needed).
Option b (lower case) connects B1 to the other three options on the NE side of Walker Lake. I assume this is really only an option if the B4 option is selected north of Walker Lake. Looking at the terrain, I think the west terminus of option b is more likely to end up nearer to Schurz. I still don't see B4 happening with that option either. It will probably cost less to use any other alternative even when adding a cost of four-laning US 50 to B1-B3.
B2 and B3 both add distance compared to B1, even if a wide bypass of Tonopah is built. They just zig-zag too much between Schurz and US 6.
One other consideration: B1 is the only alternative that doesn't cross the large tribal reservation north of Walker Lake. I don't think the tribe would fight the highway; they might even encourage it to drive business traffic to the rez. But differences over the environment policy has changed tribal leadership in many places and caused changes to many a construction project. I think that's a risk worth avoiding.
I still like B1 north to Salt Wells then running around Fallon to Fernley (B1 with option e to B2 to Fernley) plus completing the four lane of US 50 between Silver Spring and wherever I-11 runs. It's the shortest, flattest, and most likely cheapest route. Don't argue that it's shorter to go from Reno to Las Vegas through Carson City via B4. It's well out of the way; it adds about 40 miles. It only shortens the route to LV for those in that little valley south of Carson City. I think a new SF Bay tunnel is more likely than B4.
Further on B4, remember, this is Nevada. They practically invented the low tax-low service model of state government. If they make I-11 north of L.V. at all, it won't be B4.
The way it is anymore there is no such thing as a "cheap" Interstate highway. Any I-11 concept between Las Vegas and I-80 will be very expensive to build, even one that goes way around every mountain range between the I-15 and I-80 corridors.
IMHO, if I-11 can't manage to connect directly or very closely to the Reno area then it's not worth building I-11 up past Las Vegas at all. Towns like Fallon, Fernley and Tonopah aren't even big enough destinations to justify a long distance 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections and driveways much less a full blown Interstate route.
There are other Interstate highways that go through difficult terrain, like canyons and mountain passes. We're living in the year 2018 yet this country seems unable to build highways through mountains. Meanwhile, I can look at lots of super highways in Japan and China that have numerous tunnels, high bridges and other features that only seem impossible to build here in the United States. The mountain pass that the old NV-2C highway traversed doesn't look nearly as challenging as some other existing Interstate paths through mountains. The B4 alternative could get through that. Still, I think the pass navigated by Cotton Wood Canyon Road directly West of Walker Lake would be a better option, provide a more direct shot at the Wellington-Smith Valley area and avoid the river canyon NV-208 squeezes through West of there.
The highway could get affected by winter weather? So what!? That's already been a threat for numerous other Interstate highways, yet those highways got built somehow. Yeah, it's inconvenient when a major highway is closed due to a blizzard, avalanche threats, floods, tornado damage, hurricanes, protesters or even O.J. Simpson in a Ford Bronco. But that's life. We wouldn't have much a highway system at all if we worried about something disrupting traffic temporarily.
And yeah, bypassing Tonopah by routing I-11 from near Lida Junction (NV-266 & US-95) up near Silver Peak and then to Coaldale (and the US-6/US-95 junction) would cut at least 25 miles off the route (roughly 60 miles versus 85 miles under the current US-95 path).
I'm sure FritzOwl would push for the B4 routing, but I think B3 has the best chance of being chosen. Although B4 provides a direct Vegas-Reno connection, it would be very expensive to build, not to mention the presence of the mountains that would also block its construction; FWIW, B3 would do just as well, as it would provide the closest connection to Reno and be cost-effective in doing so.
I agree with Bobby5280 in that if it doesn't directly and conveniently feed into the Carson City-Reno population center and its roadway network, then it really wouldn't be worth building.
Also, in all of the postings that I've made on this subject over the past several years I have been advocating using a routing directly westward from the Walled Lake area - it most closely meshes with my 'KISS' thing, 'Keep It Simple, Stupid'. It is the most direct routing into the metro area and those smaller towns in the area would be perfectly served by upgraded as necessary local surface highways.
Yea, why can't the USA build good complicated things anymore while these other countries (ie, China, Norway, Japan, etc) can and do?
Mike
Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C? There is a canyon (Reese River Canyon) a few miles north along US 95 that has a large alluvial fan that could support an easier grade along the east side of the mountain range, and would allow I-11 to join the routing of 2C a little upstream.
As for the B3 alignment, I think that if you route it west of Silver Springs and up the USA Pkwy (NV 439) to I-80, it would get the route as close to Reno as possible without crossing the mountains west of Walker Lake. Other than B4, it would be the shortest route between Reno and Vegas.
However, one consideration for B4 is the portion of that route that is already constructed: I-580. It should reduce the cost of that alignment considering that portion is already open.
Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.
Quote from: Mark68Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C?
Not necessarily. US-95 and then later US-95A travels another 20+ miles to the north before finally going around the moutain range that sits on the West side of Walker Lake. Then it goes SSW into Yerington. From there the road has to go roughly 20 miles back down south (not counting all the miles going West) to get into the Smith Valley & Wellington areas. We're talking a really long, time/distance wasting "S" shape path.
Punching a highway directly through a mountain pass, even building tunnels, sure isn't cheap or easy. But there is serious cost involved with adding lots of miles to a highway just to get around an obstacle like mountains. Then there's all the extra burden of time and fuel cost added to drivers dealing with way way around routing option rather than traveling on something with a more direct path.
There are other things to consider with including Carson City in the I-11 "B4" option. The Reno-Sparks area is growing significantly, especially with big tech companies building out East of Sparks. But there is also growth going on in Carson City and a bunch of communities south of there along the US-395 corridor. Not to mention Lake Tahoe is directly West of Minden & Gardnerville. A fair amount of car and commercial traffic comes up from California on US-395. Even if I-11 were never to be built, or never built coming into Carson City from the South, it looks likely that region growth would force some serious upgrades to US-395 from Carson City down to the NV/CA border.
Quote from: inkyatari on March 21, 2018, 01:00:44 PM
Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.
I hadn't noticed the NV 439 corridor before. It's on the press release as the USA Parkway between Sparks and Silver Springs. I don't see the actual roadbed on imagery. But it shows as a divided roadway in Google Maps so I wonder if it would be possible to reuse the ROW for a freeway. It works best with B3, but B1 could also be used with a freeway from Silver Spring to a point about 5-10 miles south of Salt Wells then south to Tonopah. This is almost 20 miles shorter than the B3 option and doesn't need to squeeze around Walker Lake.
The NV 439 corridor has the advantage of crossing US 50 near where the four lane section to Carson City is already built. I agree this should be one of the options.
Quote from: skluth on March 21, 2018, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on March 21, 2018, 01:00:44 PM
Build B3, but take it up NV 439, but then take I-580 over the US 50 corridor for a direct connection to Carson City.
I hadn't noticed the NV 439 corridor before. It's on the press release as the USA Parkway between Sparks and Silver Springs. I don't see the actual roadbed on imagery. But it shows as a divided roadway in Google Maps so I wonder if it would be possible to reuse the ROW for a freeway. It works best with B3, but B1 could also be used with a freeway from Silver Spring to a point about 5-10 miles south of Salt Wells then south to Tonopah. This is almost 20 miles shorter than the B3 option and doesn't need to squeeze around Walker Lake.
The NV 439 corridor has the advantage of crossing US 50 near where the four lane section to Carson City is already built. I agree this should be one of the options.
I believe 439 finished construction last year, that's why it's not on Google imagery.
USA Parkway starts at I-80 Exit 32 and curves south through a large (and rapidly growing) development of big distribution center buildings, data hubs and high tech factories. I think Tesla is building a "gigafactory" in this area. Some of the route is visible on Google Earth, but the construction dead ends on the Storey-Lyon county line, halfway to US-50.
While it might seem natural to route a new freeway through this area there is a potentially deal-killing snag with the idea: all these new properties are building right up next to the existing 4-lane USA Parkway. There is not enough room to build things like modern exit ramps, frontage roads, etc using the existing USA Parkway ROW. The way all these huge industrial buildings and their property foot prints are positioned that leaves no alternative path for a freeway either. If they ever wanted to have freeway style access running through that massive development they should have planned for it ahead of time. Now it's too late.
USA Parkway is shown as complete to US 50 on Google Maps. Not a definitive source, but it's all I have. I can see on the imagery what is probably the roadbed where it was under construction in Storey County on the north end, so there's a good chance someone got overly ambitious at Google to make it look complete.
It's a pretty open valley near the Tesla plant (which is marked on Google Maps). A freeway could probably be run from I-80 to where USA Parkway starts going through the pass to Silver Springs, bypassing the industrial park near I-80. I'm sure Elon Musk would love it if the plant ran past his factory along the east side at the edge of the valley.
More arguments against the B4 alternative. It runs through some of the most productive farmland in Nevada as you travel south of Carson City to Minden. There are what looks to be significant wetlands around the Carson River. This makes it even more environmentally destructive and costly. The only reason to run it this way is if the goal is to eventually also hook up to a future four lane highway from Mono Lake. However, there is no reason for US 395 south of Carson City to be a freeway. An expressway with limited cross traffic, no stoplights, and a few interchanges would be sufficient.
There's really not a significant difference between a Fernley and NV 439 junction with I-80 as far as mileage goes; the terrain is certainly more favorable with an eastern routing (there's a reason 439 twists around as it does -- to surmount the surrounding hills). Cutting maybe 4-5 miles total off a trip from the south to Reno itself may not be a sufficient rationale to relocate a freeway to a 439-based alignment -- which, as Bobby has stated, is more of an "industrial parkway" than an alignment readily upgradeable to an Interstate-grade facility; anything generally along that corridor would have to be a parallel facility -- essentially negating any cost-savings realized by dropping I-11 onto an existing facility.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2018, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: Mark68Looking at the possible B4 alignment, wouldn't it be cheaper (more feasible) to route I-11 a little further north than the east end of NV 2C?
Not necessarily. US-95 and then later US-95A travels another 20+ miles to the north before finally going around the moutain range that sits on the West side of Walker Lake. Then it goes SSW into Yerington. From there the road has to go roughly 20 miles back down south (not counting all the miles going West) to get into the Smith Valley & Wellington areas. We're talking a really long, time/distance wasting "S" shape path.
Punching a highway directly through a mountain pass, even building tunnels, sure isn't cheap or easy. But there is serious cost involved with adding lots of miles to a highway just to get around an obstacle like mountains. Then there's all the extra burden of time and fuel cost added to drivers dealing with way way around routing option rather than traveling on something with a more direct path.
There are other things to consider with including Carson City in the I-11 "B4" option. The Reno-Sparks area is growing significantly, especially with big tech companies building out East of Sparks. But there is also growth going on in Carson City and a bunch of communities south of there along the US-395 corridor. Not to mention Lake Tahoe is directly West of Minden & Gardnerville. A fair amount of car and commercial traffic comes up from California on US-395. Even if I-11 were never to be built, or never built coming into Carson City from the South, it looks likely that region growth would force some serious upgrades to US-395 from Carson City down to the NV/CA border.
I was thinking of the (dry) riverbed outlet on the east side of the mountains some 5 miles or so north of NV 2C. There's a canyon upstream from there that leads back to the 2C alignment.
https://goo.gl/maps/wxk9pdbWSNA2It does appear to be on the Walker River Reservation, so not sure if feasible for that reason.
NDOT's traveling public meetings concluded last night in Reno. I went to the meeting just to see what was said.
I didn't learn too much new information. Much of what was presented I had already seen on the I-11 website as they had posted the meeting presentation and materials prior to all the meetings.
Public comment was a mixed bag. There seemed to be comments in favor of all alignments, some against B1 & B4. One gentleman was vehemently opposed to B1 as it could limit/remove access to public lands. Another favored B4 with potential to make connections to Pacific NW region. A man from Hawthorne was against B1 and favored B2/B3 due to Hawthorne depot and potential negative effects on the town of Schurz and the Walker River Reservation community.
I did ask a question during public comment about ultimate purpose and likely extension paths north from I-80. The response I got was that NDOT would be focusing on what is in their locus of control currently. With the federal designations currently only specifying I-11 shall reach I-80, it seems that there is not a strong desire to initiate any I-11 planning in other potentially-effected states–therefore, NDOT is not currently beholden to other future paths in determining the specific location where I-11 connects to I-80.
The current high-level planning scoping should produce an initial report by the end of June.
Local news coverage of the meeting (guess who was interviewed :D)
http://www.ktvn.com/story/37834850/ndot-hears-from-renosparks-residents-on-interstate-11
Quote from: roadfro on March 29, 2018, 09:40:40 AM
NDOT's traveling public meetings concluded last night in Reno. I went to the meeting just to see what was said.
I didn't learn too much new information. Much of what was presented I had already seen on the I-11 website as they had posted the meeting presentation and materials prior to all the meetings.
Public comment was a mixed bag. There seemed to be comments in favor of all alignments, some against B1 & B4. One gentleman was vehemently opposed to B1 as it could limit/remove access to public lands. Another favored B4 with potential to make connections to Pacific NW region. A man from Hawthorne was against B1 and favored B2/B3 due to Hawthorne depot and potential negative effects on the town of Schurz and the Walker River Reservation community.
I did ask a question during public comment about ultimate purpose and likely extension paths north from I-80. The response I got was that NDOT would be focusing on what is in their locus of control currently. With the federal designations currently only specifying I-11 shall reach I-80, it seems that there is not a strong desire to initiate any I-11 planning in other potentially-effected states–therefore, NDOT is not currently beholden to other future paths in determining the specific location where I-11 connects to I-80.
The current high-level planning scoping should produce an initial report by the end of June.
Local news coverage of the meeting (guess who was interviewed :D)
http://www.ktvn.com/story/37834850/ndot-hears-from-renosparks-residents-on-interstate-11
It's interesting to note that the latest map features several connections between the corridor options, ostensibly so a "hybrid" corridor may emerge. At this point -- with the endpoint at I-80 still legislatively and practically open to interpretation, I still think B2 or, with the connector "E" in play, a combination of B1/E/B2, will be the final choice. Ammo depot or not, Hawthorne is still the largest town between Tonopah and Fallon and likely significant enough to maintain some level of "pull", which seems at this time to favor routing the corridor through their vicinity. I
am somewhat surprised that concerns from the Walker River Native American reserve haven't been expressed -- at least publicly -- to date (if this were AZ, there would have been several news conferences or at least press releases emanating from that quarter by now!).
I watched the video of the presentation on NDOT's Facebook page, and as roadfro ("Lynwood", I gather) indicates it didn't really shed any new light. On their handout, the final page is a comment form which can be snail-mailed to Kevin Verre, the project manager of the study, and the next-to-last page has Verre's e-mail and voicemail info. They're looking for comments over the next two weeks, with this comment period closing on Friday, April 13. Here's the handout (PDF):
https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14014 (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14014)
Quote from: sparkerI am somewhat surprised that concerns from the Walker River Native American reserve haven't been expressed -- at least publicly -- to date (if this were AZ, there would have been several news conferences or at least press releases emanating from that quarter by now!).
That's one of the reasons why I've mentioned the idea of routing I-11 through the mountains on the West side of Walker Lake via the path taken by Cotton Wood Canyon Road. It wouldn't be an easy path, but it would avoid any tribal lands and open up a more direct route the Carson City area. It would avoid that big bend going up and around through Yerrington and back-tracking down toward Smith Valley and Wellington. This more direct route would just go straight to Wellington and then on up to the Carson City and Reno areas.
If I had to bet on which alignment would be chosen I think odds are strongly in favor of the B1 concept since it would be a more direct path between the Fallon and Tonopah areas (and cost less to build). However, I don't think it makes the slightest bit of sense for B1 to follow US-95 all to way to I-80 way East of the Reno-Sparks area. It's 68 miles from the I-580 interchange to that point. If the B1 option ends at Fallon and then meets I-80 in Fernley it would at least make I-11 more useful for the Reno-Sparks area.
Another observation about the notion of routing I-11 along USA Parkway in Clark then down to Silver Springs: a lot of troubling financial news has been swirling around the Tesla company, plus they announced a big recall on Model S sedans. The company's cash burn threatens to implode the operation before its "giga-factory" can open.
MOD NOTE: This post and the following two posts dated 4/24/2018 were moved here from the "I-11/US 93 - Boulder City Bypass" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15134.msg2321241#msg2321241). This was done to keep discussion/speculation on potential routes of I-11 contained to this thread. –Roadfro
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.
Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.
The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.
So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.
Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.
The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.
So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.
Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:36:12 AM
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
I just wonder if they're any closer to a decision regarding the I-11 alignment through Las Vegas itself.
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.
Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.
The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.
So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.
Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.
Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.
Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.
Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 24, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:36:12 AM
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.
Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.
The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.
So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.
Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.
Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.
Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.
From what I've seen, it appears that if the 215 option is taken, a full system interchange would not be constructed at I-11 and 215–it would just be the ramps needed to facilitate the new north/south I-11 segment. A system interchange at that location would not really be necessary, given the proximity of Durango Drive (currently signed SB as "TO CC-215") and the US 95/215 interchange. Similarly, you could likely get away with a directional interchange between I-11 and US 95, and possibly only a half interchange with I-11 and SR 157 (to/from the south). This alignment would veer out slightly to make use of currently empty land west of Providence, so as to not plow through that area (much of that land is BLM or part of the Humboldt-Toyabi National Forest land surrounding the Mount Charleston area, so it would be relatively easy to transfer that over for NDOT use.
Quote
Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?
No problem, it happens frequently with that thread. I've split discussion off like this a couple times.
Quote from: roadfro on April 24, 2018, 03:12:40 PM
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 24, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 05:36:12 AM
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 23, 2018, 05:58:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
Using I-515/US-95 seems like a no-brainer, IMO.
Especially since the western routing using the I-215/Clark CR-215 (a/k/a CC-215) beltway creates a major problem at the north end. The planned ramp from EB 215 to NB 95 (to be built in Phase 3D/E of the Centennial Bowl interchange project) is only one lane wide and is, in effect, a tight reverse loop that joins the WB 215 to NB 95 ramp (at least under present plans). This renders it unfit for an I-11 designation.
The other option for that routing, an earlier proposal to connect the NW corner of 215 directly to US 95 somewhere north of the latter route's junction with SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd, has been made impractical by explosive residential development north of the beltway.
So the through downtown alignment on what is now I-515/US 93/US 95 to the US 95 Gragson Fwy now appears to be the only realistic choice left, IMHO.
Actually, a connection to US 95 could be made from 215 just south of the NW beltway corner, bypassing the housing tracts directly to the west along the alluvial plain; the elevation is only marginally different than the flatland the tracts occupy. That being said, IMO keeping I-11 on US 95 through the metro area -- and eventually utilizing I-215 for the 3/4 beltway -- would in the overall scheme of things -- including the eventual extension north out of the metro area -- better serve through traffic. 215 provides the most direct route from the I-11 corridor to the attractions on the Strip as well as being the main freeway access to the airport; it'll have enough to do without functioning as a conduit for through traffic on the I-11 corridor.
Yes, that route looks possible, but it may be impractical for several reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be enough open land available to do a proper system interchange on the beltway north of Ann Road without displacing a lot of existing development. A partial connection could be done, with the S11-E215 & W215-N11 movements utilizing US 95 & the by-then completed Centennial Bowl interchange, but that would require additional signage. Not to mention the FHWA might object to the new junction not directly accommodating all movements. Next, the new I-11 mainline would have to thread its way between the large (1.3 mile-long) flood control structure to the west and the huge Providence residential development east of Pole Line Rd. While doable, I can see the residents of Providence raising a huge stink about noise, especially if all thru-trucks were to be required to use I-11. The sound walls likely necessary to placate those concerns would further drive up the cost of such a project. In addition, a service interchange at Kyle Canyon Road (SR 157) would also likely need to be built, and it would be located only about a mile west of the currently under construction DDI on US 95. And finally, to avoid impacting the existing interchanges on US 95, the I-11 tie-in to that route would almost certainly have to be placed on land under the jurisdiction of the Paiute Native American community (north of Moccasin Rd) who might object to another freeway route crossing their land so close to the existing one, especially when it appears to be totally unnecessary.
Given that the through-town I-11 path would require zero new mainline mileage to be constructed, minimizing costs, that option still appears to be the most logical and cost-effective routing for this new 2-di. Of course we all know if there's money to be made by private interests, logic can sometimes go out the window. However there just appears to be too many costly obstacles for the Beltway option of I-11 to be recommended.
From what I've seen, it appears that if the 215 option is taken, a full system interchange would not be constructed at I-11 and 215–it would just be the ramps needed to facilitate the new north/south I-11 segment. A system interchange at that location would not really be necessary, given the proximity of Durango Drive (currently signed SB as "TO CC-215") and the US 95/215 interchange. Similarly, you could likely get away with a directional interchange between I-11 and US 95, and possibly only a half interchange with I-11 and SR 157 (to/from the south). This alignment would veer out slightly to make use of currently empty land west of Providence, so as to not plow through that area (much of that land is BLM or part of the Humboldt-Toyabi National Forest land surrounding the Mount Charleston area, so it would be relatively easy to transfer that over for NDOT use.
Quote
Sorry for getting a little off-topic in this thread! I await the imminent opening of the Boulder City Bypass to the new US 95 interchange. My question from above still stands... has a firm date for that been set/announced?
No problem, it happens frequently with that thread. I've split discussion off like this a couple times.
The problem with going further out onto public land to avoid impacting Providence is the added costs of crossing all the drainage features leading into that huge flood control structure and the added length of the mainline. Granted it would avoid some added costs as well (the sound wall wouldn't be needed), but compared to a route with zero new mainline freeway construction required, I still can't see it passing muster from a cost-benefit perspective. You're likely correct about only needing a half-diamond at 157, since motorists coming from/going to the north could easily use US 95 to accomplish that. Guess at some point, we'll see what is chosen.
I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 04:23:47 PM
I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.
That alternative was discussed earlier; it would probably work if configured strictly as an elongated ramp between NB 215 near Ann Rd. and US 95 due north via the alignment you mention; other movements between 215 and northward US 95/I-11 would be made at the current 95/215 crossing site. Picture the function of IN's I-865 turned on its side and applied to this situation -- and that's essentially what would have to happen here to make the interchange with 215 practical in that area.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2018, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2018, 04:23:47 PM
I remember seeing one of the planning alternatives for I-11 in Las Vegas jumping off CC-215 just North of the Ann Road exit and veering West of the Providence neighborhood. The freeway would run between Pole Line Rd and the large flood control berm just west of the housing area. That version of I-11 would continue running North until it hit US-95.
That alternative was discussed earlier; it would probably work if configured strictly as an elongated ramp between NB 215 near Ann Rd. and US 95 due north via the alignment you mention; other movements between 215 and northward US 95/I-11 would be made at the current 95/215 crossing site. Picture the function of IN's I-865 turned on its side and applied to this situation -- and that's essentially what would have to happen here to make the interchange with 215 practical in that area.
Good analogy, with the I-865 reference! I should've thought of that, since the route is in my neck-of-the-woods.
BUMP!
This article notes that NDOT is holding a second round of traveling meetings later this month (this time going from north to south) to discuss the evaluation and ranking of the previous four options identified for the future Tonopah to I-80 segment.
Public meetings on future of I-11 to be held in 7 Nevada cities (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/public-meetings-on-future-of-i-11-to-be-held-in-7-nevada-cities/),
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/13/18
Quote
For a second time this year, the Nevada Department of Transportation is going on a road trip to discuss the future of Interstate 11.
Its seven-city tour is aimed at explaining the importance of building the new freeway and gathering public input on where I-11 should be routed north of Las Vegas.
<...>
State and local officials are still figuring out how I-11 should go through – or around – the Las Vegas Valley.
However, state officials already envision I-11 leaving northwest Las Vegas, running along an upgraded version of the current U.S. Highway 95 to Tonopah. From there, NDOT is reviewing four options that call for the use of a mix of existing roads and new traffic lanes leading up to Interstate 80:
– A westward swing toward Carson City and Reno.
– Running up through Silver Springs and Fernley.
– A path through Fallon.
– An eastern route that would go through Salt Wells.
Those four options were discussed during a series of meetings held across the state in March, NDOT spokesman Tony Illia said. After gathering input, department officials evaluated and ranked each of those choices in an attempt to narrow down their options and streamline the environmental review process.
The results of that evaluation will be presented during the next round of meetings, Illia said.
<...>
Interstate 11 meetings
July 24, 2 p.m.: NDOT Headquarters, third-floor conference room, 1263 S. Stewart St., Carson City, with video conference available at the NDOT district offices in Las Vegas, Elko and Winnemucca.
July 25, 4 p.m.: Idlewild Park, California Building, 75 Cowan Drive, Reno.
July 26, 11 a.m.: Fernley High School, 1300 U.S. 95A, Fernley.
July 26, 4 p.m.: Fallon Convention Center, 100 Campus Way, Fallon.
Aug. 7, 4 p.m.: Hawthorne Convention Center, 923 E St., Hawthorne.
Aug. 8, 4 p.m.: Tonopah Convention Center, 301 Brougher Ave., Tonopah.
Aug. 9, 4 p.m.: Santa Fe Station, 4949 N. Rancho Drive, Las Vegas.
I'm planning on going to the Reno public meeting and shall report back.
Noticed that all of the meetings are held on weekdays during standard working hours. That sort of schedule often results in overrepresentation of retirees (or those on more flexible work schedules) at such conferences -- at least in my own experience with such things. In that area, which is increasingly becoming a retirement "mecca", you may find an increased NIMBY factor expressed during the presentations -- particularly in Fernley & Fallon, "ground zero", along with Silver Spring to the southwest, for new "55+" development (just peruse the real-estate sections of Bay Area newspapers; they're rife with listings for such tracts in northern NV). That might also have some bearing on the so-called "western" loop via Carson City & Reno; while obviously planning on using I-580 between those two cities, it would impinge on the area south of Carson City (Minden, Gardnerville and environs) that has long been a magnet for both retirees and CA housing-cost "refugees". It should be interesting to not only get a report of at least one of the conferences but also the audience response to the various corridor iterations.
They should have Interstate 11 follow the Interstate 515-US 95 corridor through Las Vegas. That's been my opinion for the get-go. After leaving the Las Vegas area, I have no opinion on which alignment it should take from there to Interstate 80.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 16, 2018, 03:51:01 PM
They should have Interstate 11 follow the Interstate 515-US 95 corridor through Las Vegas. That's been my opinion for the get-go. After leaving the Las Vegas area, I have no opinion on which alignment it should take from there to Interstate 80.
I'd say you've got a 2-out-of-3 chance that I-11 will simply head right up US 95 through town, replacing what's left of I-515 (RIP). There's no current consensus regarding building an eastern bypass, and the configuration of the western part of 215 doesn't lend itself to functioning efficiently as a through route; it'd be marginally more so if a NW corner connection to northward US 95 would be made, but that would pose an additional expense that could be avoided by the direct in-town routing. As far as beyond LV, past Tonopah it's all up in the air awaiting the above public airing of the options. In an area with widely dispersed population bases, it'll be interesting to see how the folks that
are out there respond to the first new freeway in years that
isn't I-580!
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2018, 02:25:09 PM
Noticed that all of the meetings are held on weekdays during standard working hours. That sort of schedule often results in overrepresentation of retirees (or those on more flexible work schedules) at such conferences -- at least in my own experience with such things. In that area, which is increasingly becoming a retirement "mecca", you may find an increased NIMBY factor expressed during the presentations -- particularly in Fernley & Fallon, "ground zero", along with Silver Spring to the southwest, for new "55+" development (just peruse the real-estate sections of Bay Area newspapers; they're rife with listings for such tracts in northern NV). That might also have some bearing on the so-called "western" loop via Carson City & Reno; while obviously planning on using I-580 between those two cities, it would impinge on the area south of Carson City (Minden, Gardnerville and environs) that has long been a magnet for both retirees and CA housing-cost "refugees". It should be interesting to not only get a report of at least one of the conferences but also the audience response to the various corridor iterations.
Most NDOT public hearings are held in the "open house with presentation" format, where the people can browse display boards and talk with representatives for about an hour or so before the formal presentation and public comment period begins. This is not explicitly stated in the linked article, but the summer 2018 meeting notice (PDF) (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14319) on NDOT's project page indicates that all the 4pm meetings will have formal presentations begin at 5:30pm (and questions/comment on public record are usually taken after the presentation).
Quote from: roadfro on July 17, 2018, 10:40:50 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2018, 02:25:09 PM
Noticed that all of the meetings are held on weekdays during standard working hours. That sort of schedule often results in overrepresentation of retirees (or those on more flexible work schedules) at such conferences -- at least in my own experience with such things. In that area, which is increasingly becoming a retirement "mecca", you may find an increased NIMBY factor expressed during the presentations -- particularly in Fernley & Fallon, "ground zero", along with Silver Spring to the southwest, for new "55+" development (just peruse the real-estate sections of Bay Area newspapers; they're rife with listings for such tracts in northern NV). That might also have some bearing on the so-called "western" loop via Carson City & Reno; while obviously planning on using I-580 between those two cities, it would impinge on the area south of Carson City (Minden, Gardnerville and environs) that has long been a magnet for both retirees and CA housing-cost "refugees". It should be interesting to not only get a report of at least one of the conferences but also the audience response to the various corridor iterations.
Most NDOT public hearings are held in the "open house with presentation" format, where the people can browse display boards and talk with representatives for about an hour or so before the formal presentation and public comment period begins. This is not explicitly stated in the linked article, but the summer 2018 meeting notice (PDF) (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14319) on NDOT's project page indicates that all the 4pm meetings will have formal presentations begin at 5:30pm (and questions/comment on public record are usually taken after the presentation).
That's a
bit better! Let's hope some folks with actual input to supply can get out of work a little early for the 5:30 (or so) start of the presentation; it'd be difficult to engage in a real dialogue without actually taking in the presentation itself prior to the Q & A session; that would entail coming in at 6:30-7 with prefabricated questions (this has actually happened here in San Jose at VTA/Valley Transit meetings I've attended -- latecomers show up just as the Q & A is getting underway with their "laundry lists", many of which would have been answered if they had attended the presentation itself). That tends to slow down the process to the point that the agency's response becomes limited to short statements lacking detail or even context (everyone wants to go home by that later hour!).
Now -- if the presentation were to be itself "prefabbed" and put online (with well-publicized notice) in addition to and in advance of the on-site version, then the subsequent Q & A session might be more productive; folks whose schedules prohibit early arrival could participate in an informed fashion -- including a couple of days of online comments post-event. The idea here is to broaden the dialogue beyond those whose participation is a result of convenience.
I actually streamed the July 24 meeting through Nevada Department of Transportation's Facebook page and was able to post questions, and have them read and answered, during the course of the presentation. The meeting should still be active on their page for anyone to watch.
Short summary, the representatives basically spoke about which options NDOT was looking at pursuing and which ones are being eliminated. It seems the option that would route I-11 over to U.S. 395 and Carson City from Walker Lake, then up I-580 has been removed from further planning. So, on a side note I-580 is safe from elimination. The options that NDOT is looking to pursue, though, are the two middle options that would take I-11 north either through/near Silver Springs/Fernley or through/near Fallon.
I was told that I-11 between northwest Las Vegas and Tonopah will basically overlay existing U.S. 95, with bypasses around any population centers.
One of the other questions I asked was how I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas. According to NDOT, that is still very much up for debate. From this meeting, and from a local RTS engineer that I spoke with during my recent trip to Las Vegas and CA, all options are still on the table, including the eastern bypass. In the meantime, though approved by AASHTO, NDOT has no plans of signing I-11 north of the Wagonwheel Drive interchange (Exit 56A). So that means for the foreseeable future I-515 will remain signed as is. Remember, I only spoke with one individual in person, so this information could change.
The representative during the online meeting did not give any indication that they would sign I-11 through Las Vegas at this time either, other than the part of U.S. 95 north of the Centennial Bowl exchange (with Clark County 215) in the northwest. NDOT might post signs once the interchange with Nevada 157 is complete two/three years from now.
I would encourage others interested to try and catch more of these meetings, especially if they live stream them on their official Facebook page.
Not at all surprised that the Carson City option was eliminated in the initial stages; the cost of constructing that routing would have been exorbitant. But I'm also surprised that the option through Fallon and up US 95 from there is still on the table; that should make Reno-area promoters a bit uneasy. Still think that Fernley or environs will be the eventual I-80 junction; it more or less would satisfy most area needs by providing bi-directional access to I-80 -- not everyone gets what they want, but at least one can "get there from here" for the most part.
I attended the community meeting in Reno on Wednesday this week. Additional notes:
*Consistent concerns from the prior public meeting & input process: "What happens to my town?" and "What happens north of I-80?". The consultants have prepared some documents (posted on the study website) that help address these questions.
*Following the first round of meetings a few months ago, a fifth alternative was developed for the Tonopah-to-I-80 segment based on public input. This followed B2-B4 to Walker Lake, then jutted off northeasterly to make use of SR 839 and take US 50 back west to Fallon and Fernley. You can see B5 below, in this photo I took of one of the display boards.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/853/42794623095_58995522d9_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28cBCve)20180725_172044 (https://flic.kr/p/28cBCve) by LJ Johnson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/157430109@N03/), on Flickr - my pic of the project display board at the meeting.
*Based on the scoring method used by the project team, options B1 (new terrain), B4 (SR 208 & US 395/I-580 corridor) and B5 (new option) are all being eliminated from further consideration as the future I-11 corridor. The scoring on the B4 alternative came out least favorable in terms of cost, land use/management, and community acceptance, and also was one of the two ranked lowest in terms of environmental sustainability. B1 had the least favorable scores on compatibility with existing transportation plans & policies and economic vitality, and was the other low ranker with environmental.
*It was mentioned that eliminated corridor segments may still be important to statewide mobility and improvements may be address subsequently, but are not being considered in this current PEL process.
*Next steps are to evaluate the current round of feedback, develop possible implementation strategies/planning (we're talking 10-20 years out on planning), and complete final PEL report by September.
*During public comment, someone asked about north of I-80. The project team has looked at transportation plans from the various states that could be affected: California, Oregon, Washington & Idaho. The current thought is that I-11 might follow generally either the US 395 corridor or the US 95 corridor northward. According to the project manager, none of the other states are really taking a keen interest in I-11 at the current time, as there isn't much set in stone. NDOT intends to initiate conversations with these folks and outline the steps Nevada is taking regarding planning, to help advance interest.
*Another public question asked about how the improvements will be conducted and current safety concerns. The project team compared this project to how Arizona has been incrementally four-laning US 93 along the future I-11 corridor. The next round of study may develop a preliminary implementation plan for the remaining corridor optinos, but the reps at the meeting indicated that they would probably deploy a strategy similar to ADOT and that improvements would likely go from south to north extending the four-lane divided setup that currently ends at Mercury.
*One member of the public (who I recall also spoke at the first meeting) is passionate about our public lands and warning of the government releasing lands for development via several public lands bills. He strongly advocated for B2. Several in attendance (mostly elderly folks) seemed to support his statements.
My current thought is that while B3 will be a faster and shorter route (especially if the route swings well north of Yerington instead of going through as US 95A currently does), the clout from Fallon may have enough pull to make B2 the ultimate option chosen. The study team's scoring also seems to favor B2 as well.
Quote from: flaroads on July 27, 2018, 06:17:54 PM
One of the other questions I asked was how I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas. According to NDOT, that is still very much up for debate. From this meeting, and from a local RTS engineer that I spoke with during my recent trip to Las Vegas and CA, all options are still on the table, including the eastern bypass. In the meantime, though approved by AASHTO, NDOT has no plans of signing I-11 north of the Wagonwheel Drive interchange (Exit 56A). So that means for the foreseeable future I-515 will remain signed as is. Remember, I only spoke with one individual in person, so this information could change.
The representative during the online meeting did not give any indication that they would sign I-11 through Las Vegas at this time either, other than the part of U.S. 95 north of the Centennial Bowl exchange (with Clark County 215) in the northwest. NDOT might post signs once the interchange with Nevada 157 is complete two/three years from now.
The I-11 route through Vegas is not a formal part of this study, as this process is examining from Vegas north to I-80.
Interesting that they said NDOT has no plans to sign I-11 north of Wagonwheel... The STIP indicates there is a planned I-11 resigning project (https://estip.nevadadot.com/project_info?project_id=1012620&version=4&view_type=AWP&fromPage=order%5Fby%3D%26order%5Forder%3D%26order%5Fold%5Fby%3D%26COUNTY%3DCLARK%257CClark%26project%5Ftype%3DRd%2520Sign%252FSignal%257CRd%2520Sign%252FSignal%26view%5Ftype%3DAWP%26IS%5FFROM%5FFULL%3DTrue%26p%5Ftype%3D%26%5F%3D1532813779103%26end_page=) for FY 2018...
However, it's doubtful they'll sign I-11 anywhere north of I-215/SR 564. It would not make any sense to sign it around the SR 157 interchange, as there would be a huge disconnect there and it wouldn't provide any utility.
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2018, 03:02:23 PM
Not at all surprised that the Carson City option was eliminated in the initial stages; the cost of constructing that routing would have been exorbitant. But I'm also surprised that the option through Fallon and up US 95 from there is still on the table; that should make Reno-area promoters a bit uneasy. Still think that Fernley or environs will be the eventual I-80 junction; it more or less would satisfy most area needs by providing bi-directional access to I-80 -- not everyone gets what they want, but at least one can "get there from here" for the most part.
If you look closely at the options, B2 (95/50/50A via Fallon) and B3 (95/95A via Silver Springs) both end up connecting to I-80 in the vicinity of Fernley. The option that went north from Fallon via US 95 was B1, which was eliminated.
I was talking with one of the project team members after the meeting while looking at the alternatives display board. He seemed to think that if I-11 ultimately follows the US 95 corridor north of I-80, there would likely be some kind of spur that would connect Fallon to the north via existing US 95.
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2018, 03:02:23 PM
Not at all surprised that the Carson City option was eliminated in the initial stages; the cost of constructing that routing would have been exorbitant. But I'm also surprised that the option through Fallon and up US 95 from there is still on the table; that should make Reno-area promoters a bit uneasy. Still think that Fernley or environs will be the eventual I-80 junction; it more or less would satisfy most area needs by providing bi-directional access to I-80 -- not everyone gets what they want, but at least one can "get there from here" for the most part.
Costs aside, that would have been a really fucking cool freeway! But part of me is glad it will stay the way it is. It is nice to travel out there sometimes to the desolate nature of the area. An interstate would surely have an impact on that trait.
By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).
I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!
I-11 going to I-80 near Fernley would still provide an all-interstate connection between Reno and Las Vegas, even if I-11 didn't itself go there. Not so for Carson City, though, which is why I preferred that alternative, though I can see why NDOT didn't pick it. At least the one that would have gone up US 95 to I-80, which would have been useless for Reno, is out.
Fernley is, from a purely practical standpoint, the obvious junction choice -- just as it has been for decades for LV-Reno traffic. At that point, it more or less equalizes the options for taking the corridor further north; one would multiplex on I-80 in either case (unless someone decides it would be a good idea to run a corridor north via the Burning Man site!). :sombrero: This seems to demonstrate that NDOT is reasonably committed to the corridor concept as far as I-80; IMO, unless one of the adjoining states takes and openly expresses a keen interest in any extension further north, I-11 will end near Fernley for the foreseeable future.
That being said -- if B3 via the Yerington/Silver Springs/95A route is selected -- and a northern extension to western Idaho via US 95 is eventually developed, a spur via Fallon would be pointless; it would have to depart the main corridor down by Schurz and largely duplicate the function of the "main line" -- only serving Fallon instead, with only a marginal difference in overall mileage. But, as is likely given Fallon's growth in recent years, the selection will probably be B2 -- at which point a spur following US 95 directly north to I-80 would be appropriate with an Idaho-bound extension. At that point the I-11 mainline could be rerouted over the spur, and the original Fernley route could become a x11. Just thinking!
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
10/20?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
Excluding Y/T or Trumpet style connections, where 2 Freeways become 1?
Western KY Parkway and Pennyrile Parkway/I-69 and future I-169?
Or perhaps I-79 and I-80 in Western PA?
Indiana Toll Road/I-80/90 and I-69 in NE IN?
Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
The I-11 route through Vegas is not a formal part of this study, as this process is examining from Vegas north to I-80.
Yes, I knew that the routing of I-11 through Las Vegas wasn't part of this study, but it didn't hurt to ask just to see what they would say... :biggrin:
Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
Interesting that they said NDOT has no plans to sign I-11 north of Wagonwheel... The STIP indicates there is a planned I-11 resigning project (https://estip.nevadadot.com/project_info?project_id=1012620&version=4&view_type=AWP&fromPage=order%5Fby%3D%26order%5Forder%3D%26order%5Fold%5Fby%3D%26COUNTY%3DCLARK%257CClark%26project%5Ftype%3DRd%2520Sign%252FSignal%257CRd%2520Sign%252FSignal%26view%5Ftype%3DAWP%26IS%5FFROM%5FFULL%3DTrue%26p%5Ftype%3D%26%5F%3D1532813779103%26end_page=) for FY 2018...
Well, as I mentioned before, it was the RTS personnel I spoke with about the signing of I-11 up to I-215/I-515/NV 564. I told him that I knew I-11 had already been approved up to that exchange, and that NDOT was suppose to be switching out I-515 signs for I-11 ones during FY2018. That's when he stated that as far as he knew they were not going to rush into resigning that particular section north of Wagonwheel. I will admit he could be mistaken, and they start replacing signs once I-11 opens next month.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
26 and 95 are pretty rural...
when 73 and 95 have an interchange one day that will also be buried in the swamp
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 29, 2018, 07:08:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
26 and 95 are pretty rural...
when 73 and 95 have an interchange one day that will also be buried in the swamp
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well. 84/82 (OR) is also out in the boonies of Hinkle, OR (which is basically a railroad yard & associated buildings). Speaking of swamps: 10/75 is in wetlands near Lake City, FL. But NE2 is probably the winner here with 10/20 -- now
that's really the middle of nowhere!
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.
I wouldn't call the north 15/84 remote. That split happens in Tremonton, which is a town of 8000 people. By western standards, that's not remote at all, and nowhere close to the remoteness of places like 15/70 and 10/20, where there is absolutely no civilization for miles.
Also: Plutonic Panda was asking only about full interchanges, not Ys. Of the interchanges that have been named, all but 26/95 and 10/75 have been only three-way interchanges.
Quote from: US 89 on July 30, 2018, 12:52:49 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.
I wouldn't call the north 15/84 remote. That split happens in Tremonton, which is a town of 8000 people. By western standards, that's not remote at all, and nowhere close to the remoteness of places like 15/70 and 10/20, where there is absolutely no civilization for miles.
Also: Plutonic Panda was asking only about full interchanges, not Ys. Of the interchanges that have been named, all but 26/95 and 10/75 have been only three-way interchanges.
I'd define full interchanges as those that allowed a full complement of movements between the various directions; a directional or semi-directional interchange with one facility extending in one direction from the crossing route would qualify if and only if every possibility for traffic movement were present. One facility actually crossing to the other side of the 2nd isn't necessary under that definition. Here, 15/70, as a trumpet, would qualify whereas another remote interchange, 84/86 in Idaho, would not because there's no movement from west I-84 to east I-86 or west I-86 to east I-84; it's a simple "Y". A full -- and qualifying for the OP -- interchange would be realized by expanding/modifying that interchange to a trumpet.
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 28, 2018, 09:54:34 PM
By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).
Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!
Agreed on both counts. Also, this would be totally counterintuitive of the original purpose of the Interstate system, which is to connect major cities to each other. Even the current system has its flaws (I-80 needs to go from Paterson to NEW YORK, not Hackensack! I-65 needs to go from Indianapolis to CHICAGO, not Gary!), but then again, we can't always get what we want. I can see why B4 was eliminated (rough terrain and high cost), but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.
Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2018, 09:30:27 AM
but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.
I think the 1960s was when the system became more about "if one can use multiple interstates to get there, it is still is a direct connection" than simply making sure certain numbers went to certain places.
Cases in point:
1. the removal of I-70 going through Pittsburgh in favor of I-79 and (at the time) I-76, now I-376
2. the 1964 switch from I-5W (providing functionally one number from Oakland to Los Angeles) to I-580 in the Bay Area
3. replacing I-70S/I-70N setup in Maryland with I-70 going the direct/US 40 corridor to Baltimore, and I-270 the branch heading to the Washington DC area.
Quote from: Henry on July 30, 2018, 09:30:27 AM
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 28, 2018, 09:54:34 PM
By eliminating the direct route to Carson City & Reno (B4), NDOT has shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Yes, it's more expensive and more difficult to build, but the whole point is to connect Las Vegas and RENO, not Vegas and FERNLEY or FALLON! Same deal down in AZ, I-11 needs to go form Wickenburg to PHOENIX, not Buckeye! Can you imagine if the whole Interstate System had been built to never come close to any major city, but only venture within 50-60 miles of them? Eliminating B4 is going to result in more unnecessary miles traveled, which will needlessly create more pollution and waste more fuel. Not to mention adding more congestion onto I-80 (and I-10 in AZ, unless an I-11 spur is built on US 60).
Quote from: NE2 on July 28, 2018, 11:46:03 PM
I-55 needs to go from Hammond to NEW ORLEANS, not Laplace!
Agreed on both counts. Also, this would be totally counterintuitive of the original purpose of the Interstate system, which is to connect major cities to each other. Even the current system has its flaws (I-80 needs to go from Paterson to NEW YORK, not Hackensack! I-65 needs to go from Indianapolis to CHICAGO, not Gary!), but then again, we can't always get what we want. I can see why B4 was eliminated (rough terrain and high cost), but it still would've served its purpose as a direct connection between Reno and Las Vegas, which the others are not.
With the expansion of urban/suburban development out from many of the nation's city centers -- particularly in what's loosely termed the "sun belt" -- and the expenses of both property acquisition and facility development in already built-out areas, the prospects for actually taking an interregional corridor such as I-11 anywhere near a city core are increasingly slight. In the west, there's invariably topology that figures into the equation as well, although that factor
has impinged upon plans in other regions. Both ends of the I-11 corridor are and will be fraught with controversy just for the reasons outlined above -- plans for taking the corridor near the city cores (PHX and Reno) have been supplanted by corridor concepts that take the route
near rather than directly to those cores. In the case of Phoenix, that situation has been discussed extensively (some might say exhaustively!) in other threads, so it doesn't need to be reiterated here. Reno's another matter -- its location, along with neighboring Carson City, renders access from some directions problematic -- which is why, historically, Las Vegas-bound traffic has simply traveled east on I-80 (and US 40 before that), used Alternate US 50 to get down to Fallon, and then US 95 south from there. Commercial traffic has used that routing for decades; the increases in such -- plus the desire for regional development -- have brought forth the I-11 planning effort. Now -- even with the western (B4) corridor option removed from consideration, I-11 could conceivably have gotten at least a few miles east of the suburb of Sparks by utilizing the NV 439 alignment -- which would have at least gotten it closer to metro Reno. But that would have reduced the potential of I-11 to serve areas eastward along I-80 (including SW Idaho, considered one of the more likely choices for a corridor destination if and when further extension is contemplated), while only being a dozen or so miles west of Fernley, the I-80 junction point for the two remaining corridor options -- a NV 439 option wouldn't have "bought" much more in the way of efficiency at serving Reno while making other I-11 corridor uses considerably less attractive.
"Leaners" are all over the Interstate system for various reasons, some of which are topographically dictated, other at local option. Most metro areas spread out over large territories -- and city-center Interstates that didn't see construction during the early phases of the original program were often rerouted or truncated due to urban political pressures. There was no reason to drag I-65 directly into Chicago; Gary is certainly within the overall metro area. Likewise with I-15 over Cajon Pass in Southern California; there was never any thought given to dragging it over the mountains directly into Los Angeles; planners were content to leave it out in the San Bernardino area before the '68 legislation enabled the shortcut to Ontario (still about 40 miles east of the metro center). These days, it's hard enough to get a new Interstate corridor planned and built -- even if the needs for such are extensively documented -- so accepting the "leaners" that don't
directly serve that metro area but do so via other corridors is becoming increasingly commonplace as time goes by and regional development occupies more and more territory.
Highways still have a duty to help people travel efficiently from point A to point B. All sorts of interests with their own agendas are deviating that basic, core purpose. The real estate guys using I-11 as an angle to sell speculative development projects 30 miles West of Phoenix is one such example.
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.
Phoenix is a different matter. There is no costly engineering hurdle preventing a US-60 upgrade to Interstate standards from Loop 303 on Northwest toward Wickenburg. I-11 should at the bare minimum provide some kind of Interstate quality connection at the Loop 303/US-60 interchange, whether it is signed as I-11 or a 3 digit spur off I-11. If it was up to me I would just as soon run I-11 down Loop 303 from the US-60 interchange down to I-10 and where ever Loop 303 ends. Running I-11 way out to the West of Phoenix and ending it at Gila Bend without any direct freeway connection into metro Phoenix would just be stupid.
Yes, other Interstate highways have skirted big city centers or stopped short of reaching those city centers. However, Interstates like I-65 in metro Chicago or I-70 in Baltimore are at least connection into the freeway system of those cities. If these real estate developers have their way I-11 would run far outside of the Phoenix freeway loop system. That sucks.
This speculative town development they're doing may have a cloudy, possibly stormy future. The US economy just posted a 4% growth rate. But no one should bet on that being the new normal. Home sales and new home starts have started to fall. Developers have been building lots and lots of McMansions for people with high incomes. There's not enough inventory in price ranges young families just starting out can honestly afford. Millennial age home buyers are doing risky things like cashing out retirement funds to help pay for a home down payment. In terms of just renting those same young couples are being preyed upon by giant home rental companies run by Wall Street outfits like Blackstone. The price gouging taking place will dramatically push down our nation's birth rate. If we want healthy future generations of Americans there has to be an environment where parents of all income classes can afford to have kids.
Lots of young people want to live in/near big city centers. That's tough enough to do just as a single person, even with roommates. It's still a fashionable enough option that many young adults are willing to put off marriage and parenthood for many years or just not do that at all in order to be where things are happening.
And that gets back to another reason why running I-11 way outside of Phoenix is silly. New Urbanist ideals promote reviving city centers and getting more people to live closer to the core rather than way out in the suburbs or exhurbs. I-11 way out West would try to promote more sprawl.
***
Getting back to I-11 in Northern Nevada, over the long term I could see the "B4" corridor getting built out over time (years/decades). If I-580 is not expanded Westward to Lake Tahoe I certainly could see it being extended South to serve communities like Indian Hills, Minden and Gardnerville. That highway could grow farther South to Topaz Lake and the CA border. From there it wouldn't be hard to spur East toward Wellington. The pass to the North Side of Walker Lake is really the big road block. Who knows? Breakthroughs in construction engineering technology are possible in the decades ahead.
Quote from: US 89 on July 30, 2018, 12:52:49 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2018, 09:32:24 PM
I'd say that 15/70 (UT) is pretty remote -- although the north 15/84 (UT) is pretty remote as well.
I wouldn't call the north 15/84 remote. That split happens in Tremonton, which is a town of 8000 people. By western standards, that's not remote at all, and nowhere close to the remoteness of places like 15/70 and 10/20, where there is absolutely no civilization for miles.
Also: Plutonic Panda was asking only about full interchanges, not Ys. Of the interchanges that have been named, all but 26/95 and 10/75 have been only three-way interchanges.
Yes, that was mainly what I looking for was an interchange that was a full four way design that served two interstates going through it. Not just merging. But it seems this freeways interchange with I-80 will be just a 3 way interchange for the foreseeable future. My guess is NE2's example takes the cake. I don't think this one will beat it.
Even if I-11 does continue north, I bet a new interchange is created around Reno and it continues north from there rather than where it will end now since Carson City was taken off the table. Part of me really wants to see an interstate built through that area though.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.
ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build" or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.
ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build" or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."
China has a functional dictatorship that is determined to put on an ersatz Western face to those with which it maintains commercial relationships; to that end, they can direct what would be distributed as profits in much of the rest of the world into massive public works programs that mimic our Interstate or the European "A-x" network. We build things with private contractors; they have public agencies that do "design-build" as a matter of course. They're trying to show the world that they can build a viable limited-access roadway network in a fraction of the time (regardless of cost) that it takes the Western world to do so -- that sort of activity serves as an advertisement for their engineering and building skills in order to enhance their position as "supplier of parts & labor" to those who would be in a position to purchase such expertise.
OTOH, we have a relatively mature economic system that supplies public works in a more measured manner; part of that process, necessary in an equally mature democracy (although today's antics often belie that assessment!), is the public cost-benefit analysis -- what provides the most "bang for the buck". In this instance, the B4 option for I-11, the one that would require cutting through the mountains next to NV 208, was deemed to provide less benefits per prospective dollar spent than the B2 and B3 options in the valleys to the east. It's likely that the presence of the recently completed I-580 connector from Carson City north to Reno mitigated
against that routing; the connection of the two adjacent metro areas was already made -- and the "brief" was service between Northern Nevada and Las Vegas; serving Reno directly was simply one of the options, not a requirement.
The original Interstate systems was laid out essentially atop existing arterials, themselves laid out largely adjacent to the rail lines that preceded paved roads by 50+ years; as such, they all followed the "point-to-point" connections between the main existing urban areas (or at least those that were considered as "major" circa 1940). But criteria have changed in 78 years; new corridors, where successfully developed, need to provide
access to urban areas; poking right into the midst of one is not considered necessary and, in many cases since the mid-'60's, not desirable at all! That being said -- if the I-11 corridor eventually heads northwest toward Oregon rather than northeast toward Idaho, Reno will likely get that Interstate anyway, even if multiplexed west with I-80 from Fernley to US 395 before turning north near the city center.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.
ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build" or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."
Hmmm... efficient use of our tax dollars when it comes to building roads has to mean something. If a more cost-effective alternative exists (which is the case with the northern routing of I-11) while providing a similar benefit to motorists, that option should be selected.
I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?
Quote from: Mark68 on July 31, 2018, 11:35:48 AM
I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?
Except there's no place in Carson City for a freeway-to-freeway interchange without having to take out existing homes and businesses.
Who says there needs to be a freeway to freeway interchange at I-580? There's always room for a tight folded diamond.
Or a trumpet just north of College Parkway with a freeway roughly along Arrowhead Drive.
A folded diamond wouldn't be an all-freeway route. Though with the businesses I don't see how one would get a freeway along US 50 anywhere close to I-580.
I meant three-level diamond. I guess I'm drunk.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 31, 2018, 03:58:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
I'm far more understanding of Nevada DOT eliminating the option of I-11 coming up through Carson City and taking over I-580. The mountain range West of Walker Lake would be an expensive hurdle. The United States has priced itself out of being able to conquer such engineering hurdles (even though the equivalent is happening frequently in other nations, like China). Cost still makes the mountain range a valid excuse. That's our reality in this nation.
ugh! I hate this excuse. This country has the money. It is the richest country in the world. Our reserves. If China can do it, so can we. We need to stop accepting the "it costs too much to build" or "it would be too hard from an engineering perspective."
Hmmm... efficient use of our tax dollars when it comes to building roads has to mean something. If a more cost-effective alternative exists (which is the case with the northern routing of I-11) while providing a similar benefit to motorists, that option should be selected.
I'm not going to disagree with you on that, but depending on how one defines a direct connection, I would think the option presented that connects directly to Carson City is money well spent. I just don't like the excuse it's too expensive or too hard to build. Unfortunately, Bobby5280 isn't wrong by saying that as that is widely accepted in today's political climate in the U.S., but it is maddening to hear.
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 03:01:09 AM
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.
Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you. There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well! If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!
Getting back to the deletion of the Carson City option: Since the routing of any extension farther north has yet to be determined, and the Boise area is still "on the table", the selection of that western (B4) alignment would have functionally eliminated that possibility unless two options north of Walker Lake would have been considered as initial branches -- and that didn't seem to be within the scope of what NDOT had in mind for the corridor. Since a Fernley connection can "swing both ways", so to speak, it makes sense that it dominated the selection process.
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2018, 09:24:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 03:01:09 AM
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.
Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you. There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well! If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!
Can you go back in time and warn my past self? LOL. I ran out of gas twice in that area before. Once going from Yosemite onto US 95 and then another time driving from Reno to Vegas. I was with a girl so it wasn't all bad haha. Little embarrassing on my part. Good times anyways!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 02:16:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2018, 09:24:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2018, 03:01:09 AM
Alas, as I have said, part of also likes the way the corridor currently is as I love driving the US 95 as it is.
Unless you happen to be driving it at night -- the towns along the way tend to "roll up the sidewalks" after about 9pm; unless you have a high-capacity gas tank and fill it up in Vegas or Reno, plan ahead and carry a couple of gallons with you. There was a single gas station/convenien open late in Tonopah and another in Fallon the last time I did the trip -- carry snacks as well! If the deployment of I-11 means a few more strategically placed AM/PM/Arco's or similar, that would be in and of itself a blessing!
Can you go back in time and warn my past self? LOL. I ran out of gas twice in that area before. Once going from Yosemite onto US 95 and then another time driving from Reno to Vegas. I was with a girl so it wasn't all bad haha. Little embarrassing on my part. Good times anyways!
Hope all that was recent enough that you could get some semblance of cel service (there are a couple of dead spots -- at least on the AT&T network -- about 30 miles north of Beatty and again between Tonopah and Hawthorne). If the girl was still speaking to you once you got to Vegas you got off lucky! Never happened with my GF -- but if it did, I'd have the "evil eye" on me for the following several weeks!
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 01, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.
Bring back the 2-lane Interstate. US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH. SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets. One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange. Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges. Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.
Will it happen? Is it needed? Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on August 01, 2018, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 01, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.
Bring back the 2-lane Interstate. US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH. SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets. One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange. Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges. Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.
Will it happen? Is it needed? Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.
Rick
The Boise/Treasure Valley area of SW Idaho has yet to hit "critical mass" regarding commercial access; right now, what's on the ground seems to be adequate. But if (a) the metro population hits somewhere around 1.25M (as projected for about 2025) and (b) there's continued corporate "migration" into the area seeking a lower tax base and a land market that, while increasing somewhat, has yet to elevate above the "bargain" category (and if that situation persists for the next decade), more efficient access to points
not readily accessible via I-84 is likely to be sought. For all intents and purposes, that's limited to two southward corridors: US 95 (likely with an eastward divergence at its northern end toward Nampa) and the NV 225/ID 51 composite corridor intersecting I-84 near Mountain Home. If the US 95 corridor is placed "in play", it's almost certain that the section through Oregon would need to be heavily subsidized, either at the federal level via specific legislation attached to the corridor definition, or through a cooperative of the other states, particularly Idaho, which would reap the majority of the benefits although having the least in-state mileage to build and maintain. The only section of US 95 that would provide even minimal benefit to Oregon would be from the NV state line to OR 78, as an alternate trucking route/shortcut from I-80 to US 20 toward the Bend area. Oregon might be convinced to kick in a nominal amount of funding toward that portion of the overall corridor; north from there the route would require maximal subsidization from outside. The saving grace of US 95 is that most of the route traverses relatively benign "high desert"; the more difficult terrain occurs around Jordan Valley on the northern section of Oregon's US 95 (there's a reason for the sharp alignment change there -- it's to get around some nasty escarpments). Once in Idaho, the main issue will be a Snake River bridge plus acquisition of farmland and suburban parcels. If arrangements that don't piss off (at least fatally!) the various parties involved can be reached, then such a corridor is doable. From a political standpoint, the Elko-Mountain Home corridor (I-13, anyone?) would be considerably simpler to plan, since NV seems to be willing to follow through with Interstate development in their hinterlands (unless it gets too expensive; see the rejection of I-11's B4 option) and Idaho and its economy stands to benefit -- but the plain fact is that it's
way out of the way for commercial traffic from CA and Reno-area distribution centers to Boise-area destinations -- and SLC-based traffic from the east already has the optimally efficient 15>84 routing in place. It's just not a practical option given the almost certainty that I-11 will hit I-80 near Fernley.
So one is pretty much stuck with funneling extra $$ to ODOT to make US 95 a feasible Interstate corridor. That means if the Treasure Valley projections come to pass, the parties standing to benefit from such a corridor's development have seven or eight years to ponder just how to accomplish the process. In reality, such a routing would be its own "SIU" rather than a simple I-11 extension; it's likely more commercial traffic using that corridor would have a SW endpoint in Northern California (via I-80, of course) rather than a continuous run up I-11 from Las Vegas. Thus the timetable for this corridor might be independent of that for the I-11 development to the south and more in line with the situation in Idaho.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2018, 07:58:00 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 01, 2018, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 01, 2018, 01:11:45 PM
I just don't get how a connection to Idaho remains "on the table." Oregon is never going to pay for an interstate through its southeastern corner, which means an increasingly expensive option of an entirely new corridor from Winnemucca to Boise through the Owyhee.
Bring back the 2-lane Interstate. US 95 in Oregon is already signed for 70 MPH. SE Oregon in the area this highway runs has no cities or even decent towns, just a trio of hamlets. One intersection with another highway (SR 78) will need an interchange. Bypasses of McDermitt Rome and Jordan Valley would require 3 more interchanges. Expand the shoulders and there's your Interstate standards met for an I-11 Oregon segment.
Will it happen? Is it needed? Probably not unless there is a need to move a lot of trucks between Boise and Reno.
Rick
The Boise/Treasure Valley area of SW Idaho has yet to hit "critical mass" regarding commercial access; right now, what's on the ground seems to be adequate. But if (a) the metro population hits somewhere around 1.25M (as projected for about 2025) and (b) there's continued corporate "migration" into the area seeking a lower tax base and a land market that, while increasing somewhat, has yet to elevate above the "bargain" category (and if that situation persists for the next decade), more efficient access to points not readily accessible via I-84 is likely to be sought. For all intents and purposes, that's limited to two southward corridors: US 95 (likely with an eastward divergence at its northern end toward Nampa) and the NV 225/ID 51 composite corridor intersecting I-84 near Mountain Home. If the US 95 corridor is placed "in play", it's almost certain that the section through Oregon would need to be heavily subsidized, either at the federal level via specific legislation attached to the corridor definition, or through a cooperative of the other states, particularly Idaho, which would reap the majority of the benefits although having the least in-state mileage to build and maintain. The only section of US 95 that would provide even minimal benefit to Oregon would be from the NV state line to OR 78, as an alternate trucking route/shortcut from I-80 to US 20 toward the Bend area. Oregon might be convinced to kick in a nominal amount of funding toward that portion of the overall corridor; north from there the route would require maximal subsidization from outside. The saving grace of US 95 is that most of the route traverses relatively benign "high desert"; the more difficult terrain occurs around Jordan Valley on the northern section of Oregon's US 95 (there's a reason for the sharp alignment change there -- it's to get around some nasty escarpments). Once in Idaho, the main issue will be a Snake River bridge plus acquisition of farmland and suburban parcels. If arrangements that don't piss off (at least fatally!) the various parties involved can be reached, then such a corridor is doable. From a political standpoint, the Elko-Mountain Home corridor (I-13, anyone?) would be considerably simpler to plan, since NV seems to be willing to follow through with Interstate development in their hinterlands (unless it gets too expensive; see the rejection of I-11's B4 option) and Idaho and its economy stands to benefit -- but the plain fact is that it's way out of the way for commercial traffic from CA and Reno-area distribution centers to Boise-area destinations -- and SLC-based traffic from the east already has the optimally efficient 15>84 routing in place. It's just not a practical option given the almost certainty that I-11 will hit I-80 near Fernley.
So one is pretty much stuck with funneling extra $$ to ODOT to make US 95 a feasible Interstate corridor. That means if the Treasure Valley projections come to pass, the parties standing to benefit from such a corridor's development have seven or eight years to ponder just how to accomplish the process. In reality, such a routing would be its own "SIU" rather than a simple I-11 extension; it's likely more commercial traffic using that corridor would have a SW endpoint in Northern California (via I-80, of course) rather than a continuous run up I-11 from Las Vegas. Thus the timetable for this corridor might be independent of that for the I-11 development to the south and more in line with the situation in Idaho.
An Elko to Mountain Home corridor doesn't really make sense to me. Any fictional N/S freeway east of Boise should follow US-93 (bypassing Twin Falls with a new Snake River bridge to the west, hitting I-84 just west of Jerome). I can't think of any scenario where a Mountain Home to Elko freeway would work where this option would not work just as well or better. US-93 is already the most direct route between Boise and Las Vegas. That said, traffic levels on this highway are currently quite low so I don't see a need for this (except maybe the bridge west of Twin Falls, that would be nice), probably ever. Any situation where you may need an all freeway connector between the two, I-15 is only ~90 miles longer.
I could definitely see US-95 being upgraded though, as you said. But it would be mostly to serve traffic Boise to/from California and Reno, not Las Vegas (not that it's a problem, just pointing it out; might make the I-11 number not make the most sense though; maybe I-13 or an I-x80).
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 02, 2018, 03:31:48 PM
An Elko to Mountain Home corridor doesn't really make sense to me. Any fictional N/S freeway east of Boise should follow US-93 (bypassing Twin Falls with a new Snake River bridge to the west, hitting I-84 just west of Jerome). I can't think of any scenario where a Mountain Home to Elko freeway would work where this option would not work just as well or better. US-93 is already the most direct route between Boise and Las Vegas. That said, traffic levels on this highway are currently quite low so I don't see a need for this (except maybe the bridge west of Twin Falls, that would be nice), probably ever. Any situation where you may need an all freeway connector between the two, I-15 is only ~90 miles longer.
I could definitely see US-95 being upgraded though, as you said. But it would be mostly to serve traffic Boise to/from California and Reno, not Las Vegas (not that it's a problem, just pointing it out; might make the I-11 number not make the most sense though; maybe I-13 or an I-x80).
If what's being suggested here is a separate (I-13?) corridor from the LV area generally up US 93 (or more likely partially on NV 318) to I-84 at Twin Falls, that's not going to be happening. NVDOT will plan for
one N-S state corridor; two is well beyond the scope of their planning efforts -- particularly if the purpose is to get to central Idaho. It also doesn't help with Boise-bound traffic from Northern California, a major distribution hub in itself. US 93 from I-80 north of I-84 has a major interregional purpose -- but it's to get I-80 traffic from CA to Yellowstone more efficiently; Boise doesn't even figure into that mix. Realistically, the only viable corridor that can at least perfunctorily "multitask" as a conduit for both I-11 traffic coming in from Las Vegas and Phoenix and I-80 traffic from Northern California (all commercial/distribution hubs) toward the Boise area would be US 95 -- and that would require, as previously states, some degree of negotiation and financial arrangements to make it happen.
As far as a different designation for a Boise-bound corridor is concerned; it would probably simply be a continuation (with a I-80 multiplex, signed or simply "trailblazed") of I-11 -- unless
both Oregon and Idaho connectors would be proposed for relatively the same developmental timeframe -- a possibility if not a probability. In that case, the westernmost one would likely retain the I-11 number, while the Idaho corridor might just get I-13; for something of that length, a 3di probably wouldn't be considered. Personally, I don't understand the attraction for some for long interregional 3di's when trunk numbers remain available; these are Interstates, not U.S. highways, where long auxiliary routes are more common -- and the Interstate system designation protocol isn't intended to be a
homage to the U.S. network idiom! If you've got a trunk number available for a long corridor, just use it; the numbers aren't Hummel dolls that get more valuable the longer they sit on a shelf!
To add another voice to the crowd, here's the chairman of the White Pine County (NV) Board of Commissioners calling for I-11 to follow US 93, not US 95:
https://elkodaily.com/news/white-pine-official-wants-interstate-to-go-through-eastern-nevada/article_652015de-99b0-5f96-8404-fc7fc3f59abf.html
(White Pine County includes Ely.)
QuoteA top-ranking route for the future Interstate 11 to connect the Las Vegas valley with Northern Nevada and beyond eclipses the eastern segment of the state and spends more taxpayer money than necessary.
That was the message that Richard Howe, chairman of the White Pine County Board of Commissioners, presented to his Elko County counterparts at their Aug. 1 meeting. He is traveling around the state to garner support of I-11 following Highway 93 rather than Highway 95 through Nevada.
... Howe also proposed that building I-11 in eastern Nevada would help mobilize a marginalized segment of the state. The rest of the state's "total disregard for eastern Nevada is obvious," he said. We contribute many, many dollars that they don't give us credit for."
Quote from: Kniwt on August 05, 2018, 09:29:44 PM
To add another voice to the crowd, here's the chairman of the White Pine County (NV) Board of Commissioners calling for I-11 to follow US 93, not US 95:
https://elkodaily.com/news/white-pine-official-wants-interstate-to-go-through-eastern-nevada/article_652015de-99b0-5f96-8404-fc7fc3f59abf.html
(White Pine County includes Ely.)
QuoteA top-ranking route for the future Interstate 11 to connect the Las Vegas valley with Northern Nevada and beyond eclipses the eastern segment of the state and spends more taxpayer money than necessary.
That was the message that Richard Howe, chairman of the White Pine County Board of Commissioners, presented to his Elko County counterparts at their Aug. 1 meeting. He is traveling around the state to garner support of I-11 following Highway 93 rather than Highway 95 through Nevada.
... Howe also proposed that building I-11 in eastern Nevada would help mobilize a marginalized segment of the state. The rest of the state's "total disregard for eastern Nevada is obvious," he said. We contribute many, many dollars that they don't give us credit for."
Hate to break it to the johnny-come-lately East Nevada folks, but the US 95 die was cast when the I-11 designation was simply added to the 2005 HPC #68 corridor, which specified a connection to or near Reno. They should have put their two cents in when the designation was done a few years back rather than trot out the "poor downtrodden forgotten region" argument this late in the game. He's certainly not going to get much in the way of support except for folks along the US 93 (or NV 318) corridor -- and Ely certainly isn't going to provide sufficient support for this sort of activity, particularly when there's more population spread out along the US 95 corridor (Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon & environs) than found along US 93 -- even without the inclusion of the Carson City area.
What Mr. Howe should do if he
really wants his corridor (which shouldn't have any effect on Elko in any instance; why he's trying to get their support is questionable) is to cool his jets for a couple of years, and then go to his congressional delegation and ask for a new HPC along US 93 from I-15 north to I-84 (and solicit the folks from the Twin Falls area to pitch in to the proposal), with a number of "I-13" attached to it. Of course, he'll get blowback from NDOT (the last thing they want is to have to deal with
two expensive corridors). But unless a Boise-area connector along US 95 has been formally proposed by then, it can be touted as the "corridor to Idaho", useful from southern CA and NV but not northern CA or NV.
All that being said -- if one thinks the AADT on US 95 is a bit lacking to warrant an Interstate, that derived from US 93 or the NHS-specified NV 318 alternative would be miniscule in comparison. I have no doubt Mr. Howe and his cohorts realize this fact is something that doesn't bode well for their preference, and are raising the "justice for the region" flag as obfuscation. Maybe we here in CA should send Tim Draper (the author of the "3 Californias" initiative) over to commiserate with Howe and company; maybe they can convince Eastern Nevada to secede from the urban nightmare that is Western Nevada (sarcasm
very intentional!). :poke:
Mr. Howe could also wait for a bit and then push upgrades to US 93 corridor that are practical rather than turning it into a full blown interstate if it doesn't need it.
Quote from: Mark68 on July 31, 2018, 11:35:48 AM
I would imagine that if NDOT or Carson City REALLY wants an "interstate" (or at least a freeway) connection to I-11, that can be built along US 50, no?
But then Dennis Hof would DEMAND an interchange be built to serve his Bunny Ranch brothel in Mound House.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 29, 2018, 01:53:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 29, 2018, 04:11:53 AM
What is the most remote interstate to interstate interchange that exists currently? I'm more specifically talking about a full interchange, not just a Y.
Excluding Y/T or Trumpet style connections, where 2 Freeways become 1?
Western KY Parkway and Pennyrile Parkway/I-69 and future I-169?
Or perhaps I-79 and I-80 in Western PA?
Indiana Toll Road/I-80/90 and I-69 in NE IN?
The junction of (Classic) I-69 and the Indiana East-West Toll Road (I-80/I-90) is not really all that "remote". Rural, yes, but not really remote, especially when compared to the wide-open spaces out west.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 06, 2018, 04:33:28 PM
Mr. Howe could also wait for a bit and then push upgrades to US 93 corridor that are practical rather than turning it into a full blown interstate if it doesn't need it.
That's presuming promoters and politicos would ever consider small-scale improvements that might slip under the publicity radar. No -- they're not angling for "spot" fixes to US 93; they're just trying to call attention to what they feel is mis (or under-) treatment of their neck of the woods. As a straight shot from LV to central Idaho, the corridor has just a bit of merit; as a developmental corridor for eastern NV -- that's probably throwing money down the drain for all parties involved. The only reason for anything to exist in Ely and environs is the continuation of mining there as well as mountain-area (Mt. Wheeler) recreation. Aside from the state-line casino complexes at Jackpot and Wendover (that tend to attract out-of state gamblers who come and go without traversing much if any of the rest of NV), there's nothing really developable out there. Mr. Howe's plans will likely blow over in a relatively short time; there's scant rationale for any or all of these.
MOD NOTE: Replies 352—364 were moved to this thread from the I-11/US 93 - Boulder City Bypass (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15134.225) thread, to keep discussion of future I-11 alignments contained to this existing thread. –Roadfro
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?
Because they want the I-11 brand to help build the eastern loop!
Quote from: english si on August 26, 2018, 02:57:58 PM
Because some enterprising local developers want the I-11 brand to help build the eastern loop!
FTFY. NDOT themselves seem to be taking a "Switzerland" approach to the issue; while there might be notions tossed about internally within the agency as to the merits of the various options, the agency as a whole appears to currently maintain a neutral stance.
Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?
They simply haven't finished the corridor study yet.
Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?
VS988
I would prefer it to take 515 north. Seems like a much simpler route, and it can just continue straight onto the US 95 freeway past the interchange with I-15 and then go all the way up to Reno.
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 01:56:48 AM
Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?
VS988
I would prefer it to take 515 north. Seems like a much simpler route, and it can just continue straight onto the US 95 freeway past the interchange with I-15 and then go all the way up to Reno.
Plus it would lead to a simpler exit number/mileage situation for US 95, and using CR 215 would require upgrading an interchange that's currently under construction (it's currently planned to use a loop ramp for what would be the I-11 through movement on the western bypass route).
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal
Whyyyyyyy????
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal
Whyyyyyyy????
I think we have the Vegas version of the notorious "Hypotenuse" here! -- complete with the abject lack of rationality endemic to that Chicago "concept"!
Quote from: sparker on August 27, 2018, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
I want them to build a massive viaduct above Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive on the straight diagonal
Whyyyyyyy????
I think we have the Vegas version of the notorious "Hypotenuse" here! -- complete with the abject lack of rationality endemic to that Chicago "concept"!
What's the Hypotenuse, may I ask?
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 07:10:48 PM
What's the Hypotenuse, may I ask?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0
Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2018, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 27, 2018, 07:10:48 PM
What's the Hypotenuse, may I ask?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0
Ahhh, rerouting I-90 in Chicago past the Skyway.
Well I don't think we'll need something like that for Las Vegas.
Quote from: roadfro on August 27, 2018, 12:30:34 AM
Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?
They simply haven't finished the corridor study yet.
Question: is there at least an approximate/projected completion date for said corridor study? Just hope it's not just a "kick-the-can-down-the-freeway" delaying tactic (pardon my cynicism, but I've seen projects "studied" to death!).
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:28:33 AM
Quote from: roadfro on August 27, 2018, 12:30:34 AM
Quote from: 707 on August 26, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
I have a question. Why is Nevada having a hard time deciding whether I-11 should take the remainder of I-515 north from the 515/215 interchange or I-215 west to I-15 from the interchange?
They simply haven't finished the corridor study yet.
Question: is there at least an approximate/projected completion date for said corridor study? Just hope it's not just a "kick-the-can-down-the-freeway" delaying tactic (pardon my cynicism, but I've seen projects "studied" to death!).
I can't recall where I heard or read this, but I believe the alignment study report was supposed to be completed later this year.
Given NDOT's current scoping for future I-11 north through Nevada to connect with I-80, determining the route's future path through the Las Vegas area is somewhat necessary. I don't think they're trying to delay.
Note: This quoted post comes from the Boulder City Bypass thread.Quote from: kdk on August 27, 2018, 06:35:51 PM
As far as the routing through Las Vegas, I find it interesting if they do go with the eastern loop alignment (which I would support), nearly all of the "first stretch of I-11" would actually not even be included in the final route, as the interstate would likely turn NB right after the state line.
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.
Quote from: roadfro on August 28, 2018, 10:39:23 AM
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.
Isn't there a signage contract to truncate I-515 to I-215 and resign it as I-11, including changed exit numbers?
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2018, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 28, 2018, 10:39:23 AM
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.
Isn't there a signage contract to truncate I-515 to I-215 and resign it as I-11, including changed exit numbers?
Since the option of the east side bypass remains on the table pending the results of the alignment study -- and it departs the existing alignment just north of Railroad Pass in order to avoid housing on that side of the metro area -- it's likely such a contract has been put on hold pending those findings.
Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2018, 12:24:59 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2018, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 28, 2018, 10:39:23 AM
All of the Boulder City Bypass construction will remain as I-11 regardless of which Vegas-area alignment option is chosen. The (seemingly unlikely to be chosen) eastern Vegas-area alignment option diverges from the existing freeway at or around Railroad Pass, which is where I-11 currently transitions to I-515.
Isn't there a signage contract to truncate I-515 to I-215 and resign it as I-11, including changed exit numbers?
Since the option of the east side bypass remains on the table pending the results of the alignment study -- and it departs the existing alignment just north of Railroad Pass in order to avoid housing on that side of the metro area -- it's likely such a contract has been put on hold pending those findings.
NDOT received AASHTO/FHWA approval for the resigning several years ago. NDOT's current STIP includes funding for a resigning project. However, looking at the STIP page for it (https://estip.nevadadot.com/project_info?project_id=1012620&version=4&view_type=FED&fromPage=order%5Fby%3D%26order%5Forder%3D%26order%5Fold%5Fby%3D%26COUNTY%3DCLARK%257CClark%26view%5Ftype%3DFED%26IS%5FFROM%5FFULL%3DTrue%26p%5Ftype%3D%26%5F%3D1535550936980%26end_page=#tabs-1) now, it appears that this project is pending deletion from the STIP (see the "Change History" tab).
To my knowledge, there has been no mention of the intent to resign I-515 in local media coverage of I-11.
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
But hopefully (in my opinion), that is what should ultimately become reality.
Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
Certainly an error for now
But also, perhaps foresight!
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
Certainly an error for now
But also, perhaps foresight!
And yet I've been trying to get a new interchange in Wisconsin to show up on Google Maps for over a month :-/
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 05, 2018, 10:00:24 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
Certainly an error for now
But also, perhaps foresight!
And yet I've been trying to get a new interchange in Wisconsin to show up on Google Maps for over a month :-/
Which one?
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
Certainly an error for now
But also, perhaps foresight!
I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually I-11's route in Las Vegas; it certainly would provide a straight shot through there on its way to Reno.
Quote from: Henry on September 06, 2018, 10:04:54 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
Certainly an error for now
But also, perhaps foresight!
I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually I-11's route in Las Vegas; it certainly would provide a straight shot through there on its way to Reno.
Odds are that you're correct; the I-515/US 95 path through town is likely to end up the actual I-11 route, especially after they sunk a lot of $$ into the Spaghetti Bowl. The only way a western loop via 215 would fly is if (a) Strip casino executives raised a ruckus about I-11 coming close to their properties, and (b) a plan to "cut off" the northwest corner with a direct connector to US 95 was forwarded and approved. And while an outer eastern loop still seems to be in play, if that option is selected I-11 may be subject to numerous delays, particularly since it'll be partially situated within a national recreational area; completing the EIS alone will likely be a long drawn-out process. Given the fact that any alternative except US 95 through town will require significant expenditure, the existing in-town corridor will be the path of least resistance.
This situation reminds me of the old folded paper maps from decades ago which often had a brief explanation of Interstate highway numbering. The primary 2-digit routes would take the most direct route through the city while the 3-digit routes functioned as bypasses around the city (or odd-numbered spurs to other parts of that immediate region). I-15 already takes a direct route through Las Vegas, not around it. To me it would only make sense to keep I-11 on US-95 through the middle of Las Vegas (eating I-515 in the process). Let I-215 get expanded around the West and North sides of the city. If planners can get it done, a new East side loop could carry another designation, such as I-415 or even I-211.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2018, 12:41:36 PM
The primary 2-digit routes would take the most direct route through the city while the 3-digit routes functioned as bypasses around the city (or odd-numbered spurs to other parts of that immediate region).
That stopped being a truism decades ago. San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego on the 15 alone are examples of that being abandoned as a policy. We could probably start a whole other thread on how many primary interstates bypass the major city along them with a 3di being the direct route through that city.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 07, 2018, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 07, 2018, 12:41:36 PM
The primary 2-digit routes would take the most direct route through the city while the 3-digit routes functioned as bypasses around the city (or odd-numbered spurs to other parts of that immediate region).
That stopped being a truism decades ago. San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego on the 15 alone are examples of that being abandoned as a policy. We could probably start a whole other thread on how many primary interstates bypass the major city along them with a 3di being the direct route through that city.
That particular rule is like the English language: several examples of compliance but plenty of exceptions. Just head east on I-80 in the Midwest; the trunk route goes through central Omaha while I-680 forms a bypass, but a half-state away, I-80 (multiplexed with I-35) goes
around the Des Moines central city, while a 3di (in this case I-235) goes through the middle. Another "adjacent opposite" situation is in OK, where I-40 takes the central path through OKC while I-240 is part of an effective bypass. But to the northeast, I-44 goes around downtown Tulsa (although that bypass has effectively been subsumed by city development) and child I-244 passes through downtown.
If anyone wants to start a thread elaborating on bypass vs. in-city trunk instances, it might prove interesting -- particularly if the reasons for each variation are explored in some level of depth.
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.
Quote from: WR of USA on September 08, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.
Assuming I-11 is routed through the city on US 95 (as it should be, IMO) if the eastern loop winds up actually getting built, it's more likely to be numbered 215 to go along with the rest of the beltway -- whether that's I-215, CC 215, or even SR 215 (though that would break Nevada's route numbering scheme).
I suppose if 11 gets routed onto an eastern loop, then US 95 between there and the Spaghetti Bowl could become I-711, though I'd rather see an even x11 for that, replacing I-515 as well.
But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for 711. Although we're getting into fictional territory here, maybe 711 could be used for a spur to Reno or Carson City?
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on September 06, 2018, 08:34:50 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 05, 2018, 10:00:24 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 05, 2018, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 05, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
Quote from: halork on September 05, 2018, 11:43:27 AM
Apparently, Google Maps has decided that I-11 has already replaced I-515 through Las Vegas. :confused:
That's new... And definitely an error.
Certainly an error for now
But also, perhaps foresight!
And yet I've been trying to get a new interchange in Wisconsin to show up on Google Maps for over a month :-/
Which one?
The one between US 10/WIS 441 and I-41. WISDOT reconstructed the interchange and added new ramps (41 NB to 10 WB and 10 EB to 41 NB). It's shown up on OpenStreetMap since the new interchange opened up this July, but it still hasn't shown up on Google Maps.
Quote from: US 89 on September 08, 2018, 05:47:53 PM
Quote from: WR of USA on September 08, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.
Assuming I-11 is routed through the city on US 95 (as it should be, IMO) if the eastern loop winds up actually getting built, it's more likely to be numbered 215 to go along with the rest of the beltway -- whether that's I-215, CC 215, or even SR 215 (though that would break Nevada's route numbering scheme).
I suppose if 11 gets routed onto an eastern loop, then US 95 between there and the Spaghetti Bowl could become I-711, though I'd rather see an even x11 for that, replacing I-515 as well.
But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for 711. Although we're getting into fictional territory here, maybe 711 could be used for a spur to Reno or Carson City?
The chances are that an eastern loop would even be considered for anything but a I-11 route are slim; since it wouldn't hit existing I-11 (or even I-515) at the current 215/515 interchange but instead further SE near Railroad Pass, any iteration of the "215" designation probably wouldn't be considered. That loop segment will either be adopted as a I-11 bypass of metro LV or it won't be considered at all.
And, just to be clear: That eastern loop is not going to survive any EIS.
Quote from: WR of USA on September 08, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
Or they should call the eastern loop I-711 just for the heck of it.
Do it. 7-11 would enjoy the publicity for decades; hell, they could even provide Slurpees at the opening ceremony.
Resign I-515/US 95 as I-11/US 95 as far north as Mercury and possibly resign I-215/CC215 as I-211
Quote from: mapman1071 on September 10, 2018, 11:49:36 PM
Resign I-515/US 95 as I-11/US 95 as far north as Mercury and possibly resign I-215/CC215 as I-211
Doubt whether a redesignation of 215 would happen; that number has now been in service for well over 20 years and is pretty much entrenched in the local lexicon. And it'll intersect I-15 at two points, so the numbering is both technically and practically valid. The only section that would be renumbered would be between US 95 NW of town and the northern I-15 junction --
and only if I-11 by some fluke were to be routed over the eastern loop! But the sentiment expressed a couple of posts ago is probably accurate -- running an Interstate-grade freeway through NPS territory (here, the Lake Mead rec area) would likely be stopped in its tracks by an EIS -- or at least slowed down to the point that it is no longer a viable alternative.
There's a few at-grade crossings to eliminate before I-11 could be signed all the way out to Mercury; however, the alignment
does utilize Interstate-grade geometrics -- so it's a matter of separating the facilities in the few places that come into play.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 09, 2018, 01:10:40 PM
And, just to be clear: That eastern loop is not going to survive any EIS.
I don't see it happening from a logistical perspective, let alone an environmental one.
Quote from: inkyatari on September 11, 2018, 09:16:23 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 09, 2018, 01:10:40 PM
And, just to be clear: That eastern loop is not going to survive any EIS.
I don't see it happening from a logistical perspective, let alone an environmental one.
It's likely that whatever parties are still pushing for I-11 over an eastern loop are doing so for two reasons: (1) to avoid taking the through route through the congestion of the I-15/I-515/US 93/95 "Spaghetti Bowl" interchange, partially for the sake of I-11 efficiency but also to keep additional through traffic away from that location, and (2) to avoid the western half of the composite 215 loop, which is hardly direct and also funnels airport traffic to and from both the I-15 and I-515 corridors. With the likelihood that a connecting route from the NW loop corner north to US 95 north of town would be required to complete
that corridor option, some of the bypass-concept backers have opted for an eastern loop that can be "tailored" more toward the needs of through traffic than a suburban server.
Nevertheless, there are just too many obstacles to constructing the eastern corridor that would either result in a compete abandonment of the idea or a series of delays that would result in a I-11 "gap" for more than a short term. It's probably for the best that I-11 simply supplants I-515 and then follows US 95 north; anyone electing to bypass downtown can do so on the west 215 loop.
I think the Eastern Corridor concept is do-able. But it could take at least 10-20 years to build under the current US "model" of highway development and funding. It could be built significantly faster as a toll road -but the currently proposed path (skirting the East edge of Henderson, following E Lake Mead Pkwy through a mountain pass and then looping East of all the mountains South of Nellis AFB) would be a clear invitation to shun-pike. The Eastern Corridor is still an easy to justify highway project. But it's silly to require I-11 to run on it. We would be waiting til 2040 for the thing to get finished.
I-11 could be signed on US-95 up thru the NW outskirts of Las Vegas to the NV-157 intersection right now.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 11, 2018, 04:00:44 PM
I think the Eastern Corridor concept is do-able. But it could take at least 10-20 years to build under the current US "model" of highway development and funding. It could be built significantly faster as a toll road -but the currently proposed path (skirting the East edge of Henderson, following E Lake Mead Pkwy through a mountain pass and then looping East of all the mountains South of Nellis AFB) would be a clear invitation to shun-pike. The Eastern Corridor is still an easy to justify highway project. But it's silly to require I-11 to run on it. We would be waiting still 2040 for the thing to get finished.
I-11 could be signed on US-95 up thru the NW outskirts of Las Vegas to the NV-157 intersection right now.
In agreement -- although to date NV has taken little interest in toll facilities, so eastside construction as a tolled road would be a bit of a stretch. And while NDOT
could, at least technically, sign I-11 over both the remainder of I-515 and US 95 north out of town to NV 157, they'll probably not do so until the alignment study previously mentioned has been completed. Although others might have more up-to-date information, IIRC that study was to be completed by late 2019.
Being NV, I wonder if any of the establishments who do that sort of thing have set odds regarding the finalization of a I-11 alignment choice through town? I'd sure put a few bucks on the US 95 through-town routing! :biggrin:
Quote from: sparker on September 11, 2018, 05:03:32 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on September 10, 2018, 11:49:36 PM
Resign I-515/US 95 as I-11/US 95 as far north as Mercury and possibly resign I-215/CC215 as I-211
Doubt whether a redesignation of 215 would happen; that number has now been in service for well over 20 years and is pretty much entrenched in the local lexicon. And it'll intersect I-15 at two points, so the numbering is both technically and practically valid. The only section that would be renumbered would be between US 95 NW of town and the northern I-15 junction -- and only if I-11 by some fluke were to be routed over the eastern loop! But the sentiment expressed a couple of posts ago is probably accurate -- running an Interstate-grade freeway through NPS territory (here, the Lake Mead rec area) would likely be stopped in its tracks by an EIS -- or at least slowed down to the point that it is no longer a viable alternative.
There's a few at-grade crossings to eliminate before I-11 could be signed all the way out to Mercury; however, the alignment does utilize Interstate-grade geometrics -- so it's a matter of separating the facilities in the few places that come into play.
There's no reason to re-sign 215 as 211...
Regardless of the route that is chosen for I-11 through Vegas, I sincerely doubt that NDOT will sign I-11 past I-15 anytime in the for seeable future. Reaching the 15 gives I-11 a bit of legitimacy as a two digit interstate intersecting another two digit interstate, But signing it north of there has no real navigational benefit until I-11 reaches I-80 in the much more distant future.
Quote from: sparker on September 11, 2018, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 11, 2018, 04:00:44 PM
I think the Eastern Corridor concept is do-able. But it could take at least 10-20 years to build under the current US "model" of highway development and funding. It could be built significantly faster as a toll road -but the currently proposed path (skirting the East edge of Henderson, following E Lake Mead Pkwy through a mountain pass and then looping East of all the mountains South of Nellis AFB) would be a clear invitation to shun-pike. The Eastern Corridor is still an easy to justify highway project. But it's silly to require I-11 to run on it. We would be waiting still 2040 for the thing to get finished.
I-11 could be signed on US-95 up thru the NW outskirts of Las Vegas to the NV-157 intersection right now.
In agreement -- although to date NV has taken little interest in toll facilities, so eastside construction as a tolled road would be a bit of a stretch. And while NDOT could, at least technically, sign I-11 over both the remainder of I-515 and US 95 north out of town to NV 157, they'll probably not do so until the alignment study previously mentioned has been completed. Although others might have more up-to-date information, IIRC that study was to be completed by late 2019.
Being NV, I wonder if any of the establishments who do that sort of thing have set odds regarding the finalization of a I-11 alignment choice through town? I'd sure put a few bucks on the US 95 through-town routing! :biggrin:
Nevada law currently prohibits toll roads, hence the lack of interest in tolling. (There was an initiative floating around a few years ago during the legislative session, possibly 2011 or 2013, to change state law to allow a toll road demonstration project to further explore potential for allowing tolling – the Boulder City Bypass would have been that project.
I concur with what someone said earlier: if the eastern alignment proposal is not chosen for I-11, that route through Lake Mead never gets built. The initial I-11 study is the first time such a corridor was even proposed. (Had Vegas ever built an eastern beltway section, that routing might've been more realistic for an I-11.)
^^^^^^^^
If I-11 does get signed all the way out to the end of the freeway at NV 157 (presuming, of course, that the US 95 alignment is selected), it'll be more to get a "foothold" on the route recognition than for navigational purposes (US 95 will remain the designation utilized for that purpose until considerably more of I-11 advances NW out of LV). That concept is similar to that of the 25-mile initial I-14 signage near Fort Hood in TX or the 6-odd miles of the nascent I-87 NE of Raleigh, NC -- pretty useless for navigational purposes but publicly informative regarding the Interstate status of the corridor. Simply put, the purpose is to in some measure inculcate the new designation in the public mind so when the Interstate designation is extended well away from the city it won't reduce navigational clarity. And since there are no plans to truncate US 95, it'll still be around for those who are accustomed to it.
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)
A faster route from Oakland to Las Vegas would be I-580 to I-5 to CA-58 to I-15 north.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 14, 2018, 01:16:59 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)
A faster route from Oakland to Las Vegas would be I-580 to I-5 to CA-58 to I-15 north.
By a long shot! Even with the presence of a completed (at least to I-80) I-11, it's shorter
and faster to go through Bakersfield and Barstow than up through Sacramento to Reno and then down to Vegas, particularly after that pesky signal at Kramer Junction is eliminated in a year or two. Besides, by the time I-11 is completed, who knows where the hell the Raiders will be (the Davis family is nothing if not fickle!).
Weekend traffic on I-15, OTOH....
:wow:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 14, 2018, 10:29:46 AM
Weekend traffic on I-15, OTOH....
:wow:
Mike
Good point, actually! Maybe by the time I-11 is carrying traffic up to Reno and/or environs, I-15 will have finally gotten that 6-laning that's been promised/suggested/planned/etc. for 15+ years. So at that time there might be
two viable routes to get from point A to point B (and back).
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)
I'm sure by the time I-11 is built to I-80, the Raiders will have abandoned Vegas to go back to Oakland. That's their modus operandi, after all.
Quote from: Mark68 on September 14, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 13, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
In case nobody's brought it up, should I-11 get built to Reno, most of the traffic on it late in the year will most likely be Raiders fans traveling to Vegas to watch the team play (well, what few from Oakland that might be making the trip.)
I'm sure by the time I-11 is built to I-80, the Raiders will have abandoned Vegas to go back to Oakland. That's their modus operandi, after all.
If Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points). San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had. But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management). But we shall see. Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!
Anyway I hope this whole Raiders thing works out. It would be nice to have a successful NFL team in Vegas.
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)
NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay
AFC East only needs I-95 and I-90...granted it's a long haul on I-95 from Boston to Miami...and very soon it will even be continuous!
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)
NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay
The fastest route from Green Bay to the Twin Cities would take WIS 29 to I-94 several miles west of Eau Claire.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 14, 2018, 07:37:14 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)
NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay
The fastest route from Green Bay to the Twin Cities would take WIS 29 to I-94 several miles west of Eau Claire.
Agreed that I-94 to I-41 or I-43 in Milwaukee is not the fastest route between the Twin Cities and Green Bay, but it does connect the two NFL cities
Heck, go back in time to the 3 Division per Conference NFL, when Tampa was in the old NFC Central with Chicago, Green Bay, Minnesota, and Detroit, and the two highways then would be I-94 and US 41
One could say that the NFC East only needs I-95 and I-20, but I don't think I-95 to I-20 is the best practical driving route from Dallas to any of DC, Philly, or NYC
One could also say the AFC South only needs I-65 and I-10...Those two Interstates connect all 4 cities of Houston, Jacksonville, Indy, and Nashville...But really, I-10 connects Houston and Jacksonville, and I-65 connects Indy to Nashville, and I-65 does connect to I-10, but using I-10 to I-65 to travel between Houston or Jacksonville to Indy or Nashville would be nuts!
Quote from: sparkerIf Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points). San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had. But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management). But we shall see. Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!
I have a feeling the Raiders will be right at home in Las Vegas. Seems kind of fitting too, given the team name and all the casinos "raiding" tourist wallets.
Even if the Raiders don't stay in Vegas for the long term I think chances are good the San Antonio-Austin area will snare an NFL team before the Raiders are able to make another move. I'd give it within the next 5 to 10 years. Buffalo, Charlotte and Jacksonville are on the bubble. The Bills, Panthers and Jaguars all want brand new, state of the art stadiums, which currently come with price tags topping well above $1 billion. I strongly doubt the taxpayers of all 3 of those cities would agree to shouldering that cost.
The Panthers' stadium (currently "Bank of America" stadium) opened in 1996. The Jaguars' stadium (aka TIAA Bank Field) opened in 1995. The Bills' stadium (now called New Era Field) opened in 1973. The Bill's field is pretty old and outdated in terms of NFL stadiums. The stadiums for the Panthers and Jaguars are not really old at all. But just like the Georgia Dome, those 1990's era stadiums are not in the same class as the current generation of new stadiums. Cowboys Stadium got this whole billion dollar stadium trend started.
If I had to bet on which team would relocate first I'd say the Bills. The metro population is 1.1 million (2010 census). The Bills' 2018 season has started off badly; the organization shed some of its best (and most expensive) players. The locals may not be too keen on paying a fortune for a new stadium if the team is not winning. Charlotte is a bigger city than Buffalo (800,000 in the city limits, 2.4 million MSA). Jacksonville has around 800,000 residents within its city limits and a 1.3 million MSA.
A new NFL stadium located in the vicinity of New Braunfels or San Marcos would be in one of the most rapidly growing areas of the US. Austin's MSA is over 2 million with a city limits population at the edge of 1 million. San Antonio's city limits population is above 1 million, with a MSA over 2 million. There's about 4.5 million people living in that region along I-35. And there's some big money there. I think if Mark Davis had any plans to move the Raiders to Texas he blew the one shot he had. If he wants to move the team out of Vegas 10 years from now he'll have to look at other cities
like maybe San Diego!:D
Quote from: sparker on September 14, 2018, 04:17:52 PM
If Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points). San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had. But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management). But we shall see. Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!
The Raiders are going to do fine in Vegas. They're still the most popular team in LA, and Vegas is a 3-4 hour drive from the LA Basin instead of Oakland's... well... 6-ish. Plus, as the Golden Knights have seen, plenty of folks are interested in making a weekend of a Vegas trip to see their home team on the road.
But Vegas was already a Raiders town, and the proximity to LA will make them fine (and, totally off topic hot take: disappoint Dean Spanos to the point where he goes back to San Diego)
I'm sure the craze to replace '90s era stadiums will only pick up before it dies down. It's gotten to a point that we'd rather start over with something new than keep something old going. I mean, look at Lambeau Field for instance. It opened in the '60s and the Packers make it better all the time; ditto on the Superdome. Now, to get the thread back on topic, I still think it would be cheaper and easier to make I-515 I-11 through Vegas, and route it along US 95 as much as possible to Carson City and Reno.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 10:36:35 PM
I'm sure the craze to replace '90s era stadiums will only pick up before it dies down. It's gotten to a point that we'd rather start over with something new than keep something old going. I mean, look at Lambeau Field for instance. It opened in the '60s and the Packers make it better all the time; ditto on the Superdome. Now, to get the thread back on topic, I still think it would be cheaper and easier to make I-515 I-11 through Vegas, and route it along US 95 as much as possible to Carson City and Reno.
Check upthread; Carson City's no longer in the mix. Odds are I-11 will intersect I-80 within 3-4 miles of Fernley -- which makes sense, since that optimizes bidirectional dispersal of NB traffic -- west to Reno and northeast to Idaho. Since the "classic" Reno-Vegas route was Fernley-Fallon then south on US 95, the remaining options as selected by NDOT planners essentially mimic that function.
Quote from: sparker on September 15, 2018, 02:09:28 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 10:36:35 PM
I'm sure the craze to replace '90s era stadiums will only pick up before it dies down. It's gotten to a point that we'd rather start over with something new than keep something old going. I mean, look at Lambeau Field for instance. It opened in the '60s and the Packers make it better all the time; ditto on the Superdome. Now, to get the thread back on topic, I still think it would be cheaper and easier to make I-515 I-11 through Vegas, and route it along US 95 as much as possible to Carson City and Reno.
Check upthread; Carson City's no longer in the mix. Odds are I-11 will intersect I-80 within 3-4 miles of Fernley -- which makes sense, since that optimizes bidirectional dispersal of NB traffic -- west to Reno and northeast to Idaho. Since the "classic" Reno-Vegas route was Fernley-Fallon then south on US 95, the remaining options as selected by NDOT planners essentially mimic that function.
Got it.
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)
NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay
AFC East only needs I-95 and I-90...granted it's a long haul on I-95 from Boston to Miami...and very soon it will even be continuous!
What? Are they (finally) closing that gap in NJ?
Quote from: Mark68 on September 17, 2018, 02:10:03 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 14, 2018, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 14, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
Would I be right in stating that once the Raiders are in Vegas, the AFC West would be the only division (at least in the NFL) where you could use one or two highways to access all their teams' cities? (Because LA residents would need to use one of four E-W highways to get to the 15 to get to Vegas; and from there they'd have to use I-15 and I-70 to get to Denver and KC.)
NFC North only needs I-94 and either I-43 or I-41, depending on your chosen route between Milwaukee and Green Bay
AFC East only needs I-95 and I-90...granted it's a long haul on I-95 from Boston to Miami...and very soon it will even be continuous!
What? Are they (finally) closing that gap in NJ?
Yeah -- but they're doing it in PA! Long thread in Northeast about this, supposed to open in a week or so!
Quote from: sparker on September 17, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on September 17, 2018, 02:10:03 PM
What? Are they (finally) closing that gap in NJ?
Yeah -- but they're doing it in PA! Long thread in Northeast about this, supposed to open in a week or so!
Depending on the weather, it will open sometime between this Saturday morning and Monday morning. There was a road meet (Golden Spike Meet) coordinated and hosted by our own Brian Troutman at the construction site last Thursday. Turnpike officials briefed the group and conducted a thorough tour or the site.
I was one of the participants and posted some pics here: www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.msg2357072#msg2357072
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 14, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: sparkerIf Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points). San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had. But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management). But we shall see. Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!
I have a feeling the Raiders will be right at home in Las Vegas. Seems kind of fitting too, given the team name and all the casinos "raiding" tourist wallets.
Even if the Raiders don't stay in Vegas for the long term I think chances are good the San Antonio-Austin area will snare an NFL team before the Raiders are able to make another move. I'd give it within the next 5 to 10 years. Buffalo, Charlotte and Jacksonville are on the bubble. The Bills, Panthers and Jaguars all want brand new, state of the art stadiums, which currently come with price tags topping well above $1 billion. I strongly doubt the taxpayers of all 3 of those cities would agree to shouldering that cost.
The Panthers' stadium (currently "Bank of America" stadium) opened in 1996. The Jaguars' stadium (aka TIAA Bank Field) opened in 1995. The Bills' stadium (now called New Era Field) opened in 1973. The Bill's field is pretty old and outdated in terms of NFL stadiums. The stadiums for the Panthers and Jaguars are not really old at all. But just like the Georgia Dome, those 1990's era stadiums are not in the same class as the current generation of new stadiums. Cowboys Stadium got this whole billion dollar stadium trend started.
If I had to bet on which team would relocate first I'd say the Bills. The metro population is 1.1 million (2010 census). The Bills' 2018 season has started off badly; the organization shed some of its best (and most expensive) players. The locals may not be too keen on paying a fortune for a new stadium if the team is not winning. Charlotte is a bigger city than Buffalo (800,000 in the city limits, 2.4 million MSA). Jacksonville has around 800,000 residents within its city limits and a 1.3 million MSA.
A new NFL stadium located in the vicinity of New Braunfels or San Marcos would be in one of the most rapidly growing areas of the US. Austin's MSA is over 2 million with a city limits population at the edge of 1 million. San Antonio's city limits population is above 1 million, with a MSA over 2 million. There's about 4.5 million people living in that region along I-35. And there's some big money there. I think if Mark Davis had any plans to move the Raiders to Texas he blew the one shot he had. If he wants to move the team out of Vegas 10 years from now he'll have to look at other cities like maybe San Diego!
:D
Jerrah Jones can barely stand the Houston Texans giving his Cowboys competition. No way in HELL he allows any team to move to San Antonio.
The last actual threat of such a move was after the 2005 season, after New Orleans was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Louisiana Superdome (now branded by Mercedes Benz) back then served as a staging area for Katrina evacuees, with all the disastrous results. The Saints had to move their front offices to San Antonio, and even play some home games at the Alamodome (as well as LSU's Tiger Stadium). There was some thought that Tom Benson, the former owner of the Saints, would consider a permanent move to San Antonio, but ultimately that was nixed by then commish Paul Tagliabue. Apparently, the NFL brass didn't want to miss out on those French Quarter Super Bowls. They ultimately convinced Old Man Benson to keep the team in NOLA in exchange for extra cash to renovate the Superdome. It turned out to be the best decision NFL and Benson made; next to hiring Sean Payton as head coach and locking up Drew Brees as their QB at the end of that season.
Anyways, even if San Antonio/Austin did have enough population to support an NFL franchise, Jerrah's the major stumbling block.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on September 18, 2018, 09:39:29 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 14, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: sparkerIf Vegas doesn't work out in terms of attendance, Mark Davis will go wherever he can get a huge stadium subsidy (one of the Oakland sticking points). San Antonio, San Diego, Sacramento......any place there's land, desire for a NFL team, and public $$ to be had. But the team will likely stick out Vegas for at least 5-7 years (they did so with L.A. for 11 -- and that was without their own dedicated stadium, which seems to be an imperative for current management). But we shall see. Maybe if I-11 is extended, the fan base might well expand to include Boise!
I have a feeling the Raiders will be right at home in Las Vegas. Seems kind of fitting too, given the team name and all the casinos "raiding" tourist wallets.
Even if the Raiders don't stay in Vegas for the long term I think chances are good the San Antonio-Austin area will snare an NFL team before the Raiders are able to make another move. I'd give it within the next 5 to 10 years. Buffalo, Charlotte and Jacksonville are on the bubble. The Bills, Panthers and Jaguars all want brand new, state of the art stadiums, which currently come with price tags topping well above $1 billion. I strongly doubt the taxpayers of all 3 of those cities would agree to shouldering that cost.
The Panthers' stadium (currently "Bank of America" stadium) opened in 1996. The Jaguars' stadium (aka TIAA Bank Field) opened in 1995. The Bills' stadium (now called New Era Field) opened in 1973. The Bill's field is pretty old and outdated in terms of NFL stadiums. The stadiums for the Panthers and Jaguars are not really old at all. But just like the Georgia Dome, those 1990's era stadiums are not in the same class as the current generation of new stadiums. Cowboys Stadium got this whole billion dollar stadium trend started.
If I had to bet on which team would relocate first I'd say the Bills. The metro population is 1.1 million (2010 census). The Bills' 2018 season has started off badly; the organization shed some of its best (and most expensive) players. The locals may not be too keen on paying a fortune for a new stadium if the team is not winning. Charlotte is a bigger city than Buffalo (800,000 in the city limits, 2.4 million MSA). Jacksonville has around 800,000 residents within its city limits and a 1.3 million MSA.
A new NFL stadium located in the vicinity of New Braunfels or San Marcos would be in one of the most rapidly growing areas of the US. Austin's MSA is over 2 million with a city limits population at the edge of 1 million. San Antonio's city limits population is above 1 million, with a MSA over 2 million. There's about 4.5 million people living in that region along I-35. And there's some big money there. I think if Mark Davis had any plans to move the Raiders to Texas he blew the one shot he had. If he wants to move the team out of Vegas 10 years from now he'll have to look at other cities like maybe San Diego!
:D
Jerrah Jones can barely stand the Houston Texans giving his Cowboys competition. No way in HELL he allows any team to move to San Antonio.
The last actual threat of such a move was after the 2005 season, after New Orleans was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Louisiana Superdome (now branded by Mercedes Benz) back then served as a staging area for Katrina evacuees, with all the disastrous results. The Saints had to move their front offices to San Antonio, and even play some home games at the Alamodome (as well as LSU's Tiger Stadium). There was some thought that Tom Benson, the former owner of the Saints, would consider a permanent move to San Antonio, but ultimately that was nixed by then commish Paul Tagliabue. Apparently, the NFL brass didn't want to miss out on those French Quarter Super Bowls. They ultimately convinced Old Man Benson to keep the team in NOLA in exchange for extra cash to renovate the Superdome. It turned out to be the best decision NFL and Benson made; next to hiring Sean Payton as head coach and locking up Drew Brees as their QB at the end of that season.
Anyways, even if San Antonio/Austin did have enough population to support an NFL franchise, Jerrah's the major stumbling block.
It'd be an interesting bet. Who would get an NFL team first: San Antonio or Albuquerque?
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 18, 2018, 12:14:35 PM
It'd be an interesting bet. Who would get an NFL team first: San Antonio or Albuquerque?
I kind of think Albuquerque would be an awesome, Green Bay-esque market. Not sure it has the corporate support you'd need to make a team work from a financial sense, but being the only game in town, rivalries vs. Vegas, Denver and Dallas (oh, and Arizona too, suppose)... I think folks would pack the house for a team there.
^^^^^^^
Hate to be the one to throw cold water on all the sports talk, but there is a whole sub-section ("Sports") in Off-Topic where all this Raiders talk would be more appropriate (regardless of the fact that for at least a while they'll be in the vicinity of I-11!). To get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city. IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area.
If the likely scenarios prevail at both ends of the Vegas-I-80 corridor (in LV, the direct US 95 route, and at the north end, the option skirting the west side of Fallon), it's likely when construction does commence it will do so from both ends toward the middle; particularly if the growing Fallon/Fernley corridor is in the mix -- stake out a ROW before the developers grab it all, and let the initially completed portions serve as a SIU, connecting I-80 and Reno to the center of development.
As far as I know, there's only three access points from 157 (which is already under development as a grade sep'd interchange) and Indian Springs: Cold Creek & the prisons, 156 and Corn Creek. It might be hard to justify a grade separation at Corn Creek for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: sparker on September 18, 2018, 04:49:11 PM
^^^^^^^
Hate to be the one to throw cold water on all the sports talk, but there is a whole sub-section ("Sports") in Off-Topic where all this Raiders talk would be more appropriate (regardless of the fact that for at least a while they'll be in the vicinity of I-11!). To get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city. IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area.
If the likely scenarios prevail at both ends of the Vegas-I-80 corridor (in LV, the direct US 95 route, and at the north end, the option skirting the west side of Fallon), it's likely when construction does commence it will do so from both ends toward the middle; particularly if the growing Fallon/Fernley corridor is in the mix -- stake out a ROW before the developers grab it all, and let the initially completed portions serve as a SIU, connecting I-80 and Reno to the center of development.
Quote from: sparker on September 18, 2018, 04:49:11 PM
^^^^^^^
Hate to be the one to throw cold water on all the sports talk, but there is a whole sub-section ("Sports") in Off-Topic where all this Raiders talk would be more appropriate (regardless of the fact that for at least a while they'll be in the vicinity of I-11!). To get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city. IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area.
If the likely scenarios prevail at both ends of the Vegas-I-80 corridor (in LV, the direct US 95 route, and at the north end, the option skirting the west side of Fallon), it's likely when construction does commence it will do so from both ends toward the middle; particularly if the growing Fallon/Fernley corridor is in the mix -- stake out a ROW before the developers grab it all, and let the initially completed portions serve as a SIU, connecting I-80 and Reno to the center of development.
That's what I was trying to get at, but thanks anyways.
Quote from: Anthony_JKJerrah Jones can barely stand the Houston Texans giving his Cowboys competition. No way in HELL he allows any team to move to San Antonio.
Jerry Jones doesn't own the NFL. And he isn't going to live forever either (IMHO he's pretty weathered looking for 75). Jones is very far from the only person with power in Texas.
Adding to that, it has been 22 years since the Dallas Cowboys have been to or won a Super Bowl. Prices to attend a Cowboys game are hatefully ridiculous, well beyond the normal douchey levels. I think enthusiasm for that team has waned a good bit.
I may live only 200 miles from Dallas, but I really don't care about the Cowboys and prefer following what goes on with other teams like the New Orleans Saints or teams that haven't won a Super Bowl. It's always more interesting to see a team win its first championship than seeing something like the freaking Patriots win another one. BTW, I was happy the Eagles won the last Super Bowl, beating the Patriots no less.
Quote from: abqtravelerIt'd be an interesting bet. Who would get an NFL team first: San Antonio or Albuquerque?
Albuquerque isn't big enough (or rich enough) to land an NFL team. I think the city would need to land an NHL or NBA team and prove it could bring 16,000-20,000 person sized crowds to sports events dependably
Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteI kind of think Albuquerque would be an awesome, Green Bay-esque market. Not sure it has the corporate support you'd need to make a team work from a financial sense, but being the only game in town, rivalries vs. Vegas, Denver and Dallas (oh, and Arizona too, suppose)... I think folks would pack the house for a team there.
Green Bay only still has the Packers because the City of Green Bay owns the team. It's the only non-profit pro sports team in the United States. The city owns Lambeau Field (which has a very storied history) and is within reasonable driving distance of Milwaukee. The franchise is one of the oldest in the NFL, dating back to a time when a few other small cities had pro football teams. Green Bay is the last of such cities.
Quote from: sparkerTo get the thread back on track -- the section of US 95 from Las Vegas out to the Mercury test site has been a divided expressway-grade facility for several decades; a few grade separations and/or interchanges would be all that's needed to push I-11 some 50-odd miles NW of the city. IMO, it's going to have to be done sooner or later, and is in a position to lop off a large portion of the whole corridor without significant property acquisition -- and at the same time eliminate troublesome intersections, including NV 157 & 156, the access roads to the Mt. Charleston ski area.
US-95 could be easily upgraded into I-11 up thru Indian Springs. Frontage roads already flank US-95 there. The turn-off for Mercury is already an Interstate quality exit. The 4-lane road drops to 2 lanes after that, but there is still plenty of room to add another pair of lanes. The construction situation only starts to get dicey when US-95 nears Beatty.
Getting I-11 thru or around Beatty and on farther North will be more of a slog with plenty of opportunity for controversy over where the road may ultimately be built. An hour's worth of driving could be eliminated with a bypass of Tonopah.
I think it's going to be a long time before I-11 connects to I-80 (a very long time if the road is built up from Vegas in one direction, piece by piece). In the Reno-Carson City area far more attention is going to go into the US-395 corridor. That's where the development is taking place. Fallon is an hour drive East of Reno. Once again, the federal government would need to step in and help fund/build I-11 up through Fallon. I think I-11 would have limited appeal to anyone in Carson City and growing areas South of there. The drive to Vegas is already long enough as it is and current plans for this Interstate won't make the drive any faster. The new route is not shaving off any mileage.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 19, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
The drive to Vegas is already long enough as it is and current plans for this Interstate won't make the drive any faster. The new route is not shaving off any mileage.
That's probably correct; I-11 will likely have close to the same actual traversed mileage as the current I-80/50A/95 composite route. Even with its relatively sparse population, in-state politics
do matter, especially when most of that population not part of the Las Vegas/Clark County or the Reno-Carson-Gardnerville "strip" is concentrated in several towns -- among them Fallon and Hawthorne, whose input obviously influenced the selection of the Tonopah-I-80 corridor options to the two "finalists", knocking out the eastern option directly NNW of Tonopah (because that would leave Hawthorne out of the picture) and the western option (aside from the sheer cost and project magnitude), as that would leave Fallon and its environs out of the picture as well. Aside from going around the other side of Walker Lake to avoid the cliffside on the west, I-11 will most like end up mimicking US 95 from LV to the Fallon area. NDOT has already decided not to deviate significantly from the existing route south of US 6, and state politics has largely determined the northern portion of the corridor. And, as I've iterated previously, the Fernley area, where I-80 turns from a E-W to a NE-SW trajectory, is the most logical place to effect a junction, so traffic destined for either Reno or inland NW points, particularly SW Idaho, can simply segue onto I-80 in either direction.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 19, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
Green Bay only still has the Packers because the City of Green Bay owns the team. It's the only non-profit pro sports team in the United States. The city owns Lambeau Field (which has a very storied history) and is within reasonable driving distance of Milwaukee. The franchise is one of the oldest in the NFL, dating back to a time when a few other small cities had pro football teams. Green Bay is the last of such cities.
The City of Green Bay doesn't own the Packers. It's publicly owned by anyone who has stock in the team.
Guys, can we please get this thread back on topic, thank you? Anyone else's $0.02 on I-11?
I have a question: I've read somewhere on here that I-11 is by law to be built from Mexico to Canada per NAFTA. As you may know a new agreement was reached. Assuming that this was really was included in NAFTA, will the recent changes affect this at all? I haven't read the new agreement/revision to see if this interstate is included in it.
Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2018, 01:46:02 PM
I have a question: I've read somewhere on here that I-11 is by law to be built from Mexico to Canada per NAFTA. As you may know a new agreement was reached. Assuming that this was really was included in NAFTA, will the recent changes affect this at all? I haven't read the new agreement/revision to see if this interstate is included in it.
The NAFTA connection, also used in the I-69 descriptions, is just one of the more common "McGuffins" employed in the initial promotion of long interregional corridors. The corridors aren't demanded or commissioned within any NAFTA trade legislation, but their promoters certainly haven't hesitated to use such agreements as a rationale for corridor development. The real "force" driving such routes is localized lobbying groups at both state and national levels who are attempting to use the presence of the corridors as an enticement for corporations to site manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution facilities in particular areas served by these nascent freeways. In the case of I-11 and its extension to Northern Nevada, Reno -- and the area to the east -- has been attempting to position itself as a major mountain states distribution center -- with a lower cost structure than facilities closer to the West Coast (or in CA in general). I-11 simply provides a commercial egress facility to Las Vegas and Phoenix, "mountain state" metro areas with population in the millions.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 01, 2018, 01:50:34 PM
Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.
Again, the concept of reaching Canada is just another PR tool. The actual legislated "NAFTA" corridor in the region, HPC #26 (enacted in 1995), doesn't utilize the I-11 corridor north of Las Vegas, but rather turns NE on I-15 all the way to the Canadian border via Montana -- which makes sense, because that routing segues onto an improved multilane facility (AB 4/3/2) serving two of the largest metros in western Canada, Calgary & Edmonton. Between that area and the next Interstate crossing to the west, I-5, is mountainous territory in Canada with widely separated and relatively small urban metro areas. Taking I-11 toward Canada as a direct corridor doesn't make a lot of sense economically; there just isn't the traffic potential to justify a continuous corridor of about 800+ miles. Having said that, some options
do have some degree of justification -- a continuation to I-5 somewhere in Oregon would provide a "shortcut" from the Northwest to the inland mountain areas while bypassing persistent CA congestion. And if the Boise/Treasure Valley metro area starts approaching 1M, a connection between I-80 and that area could also be considered appropriate. Likewise, in WA, upgrading US 395 to Interstate status between I-82 and I-90 would address the increasing commercial use of that particular corridor; and even an Interstate-grade facility along US 95 between I-90 and the Canadian border might be called for given the traffic levels there. Bottom line -- certain segments of potential I-11 corridors north of I-80 may be effective SIU's on their own; but the entire corridor concept (particularly when projected over the sparsely-traveled US 395 through OR) has little to stand upon.
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.
Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 02, 2018, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.
Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.
That's one hell of a long way around to get to Portland from Fernley, the most likely place where I-11 from LV will intersect I-80. Reno-Klamath Falls is a logical next step if Oregon is set as the ultimate destination; how it gets to I-5 from there (my suggestion has always been to simply head west on OR 140 to I-5 just north of Medford) is yet TBD. If such an Oregon-based alignment is suggested, then a Winnemucca-Idaho corridor up US 95 could become I-13.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 01, 2018, 01:50:34 PM
Where would they build it north of Reno? It doesn't really make sense to build a direct interstate between Reno and Canada.
The routes I've heard of are a new terrain route northeast to US 95, then following 95, or heading west on 395, and ending up at 84/82.
Quote from: sparker on October 02, 2018, 04:38:37 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 02, 2018, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.
Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.
That's one hell of a long way around to get to Portland from Fernley, the most likely place where I-11 from LV will intersect I-80. Reno-Klamath Falls is a logical next step if Oregon is set as the ultimate destination; how it gets to I-5 from there (my suggestion has always been to simply head west on OR 140 to I-5 just north of Medford) is yet TBD. If such an Oregon-based alignment is suggested, then a Winnemucca-Idaho corridor up US 95 could become I-13.
I was thinking my alignment would be more for Seattle as an ultimate destination.
Quote from: sparker on October 02, 2018, 04:38:37 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 02, 2018, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 01, 2018, 04:01:54 PM
As I have said before, again and again — the most sensible route, if any, is from Reno to Klamath Falls, Bend and either Yakima or Portland.
Why not US 95 north to I-84? That way it can take I-84 to I-82 to I-90.
That's one hell of a long way around to get to Portland from Fernley, the most likely place where I-11 from LV will intersect I-80. Reno-Klamath Falls is a logical next step if Oregon is set as the ultimate destination; how it gets to I-5 from there (my suggestion has always been to simply head west on OR 140 to I-5 just north of Medford) is yet TBD. If such an Oregon-based alignment is suggested, then a Winnemucca-Idaho corridor up US 95 could become I-13.
You could FritzOwl it all the way to the Trans-Canada Highway. Winnemucca, Boise/Nampa, Pullman/Moscow, Spokane, then blast a few mountains on the way to a Trans-Canada Freeway at Revelstoke.
Seriously, it makes sense to either go to Portland or Seattle. Problem with a Portland terminus is crossing the Cascades pretty much anywhere in Oregon north of Klamath Falls. Problem with a Seattle terminus via Bend is getting across the rugged wilderness south of Yakima. Drivers could go Winnemucca to Boise/Nampa then using the I-82 corridor to get to Seattle, but that doesn't really help anyone but those in Boise and Yakima. You're probably right about going west from Klamath Falls. Unfortunately, the lack of any long N-S open stretches in the Basin and Range north of I-80 makes it really difficult to find any easier-to-build corridor.
Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 01, 2018, 01:46:02 PM
I have a question: I've read somewhere on here that I-11 is by law to be built from Mexico to Canada per NAFTA. As you may know a new agreement was reached. Assuming that this was really was included in NAFTA, will the recent changes affect this at all? I haven't read the new agreement/revision to see if this interstate is included in it.
The NAFTA connection, also used in the I-69 descriptions, is just one of the more common "McGuffins" employed in the initial promotion of long interregional corridors. The corridors aren't demanded or commissioned within any NAFTA trade legislation, but their promoters certainly haven't hesitated to use such agreements as a rationale for corridor development. The real "force" driving such routes is localized lobbying groups at both state and national levels who are attempting to use the presence of the corridors as an enticement for corporations to site manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution facilities in particular areas served by these nascent freeways. In the case of I-11 and its extension to Northern Nevada, Reno -- and the area to the east -- has been attempting to position itself as a major mountain states distribution center -- with a lower cost structure than facilities closer to the West Coast (or in CA in general). I-11 simply provides a commercial egress facility to Las Vegas and Phoenix, "mountain state" metro areas with population in the millions.
Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense.
^^^^^^^^
Part of the problem with getting a corridor from Klamath Falls -- or anywhere else along US 97 for that matter -- over to I-5 in Oregon is simply politics. The most logical route (when one looks at it on a map) is simply up US 97 and then over OR 58 to the Eugene/Springfield area. However, the east side of Willamette Pass is relatively easy; but the west slope would involve snaking a freeway facility down the side of one or another canyons; the monetary cost would be sky-high -- and draw the ire of every politico from PDX and the Willamette Valley for destruction of the old-growth forests in the Willamette watershed. And that problem would persist with any attempt to route a corridor to anywhere in the Willamette Valley, be it along OR 58, US 20, or OR 22. Perhaps US 26 would work, but only with permission from the Native American reservation NW of Madras -- and weaving a facility through the populated 26 corridor via Sandy and Boring -- but then you'd be attempting to bring a new freeway into greater Portland -- and Metro would throw a shitfit about that! Hence my suggestion about crossing the Cascades along OR 140 -- it'd avoid the old-growth forests flanking the Willamette Valley, it would serve the growing Rogue Valley region, and it would let traffic bound to and from Reno avoid Siskiyou Summit on I-5 (not truckers' favorite stretch of that route by any means!).
Re a northward passage through the Basin & Range country: about the only feasible route is the one the old Southern Pacific "Modoc" line used to get from Fernley to Klamath Falls; it skirted Pyramid Lake, passed through Gerlach, NV, and cut over to US 395 just NE of the Susanville area, paralleling 395/299/139/39 all the way from there to Klamath Falls. Of course, gradient-averse railroads seek out the flattest possible routing; this one would work -- but it would totally leave Reno out of the corridor picture, which would probably be a disqualifying factor (but it'd give the Burning Man aficionados a much closer freeway corridor to use (not that it'd make much of difference to those folks, who prize the isolated nature of their assembly site!).
I figured there was more preventing a highway across the Cascades than just the engineering concerns. It's probably no more difficult than I-70 west of Denver which I drove on my move to California.
Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2018, 02:37:02 AM
I figured there was more preventing a highway across the Cascades than just the engineering concerns. It's probably no more difficult than I-70 west of Denver which I drove on my move to California.
There's no equivalent to Glenwood Canyon on any of the cross-Cascade routes; all options from OR 58 on north feature a relatively easy ascent to the summit from the east but deep canyons on the western Casade slopes or, in the case of OR 22, a canyon that's now part of a reservoir courtesy of Detroit Dam. But like I said, those western Cascade slopes part of the Willamette watershed are mostly covered in old-growth evergreen forests that have been "hands-off" in OR for decades; most commercial lumber production has shifted south toward Roseburg or east to the US 97 corridor between Bend and Klamath Lake.
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
I don't think anyone would go all the way up US 97 to go east on I-82 or I-84 to Boise. If you were leaving from Bend, for example, it would make more sense to take US 20.
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility. North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago. Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it
would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.
If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility. North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago. Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.
If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).
That actually sounds like a good idea. I would also extend it all the way to I-90 to facilitate traffic going to Seattle.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 03, 2018, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
I don't think anyone would go all the way up US 97 to go east on I-82 or I-84 to Boise. If you were leaving from Bend, for example, it would make more sense to take US 20.
It would...except in winter. But the regional (truck) traffic would be better served by using I-84 to get to PDX and can already take I-82 & 182 to access the Tri-Cities, US 395, Yakima, and Seattle via I-82 to I-90.
I am skeptical we will ever see Interstate 11 in Oregon or Washington. I expect even getting Interstate 11 to reach Interstate 80 will be a long, slow process. Ditto on it's other end making its way through Arizona. I don't think the traffic demands (although I could be wrong) warrant an Interstate Highway north of Interstate 80 in Nevada, let alone in Oregon or Washington. This extension of Interstate 11 to these states may be as much of a pipe-dream as certain segments of Interstate 69 in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee being built.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 03, 2018, 04:12:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility. North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago. Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.
If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).
That actually sounds like a good idea. I would also extend it all the way to I-90 to facilitate traffic going to Seattle.
Actually, a corridor up US 97 over the river into WA would terminate at I-82 south of Yakima, as I-82 follows the US 97 corridor north of there to I-90 near Ellensburg. A more likely scenario would be termination at I-84, with an additional corridor along US 395 from I-82 at Kennewick to I-90 at Ritzville; north of Pasco it is either a freeway or upgradeable expressway; the main issue would be the connection from there to I-82. However, if the N-S corridor through OR along US 97 would, as suggested earlier, perform "double duty" as a CA-Spokane "cutoff" as well as an outlet for I-11, the extension north on US 97 to I-82 has quite a bit of merit, as it allows a more efficient path to Seattle and environs than simply jogging west on I-84 into PDX, which itself poses a congestion obstacle (not to mention "backtracking" through Olympia and Tacoma on I-5). It would all depend upon the projected commercial traffic volume regarding whether that northern extension in WA would be warranted.
Ideally, the corridor would split somewhere in the Bend-to-Madras area, with the east branch heading directly toward the Tri-Cities area and the west one to either PDX or possibly the Salem area. But Oregon topography and politics mitigate against that idea; if
any new Interstate corridor is deployed
anywhere in the state in the next 25-30 years it'll be a minor miracle, likely prompted by Bend-area development.
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 03, 2018, 04:12:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2018, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2018, 02:25:59 PM
Why not just route I-11 up the US 97 corridor from Klamath Falls north? It would connect to I-84 heading west to PDX or east to I-82 (or Boise). It seems like that would be a no-brainer compared to routing it over the Cascades and all the (political and monetary) cost that entails.
That wouldn't be too bad an idea -- at least north to the Bend/Redmond/Madras area, where the topology is reasonably favorable for constructing a freeway facility. North from there to the Columbia River are rolling basalt hills similar to that in the John Day River area to the east -- an area that presents a formidable obstacle to a direct freeway between Redmond and the I-84/82 junction; a concept explored a couple of decades ago. Constructing a freeway along either US 97 or US 197 in that area certainly wouldn't be a minor effort -- although it would provide the shortest construction distance of all the potential corridors north of Redmond.
If one was to route an Interstate corridor up US 97 from Klamath Falls to I-84, it would make sense from an interregional standpoint to effect an Interstate-grade connection to southward I-5 over the remainder of US 97 south from Klamath Falls to Weed, CA -- letting the new Interstate/US 97 corridor do "double duty" at not only expediting Phoenix/Vegas/Reno traffic to the Northwest but also providing a "shortcut" for traffic coming out of Northern California toward the inland NW areas (Bend, the Tri-Cities area, Spokane).
That actually sounds like a good idea. I would also extend it all the way to I-90 to facilitate traffic going to Seattle.
Actually, a corridor up US 97 over the river into WA would terminate at I-82 south of Yakima, as I-82 follows the US 97 corridor north of there to I-90 near Ellensburg. A more likely scenario would be termination at I-84, with an additional corridor along US 395 from I-82 at Kennewick to I-90 at Ritzville; north of Pasco it is either a freeway or upgradeable expressway; the main issue would be the connection from there to I-82. However, if the N-S corridor through OR along US 97 would, as suggested earlier, perform "double duty" as a CA-Spokane "cutoff" as well as an outlet for I-11, the extension north on US 97 to I-82 has quite a bit of merit, as it allows a more efficient path to Seattle and environs than simply jogging west on I-84 into PDX, which itself poses a congestion obstacle (not to mention "backtracking" through Olympia and Tacoma on I-5). It would all depend upon the projected commercial traffic volume regarding whether that northern extension in WA would be warranted.
Ideally, the corridor would split somewhere in the Bend-to-Madras area, with the east branch heading directly toward the Tri-Cities area and the west one to either PDX or possibly the Salem area. But Oregon topography and politics mitigate against that idea; if any new Interstate corridor is deployed anywhere in the state in the next 25-30 years it'll be a minor miracle, likely prompted by Bend-area development.
I was thinking that I-11 would be concurrent with I-82 from where it meets US 97 to Ellensburg. Even then, I would still like to see it go all the way to I-82.
If you don't see it being extended from I-84 to I-82, US 97 should at least be upgraded so the US 97/I-82/I-90 corridor can at least make sense as a Portland bypass.
^^^^^^^^
The last time I used the US 97 corridor between I-84 and I-82 (several years back) there wasn't enough traffic (weekday/midday) to warrant upgrading to Interstate status; besides, it goes right through the Yakima Nation, which entails a completely separate process regarding route alignment and format. It's likely that any corridor up US 97 would have to initially terminate at I-84; if that finished corridor resulted in increased traffic further north on US 97, the matter of an extension to I-82 would need to be explored at that point.
The reality is that any corridor straight up US 97 is not particularly useful as access to either Portland or Seattle -- the reason, taking into account ODOT's preferences as an adjunct to their political handlers, why I have suggested a I-11 cross-Cascade corridor between Klamath Falls and the Medford area as the "best of a bad lot" compromise. The problem can be seen right on any map -- the farther north one gets along US 97 (at least until I-82) the farther one is from the I-5 corridor and the populated areas along that route -- and the less effectual such a corridor becomes as a Portland or Seattle server. IMO, unless the powers that be in Oregon can be convinced to let a new Interstate corridor into the Willamette Valley watershed, US 97 is best utilized as part of a corridor connecting northern California with the Northwest interior (Tri-Cities/Spokane).
Would you have I-11 connect to I-5 then?
The #1 priority for I-11, by a very wide margin, should be linking Las Vegas to Phoenix. In Arizona, the plans of pushing it farther down to Tucson and ultimately to Nogales is a whole lot of wishful thinking.
Likewise, linking the Reno area and Vegas directly using I-11 is another tall order. America is literally pricing itself out of building any major tunnels, even though nations like Japan and China don't seem to have remotely near the trouble as we do getting a tunnel project moving -be it for a highway, rail line or subway. America's tunnel building capability is quite the laughable joke now. We suck at it. Not going to sugar coat that fact at all. Currently here in America it's impossible to punch a highway through a couple sets of mountains using a combination of tunnels, bridges and mountain pass road. We used to be able to do that. But we can't anymore. Other countries have no problem getting the job done. We're just happy proposing a major superhighway end up an hour's drive freaking East of where it really should end.
My feeling is if I-11 can't really get directly into the Reno-Carson City area it's not worth building I-11 up there at all. If the road has to go through Fallon and then maybe terminate at Fernley, or just keep going straight North to the current US-95 exit on I-80 in the middle of bum-f*** nowhere, it's not going to attract traffic counts to make it worth building in the first place. The current road works just fine as an ordinary 2 lane highway.
With the current situation of developing and building new Interstate highways being so stupidly ridiculous it would probably be best if I-11 development North of Las Vegas proceed at a glacier slow pace. Over the next 10 or so years perhaps US-95 can be upgraded to Interstate quality from the NW corner of Vegas up thru Indian Springs and maybe as far as Amargosa Valley. From Beatty on North all sorts of difficulties and controversies become present. Maybe in another 20-30 years we'll have some break-through advancements in highway engineering technology to make things like building tunnels or even just a straight highway not seem so damned impossible.
Regarding I-11 in Oregon, that's another situation with tough choices (thanks in part to our lack of tunnel building prowess). One option is pushing I-11 up to the Klamath Falls area and then sending it West to hit I-5 in the Ashland-Medford area. That might be the easiest route to build politically speaking. But which corridor do you upgrade? OR-66 into Asland or OR-140 into White City? I could see pushing I-11 up farther North to reach Bend, OR. But how do you get the highway diagonally thru the mountains over to I-5 to reach cities like Salem and Portland? If the road has to go clear up to The Dalles and I-84 then it's like the same silly situation as the Fallon-Fernley crap way East of Reno & Carson City. If the road can only be built way over there then little bits of freeway upgrade should only happen here and there as needed rather than blowing billions of dollars on a full upgrade.
I've heard a good bit about the freeway revolts roughly 50 years ago. Today it seems like highway building is bogged down far worse. Protests aren't blocking the roads. It's just extreme high cost, extreme red tape and extremes in politics.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 04, 2018, 04:30:34 AM
Would you have I-11 connect to I-5 then?
In a word, yes. Klamath Falls to just north of Medford more or less via OR 140, which is the newest of the cross-Cascade highways. For all intents & purposes, out of sight and out of mind for the PDX crowd, but providing a reasonably efficient path over to the largely diagonal corridor that is I-11.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2018, 03:55:04 PM
The #1 priority for I-11, by a very wide margin, should be linking Las Vegas to Phoenix. In Arizona, the plans of pushing it farther down to Tucson and ultimately to Nogales is a whole lot of wishful thinking.
Likewise, linking the Reno area and Vegas directly using I-11 is another tall order. America is literally pricing itself out of building any major tunnels, even though nations like Japan and China don't seem to have remotely near the trouble as we do getting a tunnel project moving -be it for a highway, rail line or subway. America's tunnel building capability is quite the laughable joke now. We suck at it. Not going to sugar coat that fact at all. Currently here in America it's impossible to punch a highway through a couple sets of mountains using a combination of tunnels, bridges and mountain pass road. We used to be able to do that. But we can't anymore. Other countries have no problem getting the job done. We're just happy proposing a major superhighway end up an hour's drive freaking East of where it really should end.
My feeling is if I-11 can't really get directly into the Reno-Carson City area it's not worth building I-11 up there at all. If the road has to go through Fallon and then maybe terminate at Fernley, or just keep going straight North to the current US-95 exit on I-80 in the middle of bum-f*** nowhere, it's not going to attract traffic counts to make it worth building in the first place. The current road works just fine as an ordinary 2 lane highway.
With the current situation of developing and building new Interstate highways being so stupidly ridiculous it would probably be best if I-11 development North of Las Vegas proceed at a glacier slow pace. Over the next 10 or so years perhaps US-95 can be upgraded to Interstate quality from the NW corner of Vegas up thru Indian Springs and maybe as far as Amargosa Valley. From Beatty on North all sorts of difficulties and controversies become present. Maybe in another 20-30 years we'll have some break-through advancements in highway engineering technology to make things like building tunnels or even just a straight highway not seem so damned impossible.
Regarding I-11 in Oregon, that's another situation with tough choices (thanks in part to our lack of tunnel building prowess). One option is pushing I-11 up to the Klamath Falls area and then sending it West to hit I-5 in the Ashland-Medford area. That might be the easiest route to build politically speaking. But which corridor do you upgrade? OR-66 into Asland or OR-140 into White City? I could see pushing I-11 up farther North to reach Bend, OR. But how do you get the highway diagonally thru the mountains over to I-5 to reach cities like Salem and Portland? If the road has to go clear up to The Dalles and I-84 then it's like the same silly situation as the Fallon-Fernley crap way East of Reno & Carson City. If the road can only be built way over there then little bits of freeway upgrade should only happen here and there as needed rather than blowing billions of dollars on a full upgrade.
I've heard a good bit about the freeway revolts roughly 50 years ago. Today it seems like highway building is bogged down far worse. Protests aren't blocking the roads. It's just extreme high cost, extreme red tape and extremes in politics.
I-11 from Vegas to I-80 is, for all intents & purposes, a
fait accompli; the state of Nevada wants to do it and appears to be willing to spend the funds to do so (the tourist/gambling revenues must be up considerably from their recession nadir). The die was cast back in 2005 when HPC #68 was designated; many of the casino owners with properties in both the south and north parts of the state have wanted an Interstate-grade connection for years -- and they have plenty of pull within the state. The Carson City public hearings about the alignment eliminated any Carson Valley routing because of (a) construction costs and (b) the fact that such an alignment would leave out the Fallon Valley, which is positioning itself as a low-cost housing
and warehousing area, anchored by Tesla's developments in the vicinity of Fernley -- and which figures prominently in Nevada's long-range economic development plans. The Carson Valley, teeming with California "refugees", has been deemed to be taking care of itself just fine without depending upon Interstate access to the south part of the state; its economic well-being is derived from residents and the growth of those -- it's not dependent on the sort of tourist income that a long Interstate corridor would supply. Likewise, Reno doesn't need to be tethered to Las Vegas by a singular direct corridor; that metro area is growing quite well "as is" -- but
some sort of efficient (read: freeway) corridor linking it to the state's
other attraction has been sought for quite some time both in and out of state government. And with Nevada's topology, deploying high-capacity corridors becomes a game of horseshoes; "leaners" are scored highly if they are capable of functioning well. In the current instance, everyone is hedging their bets as to where I-11 will go from there -- northeast or northwest. Thus the "best compromise" of Fernley as the junction point allows traffic -- and further development -- to choose its direction -- west to Reno and the US 395 corridor, or east to Winnemucca and the US 95 corridor. What's the outcome? For the time being, Reno can't claim to be "on" I-11; a situation that likely makes no difference to commercial developers who for years have been and are looking at other factors such as the low tax rate and favorable local inducements. So one has to take I-80 east 30 miles to reach I-11? No big whoop -- just do it! And if a further extension up US 395 is eventually selected, I-11 will just multiplex with I-80 into town before turning north -- and at that point it'll be a singular signed corridor from LV to Reno.
IMO -- if I-580 and any extension of that route south from Carson City along US 395 is to be incorporated into a longer interregional corridor, that corridor will simply continue south along 395 into SoCal, likely veering onto CA 14 through Mojave and Palmdale. Growth in the mountain states, particularly SW Idaho, would be one of the driving factors for such a corridor -- in conjunction with a corridor serving that area from I-80 such as the oft-discussed US 95 routing. Carson City and Reno would benefit from that pass-through, which would almost certainly include both commercial and recreational traffic. But I'm getting way ahead of the current I-11 situation -- the likely Fallon Valley junction point with I-80 will do just fine to convey traffic from Vegas to Reno -- as the present routing has done for years, but with a much faster and safer facility.
I'm wondering if a hypothetical I-11 between Madras and I-84 head a bit northwest near Warm Springs, then start heading more straight north, effectively splitting the difference between US-197 and OR-35. Hitting I-84 somewhere around Mosier. The terrain may not be the easiest, and the Indian reservation probably makes it a political challenge, but it may be easier than going over the Cascades and routing through western Oregon/greater Portland. Maybe a compromise could meet back up with US-197 around Tygh Valley, avoiding some of the eastern backtrack and Maupin bottleneck (getting across the Deschutes seems easier around Warm Springs than Maupin).
It would also make a great winter route between Bend and Portland at times, avoiding the major mountain passes and sticking to the drier eastern side of the Cascades (until the gorge, but then you're at least at low altitude). Already some traffic takes US-197 to I-84 instead of the more direct US-26, and despite the "Maupin hole" and backtracking a bit to the east from Madras, it's often a good option.
US 97 in Oregon will get upgrades between the current freeway stretches by adding small sections of 4-lane with the eventual goal being to link them all up between Klamath Falls and Bend. That is ODOT's plan.
Looking at PDX, traffic heading over to central Oregon begins with a section of freeway/expressway before approaching Mt. Hood. The obvious solution is to 4-lane US 26 to Madras, then 4-lane US 97 south to connect with the freeway segment terminating just north of Redmond. Given that there is no other way to go than by going out of the way, this will be done if there is the political will, which at this time is not present but it is going to be the eventual way this turns out.
Now that the Oregon-centric portion of east of the Cascades freeway routing is seen, the real dilemma is how to hook it up to I-11. PDX-Reno traffic is light enough that I believe the current 2-lane routing using SR 31 to US 395 and thence to Reno will suffice. Adding in 3-lane stretches for grades and also just for passing purposes will handle a moderate increase in traffic over the next 30 years most likely.
California could help the cause by doing US 395 as expressway all the way to the Nevada border from the south and then making US 97 4-lane from Weed to the Oregon border. That takes care of the N/S traffic for the Pacific states.
The Reno region will continue to fill in. Beltways and improvements will be needed. Once the development pattern known, then it will become obvious where I-11 needs to land.
Those are the balls I see that need juggling to determine where new inland western freeways/expressways need to be placed. Juggling means "balls in the air" and right now that is where we are. Guess right and I-11 plus US 395 and US 97 will combine together to create a nice network. Since I have never been to Reno, I wonder what the people over there think about future needs for higher capacity roads? I would ask the truck drivers as well.
North from Las Vegas is a given. Improvements in Oregon and California are also givens. Growth in the Washoe Valley and east toward Fallon is going to continue. I wish I was going to live long enough to see what solution is arrived at and how well it works.
Rick
Quote from: doorknob60 on October 04, 2018, 07:07:25 PM
I'm wondering if a hypothetical I-11 between Madras and I-84 head a bit northwest near Warm Springs, then start heading more straight north, effectively splitting the difference between US-197 and OR-35. Hitting I-84 somewhere around Mosier. The terrain may not be the easiest, and the Indian reservation probably makes it a political challenge, but it may be easier than going over the Cascades and routing through western Oregon/greater Portland. Maybe a compromise could meet back up with US-197 around Tygh Valley, avoiding some of the eastern backtrack and Maupin bottleneck (getting across the Deschutes seems easier around Warm Springs than Maupin).
It would also make a great winter route between Bend and Portland at times, avoiding the major mountain passes and sticking to the drier eastern side of the Cascades (until the gorge, but then you're at least at low altitude). Already some traffic takes US-197 to I-84 instead of the more direct US-26, and despite the "Maupin hole" and backtracking a bit to the east from Madras, it's often a good option.
If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84. The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary. This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX. Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials). Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible.
The one drawback to any singular corridor designed to expedite traffic to PDX is not what it does but what it does not do in terms of service areas. As I stated earlier, the ideal US 97-based corridor would split into two somewhere around Bend, with a western branch serving PDX and/or the Willamette Valley, and the eastern heading NE toward Washington's Tri-Cities and Spokane; Seattle could be served via the PDX branch then north via I-5. If you haven't guessed by now, I'm suggesting a
regional approach with corridor trajectories optimized to serve as much area as possible rather than serve one specific city ("zone coverage", if you will, as opposed to "man-to-man"). At this moment, most emphasis is on the population centers arrayed along the I-5 corridor -- but if other areas in the country provide any clue as to what will likely happen in the not-too-distant future, housing costs and other economic circumstances will likely make the inland zones such as Bend, the Tri-Cities, and even Spokane more and more attractive for employment and just basic living. Firms with less than a "high-end" pay scale would likely seek to locate in areas where their personnel won't be constantly clamoring for increased compensation to cover rising costs; while that will inevitably occur in any growth area, the curve becomes less pronounced in areas not already experiencing "hyperinflation" regarding living costs -- there's considerable "breathing room" in terms of time before that occurs in the outlying regions. This is happening in areas such as Boise, ID currently; while the area is rapidly growing overall, the cost increases for housing and other expenses haven't reached the point where they are slowing the rate of growth; that probably won't happen for at least another 20-25 years; i.e., there's still room to grow! The challenge is to provide optimal connectivity between these areas as well as the existing population centers while avoiding neglecting the needs of those already established areas -- and do so as efficiently as feasible. Given the topography and politics in this particular service area, it's a tall order; it'll be intriguing to see if it's within the realm of possibility!
Quote from: sparker on October 04, 2018, 09:16:49 PM
If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84. The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary. This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX. Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials). Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible.
Because AADT counts range from 10,000 at Rhodedendron to 6,100 just south of the OR 35 split.
Because the main currency in Oregon for transportation improvements is safety, not speed or freight mobility, and a divided highway between the state's largest city & its favorite getaway (and a city of 180,000 people in its own right) can be sold as a safety improvement.
Because Government Camp is 55 miles from Portland via 26 and 105 miles via 84/35.
Because direct access to Portland would benefit the Warm Springs confederation and the Madras area as a potential logistics / economic development opportunity.
Because the staging location for Oregon emergency operations for the Cascadia earthquake is Redmond Airport.
a few reasons...
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 05, 2018, 11:00:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 04, 2018, 09:16:49 PM
If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84. The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary. This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX. Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials). Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible.
Because AADT counts range from 10,000 at Rhodedendron to 6,100 just south of the OR 35 split.
Because the main currency in Oregon for transportation improvements is safety, not speed or freight mobility, and a divided highway between the state's largest city & its favorite getaway (and a city of 180,000 people in its own right) can be sold as a safety improvement.
Because Government Camp is 55 miles from Portland via 26 and 105 miles via 84/35.
Because direct access to Portland would benefit the Warm Springs confederation and the Madras area as a potential logistics / economic development opportunity.
Because the staging location for Oregon emergency operations for the Cascadia earthquake is Redmond Airport.
This is a factor that cannot and should not be overlooked. In the event of a Cascadia earthquake, I-84 as an access point for entry or exit into Portland may not be feasible, due to its proximity to (and lack of elevation above) the Columbia through the Gorge. Not to mention the inevitable rock- and mudslides that such an event would trigger due to the steep terrain on the south side of I-84.
If the Bend and Redmond areas are to serve as staging areas for emergency operations in such an event, it is likely that residents of the northern Willamette Valley will try to make their way across the Cascades in the quickest way possible, and to do so without interrupting the incoming flow of emergency crews and supplies would entail, at the least, a 4-line divided facility between Bend/Redmond and PDX.
^^^^^^^^
If a limited-access corridor between PDX and the Madras/Redmond/Bend area can be "sold" to ODOT and Metro --and would be completed within greater Portland so as to actually make a connection to the freeway system there (either I-84 or I-205 would be the most likely outlets/termini), that would be an ideal cross-Cascade facility. But politically, that's one big if! Framing it as an enhanced recreational route (at least to the ski area), a "safety" corridor, or a natural-disaster egress route might aid with public perception -- but PDX and/or Metro planners might just focus on the underlying fact that despite the sales pitches the bottom line is that a new Interstate is encroaching on their sacred urban enclave (I've worked with iterations of this group before, and for all their predispositions and ideology, they certainly aren't stupid!). If nothing else, such a project might find itself in "study limbo" for decades.
When it comes down to situations such as this -- where the optimal solution may not be the feasible one -- a workable strategy might just be to select an alternative approach (in this case, avoid rattling the cage of PDX and Metro) -- don't discard a suboptimal but acceptable plan just because it isn't the ideal one!
Quote from: sparkerI-11 from Vegas to I-80 is, for all intents & purposes, a fait accompli; the state of Nevada wants to do it and appears to be willing to spend the funds to do so (the tourist/gambling revenues must be up considerably from their recession nadir).
The only thing happening so far is just talk. I wouldn't consider anything of this sort a fait accompli until the highway is actually getting built. Gambling/tourist revenue or not, if Nevada tries to build this road on its own the endeavor will take a very long time to complete. A segment of Interstate highway a few hundred miles long doesn't get built without a good bit of federal funding. The big casinos
might be a source for road funding revenue. However, those operations are also pretty good at minimizing their tax liabilities.
I can picture modest corridor upgrades in some spots of the Reno-Carson City region, but nothing more than that. Same goes for Future I-11 NW of Vegas.
Quote from: sparkerThe Carson City public hearings about the alignment eliminated any Carson Valley routing because of (a) construction costs and (b) the fact that such an alignment would leave out the Fallon Valley, which is positioning itself as a low-cost housing and warehousing area, anchored by Tesla's developments in the vicinity of Fernley -- and which figures prominently in Nevada's long-range economic development plans.
Fallon is not a major destination. If the Fallon Valley experiences a lot of developmental growth in the future then that sounds 100% like a local concern, not something needing to be connected to Las Vegas via a highway that would cost a few billion dollars to build. They can upgrade the local roads and leave it at that.
Regarding Tesla, it's pretty absurd for a major infrastructure project like I-11 to hinge on a company like Tesla. The company only makes things for very rich people, whom make up a very tiny segment of the population. None of their products are affordable to the other 99% of the population. That equals small, niche output in manufacturing. It's not a powerhouse. Stock traders are only finally starting to figure out that one.
QuoteThe Carson Valley, teeming with California "refugees", has been deemed to be taking care of itself just fine without depending upon Interstate access to the south part of the state; its economic well-being is derived from residents and the growth of those -- it's not dependent on the sort of tourist income that a long Interstate corridor would supply. Likewise, Reno doesn't need to be tethered to Las Vegas by a singular direct corridor; that metro area is growing quite well "as is" -- but some sort of efficient (read: freeway) corridor linking it to the state's other attraction has been sought for quite some time both in and out of state government.
That just sounds like yet another reason not to build I-11 North of Vegas. If the folks in Carson City don't want it and the people in Reno don't care about it, then why build it? Especially why build it if it can't be built on a proper alignment?
Quote from: sparkerSo one has to take I-80 east 30 miles to reach I-11? No big whoop -- just do it!
If the end result is a super highway not enough vehicles will use there is no reason to do it.
The drive between Reno-Carson City and Las Vegas is already a pretty long drive. It's long enough that people who travel regularly between those two cities will often do so by air. Traffic counts on US-95 between Las Vegas and the Reno region are not high. Unless I-11 delivers some serious mileage savings over the current US-95 route there very little chance traffic counts will increase significantly. And that would make such an Interstate upgrade a big waste of money.
^^^^^^^^
One thing is obvious with I-11 north of LV -- it is a politically motivated corridor, both at the state and national levels. But, like it or not, that is the way that such projects are done today! Since 1973, when designation of additional Interstates was relegated to the individual states, effectively keeping any national effort like the 1968 group of additions from occurring (blame Nixon for that one!), political considerations, coupled with economic projections, have driven virtually every Interstate addition that has occurred; some efforts have plainly been more speculative in nature than others. And some have been "reparative" in nature -- an area lacking Interstate service claims historic or even deliberate neglect, and stakes a claim to a corridor intended to remedy the situation. I'm not going to "laundry list" all the "after-market" Interstates here -- but plainly some that have been built or proposed have more actual value than others in terms of overall system enhancement.
For the last decade and a half the methodology of choice for those promoting new Interstate corridors has been to either tack an Interstate designation on to an existing high priority corridor, then lobby for funding -- or, if a route is desired that's not on or near on of these corridors, to have one's local congressperson introduce legislation designating a new corridor complete with built-in Interstate status. The former was utilized in the case of the north of Vegas corridor; HPC #68 had been sitting around for years -- and was actually utilized as a funding conduit for the I-580 Reno-Carson City facility, since its language was deliberately vague, authorizing a potential corridor from LV to northern NV plus a Washoe Valley (Reno-Carson) route. A couple of years back this corridor definition was changed; it was split into two separate sections -- "Washoe" and "Intermountain"; the latter, specifying LV to I-80 as the principal parameter, was further designated as I-11 -- not the Washoe route, which was previously addressed by the deployment of I-580. The northern Intermountain corridor terminus was simply defined as I-80 -- which obviously took in a great deal of territory, as well as giving various interest groups quite a bit of latitude to advocate for their choice regarding the northernmost corridor portion, including a western option through the Washoe range to access the US 395 corridor as well as an eastern option for a new-terrain corridor directly connecting Tonopah with Fallon. NDOT conducted meetings with input from folks affected by the various options presented; what seemed to be the conclusion was this: The western/Washoe route was plainly the most difficult in terms of construction and corresponding cost; while serving the greatest present population, the CBE was overwhelmingly unfavorable in this case. And while there were some local advocates for this option, once it was discarded for cost reasons it didn't appear to raise a lot of local complaint about that action -- apparently the growing population of the Carson Valley (Minden, Gardnerville, etc.) had no overwhelming desire to access Las Vegas on a regular basis (why should they; as NV residents they've got plenty of local recreational options). Objections from the Hawthorne area doomed the eastern "beeline" route north of Tonopah, which would have bypassed the city along US 95. What was left were two options, basically one along US 95 and the other along Alternate US 95 on both sides of the Fallon Valley. NDOT had outlined several "options within options" to connect those two central corridors; after the meeting, it was clear that the US 95 option plus the "crossover" skirting Fallon to the southwest and intersecting I-80 just north of Fernley was the preference of most locals plus the NDOT engineers.
And the Fallon Valley is experiencing growth -- one only has to peruse the real estate ads in Northern California newspapers to see that housing in that area is expanding rapidly -- and is priced to be attractive; for comparable dwellings, the cost is about 25% less than over the Washoes in Reno, Carson City, and the towns south along US 395, about 40% less than Sacramento and environs, and 50-80% less than the Bay Area and its suburbs. I've had at least a half dozen friends (and a couple of clients) indicate they were either moving or planning to move to Northern Nevada; a couple of them at retirement age are looking at Fallon-area homes. I would characterize that area as similar to St. George, Utah about 20-25 years ago -- just beginning to exhibit consistent growth patterns.
The I-11 corridor north of Las Vegas is speculative in nature -- but it appears to be a chance that NDOT and NV commercial interests are willing to take, given the growth the state has experienced over the past years. It certainly won't be a "beeline" by any means; the "basin & range" nature of the state's topology doesn't render such a concept practicable. As far as traffic counts go, they'll likely increase incrementally with population; it'll probably be close to that of I-80 across the state, particularly in terms of commercial usage. Further extension to Oregon or Idaho would certainly add additional traffic to the mix. But if their congressional delegation is worth their pay, the I-11 corridor will get enough Federal funds, in addition to in-state funding, to complete it, probably over a 15-20-year span. But expect construction to occur first at both ends (the expressway upgrade at the south, and a Fallon Valley server at the north) in order to bolster support for the project by providing SIU's near the termini. Bypasses of the various towns along US 95 would be next: Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, with the interim mileage following.
One of the benefits NV hopes to reap from I-11 is in provision of a facility connecting its twin tourist attractions (LV and Reno/Tahoe) that doesn't display the characteristics of a lonely 2-lane desert road; the idea here is to promote tourist movement along the corridor between the south & north regions on a road that doesn't feature speed traps and behind-truck slogging but which does have the type of on-road amenities common to Interstate corridors. With an Interstate corridor promising relative safety and familiarity, it would be similar to a L.A.-S.F. concept but with different scenery! Bottom line -- NV interests don't think I-11 is a waste of money -- and they're the ones who count in terms of actual development.
Here's the October 2018 I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis Draft Report:
https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=15753 (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=15753)
I haven't read the full thing yet, but to cut to the chase,
B2 and B3 are the alternatives recommended for further study:
(https://i.imgur.com/A198nmB.jpg)
They are looking for public comments. From the press release:
QuoteThe public can visit i11study.com to review and comment on the draft document. All comments must be submitted before Nov. 8, 2018 via email to kverre@dot.nv.gov or by mail to 1263 South Stewart Street, Carson City, NV 89712 ATTN: Kevin Verre, room 205.
^^^^^^^^
My money's on B2 -- it'll be somewhat easier to construct and serves a larger population base. Glad to see they're doing the smart thing and bypassing Walker Lake on the east -- the railroad had the right idea to begin with!
Could 'B4' eventually evolve into an 'even' 3DI from this? I can also see a more major connection between I-580 and US 395 (south) in California developing as part of this.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on October 11, 2018, 11:34:13 AM
Could 'B4' eventually evolve into an 'even' 3DI from this? I can also see a more major connection between I-580 and US 395 (south) in California developing as part of this.
Mike
Going through the details of the report, B4 seems pretty unrealistic due to cost and environmental issues. I'd say upgrades to the existing US 50 between Carson City and Silver Springs (if B3 is chosen) or the Fallon area (B2) are the most likely direct connection between Carson City and I-11.
B-4 could become an extended I-580. B-2/B-3 can then be numbered I-11/I-711 with the numbers going either way. Of course who knows whether any of these routes make economic sense today or 20 years from now but the lines on the map do look good!
Rick
It's clear that B4 is dead -- although something down US 395 -- maybe all the way to the CA state line -- isn't out of the question. And although Caltrans hasn't shown much inclination to engage in upgrades of US 395 north of Conway Summit, the best bet for a corridor connecting the Carson Valley to other points is still straight down that existing arterial rather than a new-terrain route through the mountains to the east. The NV 208/US 95A combination has always seemed out of the way and never an efficient way to effect travel to the southeast (too much backtracking!); and the terrain that 208 traverses would require quite heroic (read outlandishly expensive) construction to achieve an upgrade to Interstate status. That's likely reasons #1-20 why B4 was rejected.
If Caltrans and its political handlers can be convinced to upgrade all of US 395 north from metro L.A. to the NV line at Topaz Lake to at least the standards seen in the Owens Valley, that might be more useful/valuable to Carson Valley residents, many of them CA "refugees", than a direct path to Las Vegas. If they want to get to I-11, it's simply a matter of heading east on US 50 (itself being gradually improved, largely because of growth in the Silver Spring area).
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2018, 05:46:04 PM
If Caltrans and its political handlers can be convinced to upgrade all of US 395 north from metro L.A. to the NV line at Topaz Lake to at least the standards seen in the Owens Valley, that might be more useful/valuable to Carson Valley residents, many of them CA "refugees", than a direct path to Las Vegas. If they want to get to I-11, it's simply a matter of heading east on US 50 (itself being gradually improved, largely because of growth in the Silver Spring area).
So true regarding US 395.
Rick
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.
I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.
ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 02:13:58 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.
I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.
Bout damn time. I reported that error at least twice... :pan:
Quote from: Bruce on October 12, 2018, 02:58:26 AM
ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf
I perused that document at the PSU library shortly after it was published; ironically, on the way up from CA I used US 97 (97/58 was always my NB route of choice except in winter) and dodged a substantial number of logging trucks (and wishing the damn thing was at least 2+2 divided!). At the time -- based on projections formulated prior to 2001 -- the conclusions were reasonably valid. In regard to any US 395 alignment, in all probability they still are. However, the growth of the Bend/Redmond area in the 17+ years since the release of the document -- while not rivaling in numbers or percentage such "boom" areas like the Boise/Treasure Valley region of Idaho -- is still significant -- and any transportation planning efforts should revisit at least the US 97 corridor concepts if the results of the 2020 census bear out the area's growth rate.
That being said -- if it is decided to continue the I-11 corridor up into Oregon, aiming it at I-5 in the Rogue Valley, IMO, remains the most feasible way to "shunt" traffic from the main NW population areas over to the I-11 "shortcut" to Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. The level of commercial traffic on US 97 -- at least as far north as Madras and the US 26 junction -- warrants at least a 4-lane expressway; a fully-Interstate-grade facility might be appropriate in the future; but for the present providing a divided expressway (possibly of the "Midwest" type, with short freeway segments around populated areas) to expedite the mix of commercial and recreational traffic would be sufficient (it could be upgraded if warranted down the line).
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 02:13:58 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM
Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.
I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.
Bout damn time. I reported that error at least twice... :pan:
Aw, I was looking forward to that alignment being part of I-11 :-(
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 05:38:04 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 12, 2018, 02:58:26 AM
ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf
I perused that document at the PSU library shortly after it was published; ironically, on the way up from CA I used US 97 (97/58 was always my NB route of choice except in winter) and dodged a substantial number of logging trucks (and wishing the damn thing was at least 2+2 divided!). At the time -- based on projections formulated prior to 2001 -- the conclusions were reasonably valid. In regard to any US 395 alignment, in all probability they still are. However, the growth of the Bend/Redmond area in the 17+ years since the release of the document -- while not rivaling in numbers or percentage such "boom" areas like the Boise/Treasure Valley region of Idaho -- is still significant -- and any transportation planning efforts should revisit at least the US 97 corridor concepts if the results of the 2020 census bear out the area's growth rate.
That being said -- if it is decided to continue the I-11 corridor up into Oregon, aiming it at I-5 in the Rogue Valley, IMO, remains the most feasible way to "shunt" traffic from the main NW population areas over to the I-11 "shortcut" to Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. The level of commercial traffic on US 97 -- at least as far north as Madras and the US 26 junction -- warrants at least a 4-lane expressway; a fully-Interstate-grade facility might be appropriate in the future; but for the present providing a divided expressway (possibly of the "Midwest" type, with short freeway segments around populated areas) to expedite the mix of commercial and recreational traffic would be sufficient (it could be upgraded if warranted down the line).
Once again, So True! Bend's traffic is as congested as the SW PDX suburban traffic is so it seems like Bend itself needs a metro freeway system that is more than US 97. At least ODOT will do US 97 in chunks by adding in 4-lane segments, then linking them up as the years go by. 62 in Medford got a freeway bypass for a short distance and it will be complete in December if all goes well with interchanges to be added later. If 140 was an expressway, that would make for a higher volume connection between the Rogue Valley and the Klamath Basin.
What does our region look like in 2040? Then we will know what dots to connect. How much of that works into an I-11? I would sure love to know!
Rick
So the B4 option won't happen?
I wonder if Carson City and Reno would prefer to have that so they have a Major Interstate running through both of them.
The "Community Acceptance" section of the report says the comments received in the NDOT meetings were more negative in regard to B4 than to any of the alternatives.
QuoteRoute B4
This alternative received a high level of negative public sentiment. Concerns with Route B4 were centered on traffic impacts to the already congested Reno/Sparks and Carson Valley areas. Many respondents felt this alternative would negatively impact the region's traffic congestion. Another major concern included the difficulty in implementing a connection between Mason Valley and Carson Valley due to topographical constraints.
B4 is considered "not accepted."
I live in Douglas County, where Minden and Gardnerville are located. The loudest voices in the community tend to be very anti-growth, wanting to preserve the agricultural character of Carson Valley. I think there's also an undercurrent of resentment against more Californians moving in, which would be the likely result of growth, especially since Californians tend to be liberal politically and Douglas County has a very high ratio of GOP registered voters to Democrat registered voters. All local elected officials are Republicans.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 14, 2018, 02:35:24 PM
So the B4 option won't happen?
I wonder if Carson City and Reno would prefer to have that so they have a Major Interstate running through both of them.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 14, 2018, 05:49:56 PM
The "Community Acceptance" section of the report says the comments received in the NDOT meetings were more negative in regard to B4 than to any of the alternatives.
QuoteRoute B4
This alternative received a high level of negative public sentiment. Concerns with Route B4 were centered on traffic impacts to the already congested Reno/Sparks and Carson Valley areas. Many respondents felt this alternative would negatively impact the region's traffic congestion. Another major concern included the difficulty in implementing a connection between Mason Valley and Carson Valley due to topographical constraints.
B4 is considered "not accepted."
I live in Douglas County, where Minden and Gardnerville are located. The loudest voices in the community tend to be very anti-growth, wanting to preserve the agricultural character of Carson Valley. I think there's also an undercurrent of resentment against more Californians moving in, which would be the likely result of growth, especially since Californians tend to be liberal politically and Douglas County has a very high ratio of GOP registered voters to Democrat registered voters. All local elected officials are Republicans.
Ironically, many of the California residents seeking new homes in the mountain states (and TX, for that matter) are more conservative types who are looking to relocate in areas that reflect their viewpoints -- although that is more often than not a secondary consideration after the sheer differences in cost of living. I
do know a few folks of the more liberal variety who are moving east, but they're aiming for Reno, which provides a more urban environment. Since the south end of the Carson Valley (Minden, Gardnerville, etc.) is mostly larger "ranch"-style properties, it's not difficult to see that an Interstate-grade freeway through their midst might evoke mixed reaction -- while there's the NIMBY factor, particularly if it's one's own land that would be appropriated for the corridor, there's also not the generalist "anti-freeway" factor found within urban circles. If a freeway paralleling US 395 could somehow minimize taking of improved property, it would probably be accepted, if a bit grudgingly. But the conservative nature of the area likely came into play with the projected fiscal costs of a cross-mountain connection over to Yerington and Walker Lake -- not enough valley residents were willing to spend a huge chunk of their reluctantly-parted-with tax dollars to get to Vegas a couple of hours quicker! Looks like the value of I-11 is seen as a reasonably regional commercial corridor in addition to its long-distance role;
not going directly into Reno and adding to the congestion there may just be seen as a saving grace. The Fallon/Fernley area is seen as a "close enough to work" connection point; like horseshoes, it's a "leaner" that can amass points!
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.
Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but... it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.
Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the
contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but... it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.
That
is interesting -- I'm wondering if the plans for such I-11 signage that far north are in any way related to the original signage contract that was to replace I-515 shields south of the I-215 interchange with those of I-11. IIRC, that contract was suspended until the through-town study was to be completed early next year. If these are more recent plans -- and signed off by NDOT, then that's a bit of a "tell" regarding their conclusions. Perhaps the US 95 routing is more of a "given" than has been let on so far, and the alternate alignments are simply posited to obfuscate the fact that NDOT intends to overlay I-11 on US 95 unless there's a massive outcry for something else -- just the agency pulling a CYA maneuver (wouldn't be the first time a DOT did something like this!).
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:33:58 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.
Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the
contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but... it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.
That is interesting -- I'm wondering if the plans for such I-11 signage that far north are in any way related to the original signage contract that was to replace I-515 shields south of the I-215 interchange with those of I-11. IIRC, that contract was suspended until the through-town study was to be completed early next year. If these are more recent plans -- and signed off by NDOT, then that's a bit of a "tell" regarding their conclusions. Perhaps the US 95 routing is more of a "given" than has been let on so far, and the alternate alignments are simply posited to obfuscate the fact that NDOT intends to overlay I-11 on US 95 unless there's a massive outcry for something else -- just the agency pulling a CYA maneuver (wouldn't be the first time a DOT did something like this!).
Sub-Urbanite: Where did you get the plans? I'm interested to take a look.
Sparker: Doubtful that the signage in this project was in any way related to the original I-515/I-11 signage contract... Despite my insistence that NDOT hasn't made any formal decisions about I-11's Vegas routing, I've always kinda suspected that they'd favor the US 95 option. We had a "hint" mentioned previously–recent I-15 SB to US 95 NB/MLK ramp sign replacement wide enough to accommodate a future I-11 shield (Original (https://goo.gl/maps/zfhXaiqx82D2) vs April 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/uH4ZHfThgkQ2), although note the entire sign structure was changed/moved). Another thing I just thought of is that either of the options using portions of the 215 would, at least currently, put I-11 on a non-NDOT roadway...as far as I know, it's still planned to turn CC-215 over to NDOT, but who knows...
Check the e-bidding portal for the ramp project, Plan sets 2 and 3. If I could figure out how to upload directly, or at least an image, I would.
Mildly less interesting update: The plans for the US 95 / 157 interchange also have the I-11 shield ordered on the signs, and covered with a green square.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 06, 2018, 05:08:52 PM
Mildly less interesting update: The plans for the US 95 / 157 interchange also have the I-11 shield ordered on the signs, and covered with a green square.
Yet another indication that NV is
really intent on rolling forward with I-11 "north". That brings up another issue: The planning map (see reply #458 above) indicates that a new-terrain bypass of Indian Springs is in the works; my question is why? The present US 95 expressway through town has no private access; the town's streets parallel to that facility function as effective frontage roads, and there are terrain issues to the south and Creech AFB's runway facilities to the north. Why not just erect overpasses and/or put I-11 on a berm through town? If as I suspect the initial foray NW of LV will be an upgrading of the already divided US 95 out to Mercury, it would seem that the more direct approach would expedite any such plans.
Quote from: roadfro on October 31, 2018, 10:28:29 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:33:58 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2018, 06:51:02 PM
The plot thickens on I-11's routing through Southern Nevada.
Taking a look at the contract plans for the next ramp in the 95/215 Centennial Bowl interchange, the bid calls for the
contractor to put both the I-11 and US 95 shields on signs to Southbound US 95 from CC 215. Now, one engineer's design on a planset does not a decision make, but… it's as clear of an indication that I've seen that I-11 will be routed through Las Vegas and not around it.
That is interesting -- I'm wondering if the plans for such I-11 signage that far north are in any way related to the original signage contract that was to replace I-515 shields south of the I-215 interchange with those of I-11. IIRC, that contract was suspended until the through-town study was to be completed early next year. If these are more recent plans -- and signed off by NDOT, then that's a bit of a "tell" regarding their conclusions. Perhaps the US 95 routing is more of a "given" than has been let on so far, and the alternate alignments are simply posited to obfuscate the fact that NDOT intends to overlay I-11 on US 95 unless there's a massive outcry for something else -- just the agency pulling a CYA maneuver (wouldn't be the first time a DOT did something like this!).
Sub-Urbanite: Where did you get the plans? I'm interested to take a look.
Sparker: Doubtful that the signage in this project was in any way related to the original I-515/I-11 signage contract... Despite my insistence that NDOT hasn't made any formal decisions about I-11's Vegas routing, I've always kinda suspected that they'd favor the US 95 option. We had a "hint" mentioned previously—recent I-15 SB to US 95 NB/MLK ramp sign replacement wide enough to accommodate a future I-11 shield (Original (https://goo.gl/maps/zfhXaiqx82D2) vs April 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/uH4ZHfThgkQ2), although note the entire sign structure was changed/moved). Another thing I just thought of is that either of the options using portions of the 215 would, at least currently, put I-11 on a non-NDOT roadway...as far as I know, it's still planned to turn CC-215 over to NDOT, but who knows...
Quote from: sparker on November 08, 2018, 02:57:43 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 06, 2018, 05:08:52 PM
Mildly less interesting update: The plans for the US 95 / 157 interchange also have the I-11 shield ordered on the signs, and covered with a green square.
Yet another indication that NV is really intent on rolling forward with I-11 "north". That brings up another issue: The planning map (see reply #458 above) indicates that a new-terrain bypass of Indian Springs is in the works; my question is why? The present US 95 expressway through town has no private access; the town's streets parallel to that facility function as effective frontage roads, and there are terrain issues to the south and Creech AFB's runway facilities to the north. Why not just erect overpasses and/or put I-11 on a berm through town? If as I suspect the initial foray NW of LV will be an upgrading of the already divided US 95 out to Mercury, it would seem that the more direct approach would expedite any such plans.
No surprise there; my suspicions on I-11 replacing I-515 are closer to being confirmed. Also, it looks like they're getting serious about getting it all the way to at least I-80, though while the exact endpoint is still up in the air, Carson City's definitely a no-go. Still, I'd like to see a nonstop routing between Vegas and Reno someday, along with the one to Phoenix.
Quote from: sparker on November 08, 2018, 02:57:43 AM
Yet another indication that NV is really intent on rolling forward with I-11 "north". That brings up another issue: The planning map (see reply #458 above) indicates that a new-terrain bypass of Indian Springs is in the works; my question is why? The present US 95 expressway through town has no private access; the town's streets parallel to that facility function as effective frontage roads, and there are terrain issues to the south and Creech AFB's runway facilities to the north. Why not just erect overpasses and/or put I-11 on a berm through town? If as I suspect the initial foray NW of LV will be an upgrading of the already divided US 95 out to Mercury, it would seem that the more direct approach would expedite any such plans.
One could argue that, with our increased knowledge of the potency of PM 2.5 from diesel emissions, the public interest is served by moving freight traffic away from the residents.
The question is, where would it go? Between the town and the air force base, anything but an in-place upgrade is blocked along that corridor; the detour to go around would make the detour around Boulder City look like nothing.
Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2018, 01:13:37 PM
The question is, where would it go? Between the town and the air force base, anything but an in-place upgrade is blocked along that corridor; the detour to go around would make the detour around Boulder City look like nothing.
There's a pass in the hills south of town with relatively level terrain that's about 600 feet in elevation above the current alignment. Following the power lines, you'd be at about 2% grade and roughly the same travel distance for through traffic, about 10 miles of new road bed. Cheap? Nope. But what is?
^^^^^^^^^^
I'm guessing that there's something in play here besides the welfare of the residents and the proximity of the USAF installation -- possibly development plans calling for the present US 95 alignment as a commercial strip (business loop?), which would then mean some form of bypass. But we're probably still at least 5-7 years away from anything happening here regarding the I-11 corridor -- so plans likely still have an amount of flexibility.
If the people in Indian Springs and Creech AFB want I-11 to bypass the town I sure hope they understand the consequences of that choice. By the way, they'll be lumping Cactus Springs into that scenario.
A new terrain bypass to the South along the utility alignment would put most of the roadside businesses along present day US-95 out of business. Then there would just be Creech AFB and a few residences outside of it. That's all. It would suck for any civilians living there who didn't have access to the AFB. They would have to drive 30 miles back to Las Vegas just to get fuel, groceries, etc. Perhaps new gas stations, convenience stores and fast food joints would pop up along the bypass merge points of US-95 & I-11 several miles East & West of Indian Springs. But that's no guarantee.
IMHO, it would be better for existing US-95 to be upgraded through Indian Springs. There is plenty of room to accomplish it. I don't buy the diesel fuel angle as the reason for a bypass. All kinds of diesel trucks routinely travel through any business district, whether they're passing through or making deliveries. Living on or next door to an Air Force Base isn't an environmentalist paradise either.
I'm wondering if it would be actually be cheaper to build a new terrain bypass around Indian Springs. An upgrade thru Indian Springs wouldn't require new ROW. But it's a given the pavement would likely be completely re-done along that stretch. And at least a couple or so new freeway exits would be required. Compare that to just building a bypass to the South with no exits, little if any utility relocation, etc.
There's also an angle of security. Maybe Air Force planners don't want a new super highway running close to that base. More traffic could mean more chances of people snooping around, taking pictures, etc. There's conflicting philosophies with highway access to military installations. Security is one concern. But the Interstate highway system was created in part to move military equipment quickly. Plenty of installations have direct access to freeways via exits at their gates. Some freeways even go inside or thru the bases.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 09, 2018, 12:46:36 PM
If the people in Indian Springs and Creech AFB want I-11 to bypass the town I sure hope they understand the consequences of that choice. By the way, they'll be lumping Cactus Springs into that scenario.
A new terrain bypass to the South along the utility alignment would put most of the roadside businesses along present day US-95 out of business. Then there would just be Creech AFB and a few residences outside of it. That's all. It would suck for any civilians living there who didn't have access to the AFB. They would have to drive 30 miles back to Las Vegas just to get fuel, groceries, etc. Perhaps new gas stations, convenience stores and fast food joints would pop up along the bypass merge points of US-95 & I-11 several miles East & West of Indian Springs. But that's no guarantee.
IMHO, it would be better for existing US-95 to be upgraded through Indian Springs. There is plenty of room to accomplish it. I don't buy the diesel fuel angle as the reason for a bypass. All kinds of diesel trucks routinely travel through any business district, whether they're passing through or making deliveries. Living on or next door to an Air Force Base isn't an environmentalist paradise either.
I'm wondering if it would be actually be cheaper to build a new terrain bypass around Indian Springs. An upgrade thru Indian Springs wouldn't require new ROW. But it's a given the pavement would likely be completely re-done along that stretch. And at least a couple or so new freeway exits would be required. Compare that to just building a bypass to the South with no exits, little if any utility relocation, etc.
Guessing you've never been to scenic Cactus Springs, which consists of a hippie temple and a boarded-up bar, and nothing else.
As for Indian Springs, the town has exactly one highway-based business, a gas station / mini-mart. I guess it's all to say, it'll be up to the fine people of Indian Springs to compare the potential costs of a bypass (fiscal and potential loss of services) with the potential costs of an in-town route (exposure to exhaust and noise pollution). And, surely, the Air Force will have a say in the matter.
^^^^^^^^
I suppose they could trench I-11 along the existing US 95 alignment; that would keep curious eyes out of USAF territory at its nearest point; what there is of roadside business could be arrayed along the frontage streets. Either option -- in-town or southern bypass -- the life of that town won't be the same.
Quote from: sparker on November 09, 2018, 05:17:29 PM
^^^^^^^^
I suppose they could trench I-11 along the existing US 95 alignment; that would keep curious eyes out of USAF territory at its nearest point; what there is of roadside business could be arrayed along the frontage streets. Either option -- in-town or southern bypass -- the life of that town won't be the same.
Creech AFB is the Air Force's big drone development facility, and has been expanding quite a bit in recent years. That expansion has actually taken out some of the business--compare 2015 Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5779741,-115.6699082,3a,75y,89.05h,80.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNrlJVyDIOJl5_cYQOaOeDg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to 2018 Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5779782,-115.6699258,3a,75y,89.05h,80.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7aJ4N0cbEB6XtcKD7Jv84w!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656). The area where the Chevron station, the RV park, and the casino/liquor store was in 2015 is now fenced off and part of the base.
It's also worth noting that in 2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5778525,-115.6649182,3a,75y,254.95h,83.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBSfpjN4Hnwo0cjDhZ8fY5Q!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656), there was also a 35mph zone on US-95 through Indian Springs. Having driven through in 2017, and confirming through 2018 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5778557,-115.6649516,3a,75y,275.89h,76.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJdp2-eJSeLDH8IwwcwfuwA!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) (the "Speed Limit 35" signs are gone), it's now 45mph all the way through town.
My feeling is that the Air Force will probably want to expand Creech even more in the coming years, and it's clear from the speed limit increase that NDOT is noting Indian Springs' dwindling population and activity levels, and allowing quicker travel as a result. The state patrol might be a bit disappointed in that their speed trap revenue there will be going down--and will really go down once I-11 goes in--but the Air Force is likely going to be in favor of the upgrade, as long as it meshes with whatever they plan to do with the base going forward.
The road is already configured as a wide expressway through town, which is built to the same sort of width standards as the free-flowing portions of US-95 on either side, and there are already frontage roads on each side. Provided NDOT can determine a solution that is acceptable to the Air Force, they may well be able to use the existing ROW. There would probably be room for a tight diamond at the MacFarland intersection--the main at-grade one in town--if the prospect of an elevated roadway isn't going to compromise anything at Creech. If not, then the southern bypass would likely be in play.
Quote from: Tarkus on November 11, 2018, 03:18:51 AM
The road is already configured as a wide expressway through town, which is built to the same sort of width standards as the free-flowing portions of US-95 on either side, and there are already frontage roads on each side. Provided NDOT can determine a solution that is acceptable to the Air Force, they may well be able to use the existing ROW. There would probably be room for a tight diamond at the MacFarland intersection--the main at-grade one in town--if the prospect of an elevated roadway isn't going to compromise anything at Creech. If not, then the southern bypass would likely be in play.
I was thinking more along the lines of a trench per my prior post -- with the possiblility of an extended diamond interchange utilizing the parallel frontage roads as effective ramp extensions, with the actual ramps NB off/SB on at th end of the several-block segment and the SB off/NB on at the NW end of the below-ground I-11 segment. An arrangement like that should satisfy the security needs around Creech while avoiding a relatively costly new-terrain segment.
Alternately -- if as stated above Creech is the USAF's "drone central", so to speak -- there might be the possibility that a defense aerospace contractor is looking to locate a design and/or production facility adjacent to the base itself -- which could possibly account for the southern bypass concept, as such a facility might well occupy the land used presently for US 95 -- and the commensurate housing development as support might be factored into any bypass decision.
^^
If you look closely at the 2015 image, you'll note that that area on the north side of the highway was already blocked off with concrete barriers and just to the east (towards Las Vegas), there are several vehicles parked on the frontage road with people standing around (likely USAF contractors), almost looking like they are reminiscing about the boarded up motel and other commercial buildings.
Mike
Quote from: Tarkus on November 11, 2018, 03:18:51 AM
Creech AFB is the Air Force's big drone development facility, and has been expanding quite a bit in recent years. That expansion has actually taken out some of the business--compare 2015 Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5779741,-115.6699082,3a,75y,89.05h,80.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNrlJVyDIOJl5_cYQOaOeDg!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to 2018 Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5779782,-115.6699258,3a,75y,89.05h,80.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7aJ4N0cbEB6XtcKD7Jv84w!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656). The area where the Chevron station, the RV park, and the casino/liquor store was in 2015 is now fenced off and part of the base.
It's also worth noting that in 2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5778525,-115.6649182,3a,75y,254.95h,83.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBSfpjN4Hnwo0cjDhZ8fY5Q!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656), there was also a 35mph zone on US-95 through Indian Springs. Having driven through in 2017, and confirming through 2018 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5778557,-115.6649516,3a,75y,275.89h,76.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJdp2-eJSeLDH8IwwcwfuwA!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) (the "Speed Limit 35" signs are gone), it's now 45mph all the way through town.
My feeling is that the Air Force will probably want to expand Creech even more in the coming years, and it's clear from the speed limit increase that NDOT is noting Indian Springs' dwindling population and activity levels, and allowing quicker travel as a result. The state patrol might be a bit disappointed in that their speed trap revenue there will be going down--and will really go down once I-11 goes in--but the Air Force is likely going to be in favor of the upgrade, as long as it meshes with whatever they plan to do with the base going forward.
The road is already configured as a wide expressway through town, which is built to the same sort of width standards as the free-flowing portions of US-95 on either side, and there are already frontage roads on each side. Provided NDOT can determine a solution that is acceptable to the Air Force, they may well be able to use the existing ROW. There would probably be room for a tight diamond at the MacFarland intersection--the main at-grade one in town--if the prospect of an elevated roadway isn't going to compromise anything at Creech. If not, then the southern bypass would likely be in play.
Quote from: sparker on November 11, 2018, 04:38:20 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of a trench per my prior post -- with the possiblility of an extended diamond interchange utilizing the parallel frontage roads as effective ramp extensions, with the actual ramps NB off/SB on at th end of the several-block segment and the SB off/NB on at the NW end of the below-ground I-11 segment. An arrangement like that should satisfy the security needs around Creech while avoiding a relatively costly new-terrain segment.
Alternately -- if as stated above Creech is the USAF's "drone central", so to speak -- there might be the possibility that a defense aerospace contractor is looking to locate a design and/or production facility adjacent to the base itself -- which could possibly account for the southern bypass concept, as such a facility might well occupy the land used presently for US 95 -- and the commensurate housing development as support might be factored into any bypass decision.
Note the increased speed limit through Indian Springs is likely a direct result of there now being a lack of anything of importance along the north side frontage road. Previously, there was the original Creech AFB main gate at the west end, an RV park at the MacFarland intersection, and the Chevron, casino, and a hotel near the east end–US 95 had crosswalks (with continuously flashing beacons) and longitudinal rumble strips at MacFarland and at least one other location. Today, the original main gate is still there but not in major use (the east entrance seems to have been built up since 2007 to be a more major entrance/inspection area), and everything else public has been razed. US 95 was resurfaced in and west of Indian Springs a few years ago, with the rumble strips being removed, and the crosswalks were later removed. I'm fairly certain the speed limit change happened concurrently with the crosswalk removal, likely as a result of the decreased cross traffic.
Looking at the aerials, it appears much of the new development at Creech has been on the northeast corner of the base property. But I also see some newer looking buildings and parking lots on the south side near US 95 as well.
I could easily see providing for a diamond interchange at the main east gate to Creech AFB and another diamond (or split diamond) to serve Indian Springs. The highway ROW has a wide median, which could be narrowed to make tight diamond configurations work. They could even find solutions that remove the north frontage road adjacent to the base to provide more separation. Plenty of solutions that don't necessitate a southern bypass...some minor realigning could be far more cost effective.
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.
Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.
Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.
If they, for any reason, drop the speed limit below the state maximum, there is no reason to build the road. The current US-95 (even the 2-lane portion) is posted for 70MPH except around Walker Lake and through town. If they can't post the new freeway 80+MPH all of the way to I-80, why would they even build it?
I wonder if Nevada will ever bring back "dereg", which was effectively the speed limit before 1974. The state has gotten a little bit more pro-reg over the last 45 years, but once east of the shadow of the Sierras, I don't really see the point of speed limits outside of towns. Outside of the built up areas, why bother with a speed limit. I got popped for 85/70 by Officer Donahue back in 1997 on the two-lane portion in Nye County. It was perfectly safe even on the existing road.
Quote from: michravera on November 12, 2018, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.
Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.
If they, for any reason, drop the speed limit below the state maximum, there is no reason to build the road. The current US-95 (even the 2-lane portion) is posted for 70MPH except around Walker Lake and through town. If they can't post the new freeway 80+MPH all of the way to I-80, why would they even build it?
I wonder if Nevada will ever bring back "dereg", which was effectively the speed limit before 1974. The state has gotten a little bit more pro-reg over the last 45 years, but once east of the shadow of the Sierras, I don't really see the point of speed limits outside of towns. Outside of the built up areas, why bother with a speed limit. I got popped for 85/70 by Officer Donahue back in 1997 on the two-lane portion in Nye County. It was perfectly safe even on the existing road.
They
could conceivably drop an I-11 speed from 70 down to 60 if a through-town routing was configured as a narrower-than-usual alignment (e.g. I-5 through Arbuckle, CA on the original 1958 bypass); that would be more of an inconvenience than an obstacle. But if that's offered as an option when the final plans for the route through the town are being considered, it may make the southern bypass more desirable.
I remembered driving to Vegas back in 1969 on spring break -- with a new 327 engine in my old Chevy (and a transmission upgrade as well) I got up into the mid-100's on I-15 near Jean under the old "reasonable and prudent" law (not that doing 150 on any Interstate is either reasonable or prudent -- you do dumb shit when you're 19). I suppose NV could conceivably bring back that standard -- but, like with prostitution, they'd probably leave it up to the individual counties -- and Clark County, being increasingly "civilized" over the past several decades, would in all likelihood opt to maintain the current limit system. The rural/desert counties? Probably some of them would lift the limits -- it all depends upon who's running them if and when the decision is made.
Quote from: sparker on November 12, 2018, 12:59:21 PM
Quote from: michravera on November 12, 2018, 12:29:55 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 11, 2018, 01:50:03 PM
If they do end up upgrading existing US-95 through Indian Springs they could make use of those tall concrete sound walls that line a bunch of urban freeways next to residential zones. Those things would block out of any view highway traffic could get of the Air Force Base.
Still, if the population in the town is dwindling and the AFB is buying up more property around there it might be easiest to just shoot I-11 through that mountain gap and bypass the whole area. Fewer exits and other stuff to build. No slow downs in speed limit either.
If they, for any reason, drop the speed limit below the state maximum, there is no reason to build the road. The current US-95 (even the 2-lane portion) is posted for 70MPH except around Walker Lake and through town. If they can't post the new freeway 80+MPH all of the way to I-80, why would they even build it?
I wonder if Nevada will ever bring back "dereg", which was effectively the speed limit before 1974. The state has gotten a little bit more pro-reg over the last 45 years, but once east of the shadow of the Sierras, I don't really see the point of speed limits outside of towns. Outside of the built up areas, why bother with a speed limit. I got popped for 85/70 by Officer Donahue back in 1997 on the two-lane portion in Nye County. It was perfectly safe even on the existing road.
They could conceivably drop an I-11 speed from 70 down to 60 if a through-town routing was configured as a narrower-than-usual alignment (e.g. I-5 through Arbuckle, CA on the original 1958 bypass); that would be more of an inconvenience than an obstacle. But if that's offered as an option when the final plans for the route through the town are being considered, it may make the southern bypass more desirable.
I remembered driving to Vegas back in 1969 on spring break -- with a new 327 engine in my old Chevy (and a transmission upgrade as well) I got up into the mid-100's on I-15 near Jean under the old "reasonable and prudent" law (not that doing 150 on any Interstate is either reasonable or prudent -- you do dumb shit when you're 19). I suppose NV could conceivably bring back that standard -- but, like with prostitution, they'd probably leave it up to the individual counties -- and Clark County, being increasingly "civilized" over the past several decades, would in all likelihood opt to maintain the current limit system. The rural/desert counties? Probably some of them would lift the limits -- it all depends upon who's running them if and when the decision is made.
The divided portion from Vegas to Searchlight is 75 MPH, the times I've been down there I never got why the divided stretch north of Vegas was just 70 MPH, the same as the 2-lane stretch (more at grade crossings?). Really none of those US 95 towns have anywhere near the population to warrant a drop in freeway by-pass speed limit, if anything it would be because of terrain issues and Indian Springs is the only one where routing through town is remotely feasible over a new bypass and Bus. I-11 or separate US 95 routing along the original alignment.
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!
Quote from: pdx-wanderer on November 14, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!
I don't think anyone is getting any tickets on I-15 between Vegas and Primm for going 75. Or for going 80. There are enough idiots going 100+ in that stretch to keep NHP busy. Going 100 in a 75 is a $215 fine, going 100 in a 70 is a $305 fine, and if you're dumb enough to go 100 in that busy stretch of freeway, you deserve every bit of that extra $90.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 14, 2018, 07:34:44 PM
Quote from: pdx-wanderer on November 14, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!
I don't think anyone is getting any tickets on I-15 between Vegas and Primm for going 75. Or for going 80. There are enough idiots going 100+ in that stretch to keep NHP busy. Going 100 in a 75 is a $215 fine, going 100 in a 70 is a $305 fine, and if you're dumb enough to go 100 in that busy stretch of freeway, you deserve every bit of that extra $90.
call me whatever you want but i routinely do 100MPH or so sometimes faster and have no issue with police. I've even passed one doing 105 and all he did was flash his lights. That stretch of freeway often has the passing lane clear and I'll cruise it the whole way unless someone wants to go faster than me which happens every once in awhile.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 14, 2018, 08:35:22 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 14, 2018, 07:34:44 PM
Quote from: pdx-wanderer on November 14, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Hopefully the speed limit would be 75 or 80, I believe the only 70 mph interstates in NV are Sparks-Fernley and Vegas-CA. The first one does have some terrain but, Vegas-CA to me doesn't seem to have any good reason to be that low, other than to trap overly excited Vegas vacationers after the wholly unenforced 70 stretch in CA. The biggest increase in real I-11 speed will probably come from not a higher speed limit but eliminating instances of being stuck behind large vehicles, especially on some of the more hilly areas. I can't remember ever seeing as much suicide lane passing on a 2 lane road - US 97 is the only thing in Oregon that comes close to that!
I don't think anyone is getting any tickets on I-15 between Vegas and Primm for going 75. Or for going 80. There are enough idiots going 100+ in that stretch to keep NHP busy. Going 100 in a 75 is a $215 fine, going 100 in a 70 is a $305 fine, and if you're dumb enough to go 100 in that busy stretch of freeway, you deserve every bit of that extra $90.
call me whatever you want but i routinely do 100MPH or so sometimes faster and have no issue with police. I've even passed one doing 105 and all he did was flash his lights. That stretch of freeway often has the passing lane clear and I'll cruise it the whole way unless someone wants to go faster than me which happens every once in awhile.
Eh. I personally won't drive that fast there (I found traffic from Vegas-AZ to feel much faster - less than an hour from the Spaghetti Bowl to Mesquite!) but they should just raise the speed limit there and be done with it...CA should too but a limit higher than 70 in CA seems unlikely while NV has 80 mph zones already. There is no good reason for it to be that low. Even many freeway speeds in Vegas could probably be 70-75. The new I-11 was the same thing, 65 mph (which did seem to be actually being enforced when I went through there) through open desert is way too slow! especially when you also have 75 mph US 95 there too.
Point being I hope they give I-11 through the desert the 80 mph it deserves.
I won't drive that fast during heavy traffic. But, when there is no one there, I'm ready to get back to LA. I am usually not passing people faster than 10MPH that are in the middle lane.
I strangely have found myself driving slower and slower recently though I'm only 24 I still
Have a lead foot. No doubt I've had tons of tickets.
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?
Technically, NDOT's still doing a study regarding the alignment of I-11 through the center of LV Metro: stay on US 95, use the 215 bypass west of town, or construct a new alignment well to the east of development. Practically, from most indications they've actually selected the direct/95 route; there are spaces on newer BGS's for I-11 shields; there's a contract for signage (although
those have been delayed before) for I-11 north of the 215 interchange north of town -- and AFAIK there have been no formal proposals for a "cutoff" between the NW corner of the 215 bypass and US 95 near the NV 157 interchange -- which would render the western bypass a minimally feasible through Interstate corridor. Odds are that the study is a formality and that I-11 signage will be placed along US 95 by 2020. As far as any AZ signage is concerned, that may go in a different direction. I-11 signage probably won't occur, at least on the stretch NW of Kingman, until (a) the Kingman bypass/connector is let and under construction, and (b) work commences on upgrading/converting US 93 to Interstate standards along that corridor segment.
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?
Technically, NDOT's still doing a study regarding the alignment of I-11 through the center of LV Metro: stay on US 95, use the 215 bypass west of town, or construct a new alignment well to the east of development. Practically, from most indications they've actually selected the direct/95 route; there are spaces on newer BGS's for I-11 shields; there's a contract for signage (although those have been delayed before) for I-11 north of the 215 interchange north of town -- and AFAIK there have been no formal proposals for a "cutoff" between the NW corner of the 215 bypass and US 95 near the NV 157 interchange -- which would render the western bypass a minimally feasible through Interstate corridor. Odds are that the study is a formality and that I-11 signage will be placed along US 95 by 2020. As far as any AZ signage is concerned, that may go in a different direction. I-11 signage probably won't occur, at least on the stretch NW of Kingman, until (a) the Kingman bypass/connector is let and under construction, and (b) work commences on upgrading/converting US 93 to Interstate standards along that corridor segment.
Theoretically, assuming NDOT were to choose the US 95 alignment through Vegas, then you could see I-11 signed that far. Practically, I don't think NDOT would sign it any further north than the NW 215 interchange in the short term, and I don't know that it would be signed any further south than the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona until other improvements happen
Actually, that signage project was for I-515
south of the Henderson Spaghetti Bowl 215 interchange. It was in the STIP for 2017 or 2018, but I don't think NDOT ever put that out to bid...
Quote from: roadfro on December 18, 2018, 10:06:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?
Technically, NDOT's still doing a study regarding the alignment of I-11 through the center of LV Metro: stay on US 95, use the 215 bypass west of town, or construct a new alignment well to the east of development. Practically, from most indications they've actually selected the direct/95 route; there are spaces on newer BGS's for I-11 shields; there's a contract for signage (although those have been delayed before) for I-11 north of the 215 interchange north of town -- and AFAIK there have been no formal proposals for a "cutoff" between the NW corner of the 215 bypass and US 95 near the NV 157 interchange -- which would render the western bypass a minimally feasible through Interstate corridor. Odds are that the study is a formality and that I-11 signage will be placed along US 95 by 2020. As far as any AZ signage is concerned, that may go in a different direction. I-11 signage probably won't occur, at least on the stretch NW of Kingman, until (a) the Kingman bypass/connector is let and under construction, and (b) work commences on upgrading/converting US 93 to Interstate standards along that corridor segment.
Theoretically, assuming NDOT were to choose the US 95 alignment through Vegas, then you could see I-11 signed that far. Practically, I don't think NDOT would sign it any further north than the NW 215 interchange in the short term, and I don't know that it would be signed any further south than the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona until other improvements happen
Actually, that signage project was for I-515 south of the Henderson Spaghetti Bowl 215 interchange. It was in the STIP for 2017 or 2018, but I don't think NDOT ever put that out to bid...
If US 95's freeway section is extended out to or past the NV 157 junction, I'd expect that any I-11 signage would extend that far -- as a "prelude" to upgrade of the LV-Mercury segment (except possibly for Indian Springs), in all likelihood prior to any significant activity north from there (save studies regarding bypassing the few towns along the route). Except for the aforementioned Indian Springs, such an upgrade should be quite straightforward -- and would allow NDOT to post the Interstate "brand" on a sizeable chunk of road -- if for no other reason than to partially quell the more vehement criticism of the corridor as unnecessary or gratuitous.
Apologies for not getting pics of this; it took me by surprise when I passed through today.
The ramp from southbound 515/93/95 to westbound 215 was recently reconfigured, and new signage was erected. All of the exit tabs, plus the gore point sign, now call it EXIT 23, which is consistent with the I-11 numbering. No other exits were renumbered, and the ramp from northbound 515/93/95 wasn't re-signed, either.
Quote from: Kniwt on January 09, 2019, 09:21:12 PM
Apologies for not getting pics of this; it took me by surprise when I passed through today.
The ramp from southbound 515/93/95 to westbound 215 was recently reconfigured, and new signage was erected. All of the exit tabs, plus the gore point sign, now call it EXIT 23, which is consistent with the I-11 numbering. No other exits were renumbered, and the ramp from northbound 515/93/95 wasn't re-signed, either.
I didn't make it to that part of town when I was in Vegas for the holidays. The ramp reconfiguration was completed sometime in December, I believe.
But I did notice just a few days ago that NDOT's 2019 State Maintained Highways book (route log) now shows I-11 instead of I-515 between the 215 beltway down to the newly constructed I-11 bypass alignment.
I hadn't commented on this development here yet. Since I didn't go to that end of town for roadgeek purposes, I was trying to find some news, press release, or other evidence other than the SMH book that some resigning had taken place.
^^^^^^^^^^
Until that long-expected study is released, the above development probably doesn't actually mean -- or portend -- anything except that an eastern bypass is likely to be dismissed for one reason or another -- but NDOT hasn't as of yet fully committed to US 95, despite sporadic evidence to the contrary (BGS's with shield space, etc.); the western loop of the composite 215 corridor might still remain under consideration (I can see Strip interests pressing for that routing to ensure that the signed through I-11 route passes through their "bailiwick").
I hope the east bypass is dismissed. If it were to be built, it should be part of Interstate 215 (or some other number, X-11 or X-15), not part of mainline Interstate 11. That should be on Interstate 515 and US 95.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
I hope the east bypass is dismissed. If it were to be built, it should be part of Interstate 215 (or some other number, X-11 or X-15), not part of mainline Interstate 11. That should be on Interstate 515 and US 95.
Does anyone know if Nevada would do a full beltway with the same number (like the Capital Beltway), or are they inclined to change numbers for an eastern beltway like California does? I think that would affect the likelihood of whether they'd run I-11 up a new leg of the beltway.
Seeing as how there's already an established "215" number for the beltway, regardless of status, it's likely that the current "3/4" beltway will retain that number if I-11 doesn't subsume any of it -- and, since either way, a non I-11 segment will connect to I-15, it's equally likely that 215 would be retained for the remaining segment across north LV metro. But at this time, I'd guesstimate the odds at 75-25 that I-11 will simply utilize US 95 for its final alignment, with I-515 disappearing. And eventually an I-215 designation will be sought for the remainder of the beltway once fully completed.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 10, 2019, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
I hope the east bypass is dismissed. If it were to be built, it should be part of Interstate 215 (or some other number, X-11 or X-15), not part of mainline Interstate 11. That should be on Interstate 515 and US 95.
Does anyone know if Nevada would do a full beltway with the same number (like the Capital Beltway), or are they inclined to change numbers for an eastern beltway like California does? I think that would affect the likelihood of whether they'd run I-11 up a new leg of the beltway.
Do note that the eastern option under consideration for I-11 actually bypasses the entire Las Vegas Valley by going out and around near Lake Mead NRA on the east side. It would not be in any way a eastern beltway in relation to the existing 215 beltway.
I personally think the eastern bypass option for I-11 will not happen. If it were to be chosen, it would not directly connect to the 215 alignment on either end, so wouldn't get any Interstate number other than I-11 (although could, and likely would, result in moving US 93).
Since the eastern beltway concept died long ago, we will likely never know the answer to Occidental Tourist's question.
^^^^^^^^
From the information supplied above, it sounds like the eastern bypass concept actually has a northern component north of the northern (E-W) section of the 215 loop, connecting I-15 and US 95. I'd certainly like to see a copy of this bypass plan, preferably with a map attached -- or at least some sort of cite that'll supply that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUm14ARc0Yk
I-515 has been talked about for some time for being part of I-11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ5fhZFuwCc
Also there a video on US-95 where its been mentioned for a future I-11 alignment.
^^^^^^^^
As usual, Kyle provides well-shot and pertinent videos. At least it indicates that there is substantial commercial truck traffic on that stretch of US 95 -- also, that at least for that particular stretch of terrain, construction of an Interstate won't be that problematic (save the few RR overheads).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoMjXkf1Lgo
Another video on I-11 in Arizona to Las Vegas area.
It's interesting to me that NDOT still hasn't put up any pull-through or reassurance signs for I-11 Southbound at the BUS 93 and US 95 interchanges. It just seems so obvious and necessary, to have an "I-11 / US 93 - 95 South - Searchlight / Phoenix" overhead at the 93 Business interchange.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 24, 2019, 11:59:02 AM
It's interesting to me that NDOT still hasn't put up any pull-through or reassurance signs for I-11 Southbound at the BUS 93 and US 95 interchanges. It just seems so obvious and necessary, to have an "I-11 / US 93 - 95 South - Searchlight / Phoenix" overhead at the 93 Business interchange.
IIRC, this has been discussed before. NDOT's not big on pull-through signage at anything but system interchanges, preferring to reference the next exit. Barring a change in their signage policy, reassurance signage will remain free-standing at roadside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0r_i0gQ6_M
Interstate Kyle does another segment of US-95 and its proposed route of I-11
Another data point on the slow-motion signing of I-11: The NDOT traffic cameras between I-215 and Railroad Pass all now say "I-11" on their displays, even though the titles on the webpage still say I-515. Here's one from just a couple minutes ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z0Ed8o7.png)
Ha! It's raining in the desert!
Quote from: Mark68 on February 14, 2019, 06:44:22 PM
Ha! It's raining in the desert!
It's raining all over the place out here; driving to work today was like driving through a waterfall. Even our normally-dry Guadalupe River is starting to come close to the top of its gully; adjacent houses have been sandbagging their perimeters.
But getting back to LV -- prior to the upgrade of Paradise Road in the late '80's, one time during C.E.S. a few years prior to that the original alignment, which was the main drag from downtown and the northern part of the Strip to the airport, dipped through a couple of gullies -- which were "flash-flooded" (this was in early January) and thus useless as airport access; one had to head down I-15 and backtrack on NV 146 to get to McCarran Airport. But they've applied a heavy dose of flood-control to the area since that time, so it's vastly improved in that regard -- and Paradise crosses over the drainage channels on bridges, so access to the airport from the north isn't prone to interruption even with heavy rainstorms -- or at least hasn't been in the times I've been there since.
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2019, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on February 14, 2019, 06:44:22 PM
Ha! It's raining in the desert!
It's raining all over the place out here; driving to work today was like driving through a waterfall. Even our normally-dry Guadalupe River is starting to come close to the top of its gully; adjacent houses have been sandbagging their perimeters.
But getting back to LV -- prior to the upgrade of Paradise Road in the late '80's, one time during C.E.S. a few years prior to that the original alignment, which was the main drag from downtown and the northern part of the Strip to the airport, dipped through a couple of gullies -- which were "flash-flooded" (this was in early January) and thus useless as airport access; one had to head down I-15 and backtrack on NV 146 to get to McCarran Airport. But they've applied a heavy dose of flood-control to the area since that time, so it's vastly improved in that regard -- and Paradise crosses over the drainage channels on bridges, so access to the airport from the north isn't prone to interruption even with heavy rainstorms -- or at least hasn't been in the times I've been there since.
Of course, my comment above was tongue-in-cheek.
One of the most intense rainstorms I've ever experienced while driving was on 4th of July weekend in the early 90s. I was driving from SoCal to Vegas and stopped for lunch in Primm. As soon as I got back on I-15, I drove into a rainstorm so hard I could barely see 10 feet in front of my car. I had to pull over for a few minutes to let the storm pass.
Quote from: Mark68 on February 15, 2019, 11:02:13 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2019, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on February 14, 2019, 06:44:22 PM
Ha! It's raining in the desert!
It's raining all over the place out here; driving to work today was like driving through a waterfall. Even our normally-dry Guadalupe River is starting to come close to the top of its gully; adjacent houses have been sandbagging their perimeters.
But getting back to LV -- prior to the upgrade of Paradise Road in the late '80's, one time during C.E.S. a few years prior to that the original alignment, which was the main drag from downtown and the northern part of the Strip to the airport, dipped through a couple of gullies -- which were "flash-flooded" (this was in early January) and thus useless as airport access; one had to head down I-15 and backtrack on NV 146 to get to McCarran Airport. But they've applied a heavy dose of flood-control to the area since that time, so it's vastly improved in that regard -- and Paradise crosses over the drainage channels on bridges, so access to the airport from the north isn't prone to interruption even with heavy rainstorms -- or at least hasn't been in the times I've been there since.
Of course, my comment above was tongue-in-cheek.
One of the most intense rainstorms I've ever experienced while driving was on 4th of July weekend in the early 90s. I was driving from SoCal to Vegas and stopped for lunch in Primm. As soon as I got back on I-15, I drove into a rainstorm so hard I could barely see 10 feet in front of my car. I had to pull over for a few minutes to let the storm pass.
(indulging this thread drift a bit...)
The rain and flooding that can occur in Vegas can certainly be intense at times. It takes many by surprise that Vegas has an official "flash flood season" (which I think runs July to September). People are also surprised to learn that there is a Clark County Regional Flood Control District that has put hundreds of millions of dollars into lining washes, building flood channels and digging water detention basins since the district was formed in 1985.
There's iconic photos, I think from the early 70s, of a completely flooded parking lot at Caesar's Palace. The Flamingo Wash running under The Linq (former Imperial Palace) still occasionally floods, causing closures of their parking garage. Growing up in Vegas, I recall all the local news channels would send reporters to the "Charleston Underpass" (Charleston Blvd/SR 159 undercrossing of the UPRR tracks near downtown) for nearly every rainstorm to report on its closure to traffic due to its complete flooding–a situation not alleviated until a CCRFCD project was completed the mid 2000s.
Looks like the DOT is getting around to signing I-11 at the I-215 interchange.
(https://i.imgur.com/qMvyJPz.jpg)
But only sort of...
(https://i.imgur.com/BttnhEn.jpg)
Those are exceptionally small-looking shields.
Quote from: TimQuiQui on February 26, 2019, 05:24:15 PM
Looks like the DOT is getting around to signing I-11 at the I-215 interchange.
(https://i.imgur.com/qMvyJPz.jpg)
But only sort of...
(https://i.imgur.com/BttnhEn.jpg)
Thanks for sharing this. I'm not in Vegas so I haven't been able to go hunting for evidence of the transition since NDOT updated their log this year. Good to see that the resigning is moving forward.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 26, 2019, 06:12:07 PM
Those are exceptionally small-looking shields.
Also unusual for NDOT, at least on freeway BGSs, is the lack of cardinal directions with the shields. I somewhat understand it here, due to the horizontal constraints. (NDOT doesn't do cardinal directions above shields, only to the right.)
Glad they replaced the whole sign there. For some reason, these signs didn't age well. They date to circa 2005-2006–even though they face west, other signs of similar vintage seem to be relatively ok.
^^^^^^^^^^
Hardly kosher, but NDOT could slap an I-11 shield on the BGS where it's missing -- to the right of the US 95 & 93 shields. It'd suffice until such time (as is likely) that I-515 will be replaced by I-11. By that time, it looks like that well-worn BGS will require replacement anyway -- and the shield arrangement can be "normalized".
https://www.reviewjournal.com/traffic/75-new-freeway-signs-to-be-installed-between-henderson-boulder-city-1618473/
Quote
Dozens of freeway signs are set for upgrades in the valley.
Work to install 75 new overhead and shoulder freeway signs along stretches of Interstate 515 and the 215 Beltway is set to begin Sunday in Henderson and Boulder City, the Nevada Department of Transportation announced Thursday.
Work will take place Sunday from 9 p.m. until 5 a.m. from Sunday through April 26, NDOT said. On the 215 Beltway work will occur between Stephanie Street and Eastgate Road, while the work on I-515 will take place between Sunset Road and U.S. Highway 93 in Boulder City.
The $160,000 project calls for replacing existing signage along 22 miles of highway, because of aging or damage to signs or the neeed to add new language to reflect the Interstate 11 designation. The largest signs being replaced measure 28 feet wide by 10 feet tall and weigh over 1,000 pounds, NDOT said.
The signage will now read I-11, U.S. 93 and U.S. Highway 95 on a southbound portion of the freeway, between the Henderson spaghetti bowl and Boulder City.
The end of the article diverges into talk about concurrencies, and this little factoid was dropped:
Quote
"A route designation isn't necessarily tied to a roadway," said Tony Illia, NDOT spokesman. "As such, there can be several overlapping concurrent routes along a shared roadway."
The hierarchical order goes interstate highways, U.S. highways, state highways, and finally county roads. Road network concurrency is very common around the country, Illia said.
"There are examples of eight-way concurrences," he said. "For example, Indianapolis, Indiana's 53-mile Interstate 465, also known as the USS Indianapolis Memorial Highway, overlaps with portions of Interstate 74, U.S. Highway 31, U.S. Highway 36, U.S. Highway 40, U.S. Highway 52, U.S. Highway 421, State Road 37 and State Route 67 – a total of eight other routes."
Quote from: djsekani on March 16, 2019, 10:51:29 AM
https://www.reviewjournal.com/traffic/75-new-freeway-signs-to-be-installed-between-henderson-boulder-city-1618473/
Quote
Dozens of freeway signs are set for upgrades in the valley.
Work to install 75 new overhead and shoulder freeway signs along stretches of Interstate 515 and the 215 Beltway is set to begin Sunday in Henderson and Boulder City, the Nevada Department of Transportation announced Thursday.
Work will take place Sunday from 9 p.m. until 5 a.m. from Sunday through April 26, NDOT said. On the 215 Beltway work will occur between Stephanie Street and Eastgate Road, while the work on I-515 will take place between Sunset Road and U.S. Highway 93 in Boulder City.
The $160,000 project calls for replacing existing signage along 22 miles of highway, because of aging or damage to signs or the neeed to add new language to reflect the Interstate 11 designation. The largest signs being replaced measure 28 feet wide by 10 feet tall and weigh over 1,000 pounds, NDOT said.
The signage will now read I-11, U.S. 93 and U.S. Highway 95 on a southbound portion of the freeway, between the Henderson spaghetti bowl and Boulder City.
It figures. I just drove through and rephotographed all those signs! Oh well, just gives me a reason to return! lol
Did take my own photos of these on the few times I was through the Henderson Bowl exchange while out there. These are the initial ones I took on March 1st...
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/i-215-e-exit-001-1.jpg)
My photo of the one previously posted on Feb 26th...
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/west/i-215-e-exit-001-2.jpg)
Guide sign at the split for I-515 north and I-11 south...
These are the only two signs so far that have changed at the exchange, so the remaining ones will definitely be a part of this project beginning tonight. I'm surprised that the one at the split wasn't an APL though, given the middle lane departs for both north and southbound traffic...
I'm glad that I-11 is getting signed between I-215 and the Spaghetti Bowl.
Quote from: roadfro on December 18, 2018, 10:06:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on December 18, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
Looking at the map, am I correct in assuming that I-11 could be signed from Corn Creek Road NE of Las Vegas all the way to the Arizona state line, and theoretically a couple of miles into Arizona?
Technically, NDOT's still doing a study regarding the alignment of I-11 through the center of LV Metro: stay on US 95, use the 215 bypass west of town, or construct a new alignment well to the east of development. Practically, from most indications they've actually selected the direct/95 route; there are spaces on newer BGS's for I-11 shields; there's a contract for signage (although those have been delayed before) for I-11 north of the 215 interchange north of town -- and AFAIK there have been no formal proposals for a "cutoff" between the NW corner of the 215 bypass and US 95 near the NV 157 interchange -- which would render the western bypass a minimally feasible through Interstate corridor. Odds are that the study is a formality and that I-11 signage will be placed along US 95 by 2020. As far as any AZ signage is concerned, that may go in a different direction. I-11 signage probably won't occur, at least on the stretch NW of Kingman, until (a) the Kingman bypass/connector is let and under construction, and (b) work commences on upgrading/converting US 93 to Interstate standards along that corridor segment.
Theoretically, assuming NDOT were to choose the US 95 alignment through Vegas, then you could see I-11 signed that far. Practically, I don't think NDOT would sign it any further north than the NW 215 interchange in the short term, and I don't know that it would be signed any further south than the Hoover Dam Bypass in Arizona until other improvements happen
Actually, that signage project was for I-515 south of the Henderson Spaghetti Bowl 215 interchange. It was in the STIP for 2017 or 2018, but I don't think NDOT ever put that out to bid...
Perhaps NDOT is looking to widen US93/I-515 North of the I-215 interchange, and once complete will then designate it I-11? The local news...
https://news3lv.com/news/local/video-vault-a-major-highway-project-arrives-in-the-las-vegas-valley
Quote
With Project Neon finally winding down, where will the next massive project involving eminent domain on a large scale take place?
It might be on an alignment that will give long-timers a sense of déjà vu. That's if the Nevada Department of Transportation finally gets around to widening the east leg of US95, also known as I-515.
An aerial view of the 515 just south of Boulder Highway is very different today than 35 years ago, when a swath of land had been cleared and shaped, but not yet paved.
At the time, what was known as the "Oran K. Gragson Expressway" and ran only from Rainbow to Las Vegas Boulevard.
"The 20-year plan is that this pavement will be extended to take you quickly to Boulder City," reported News 3's Lynette Taylor on December 31, 1981. "In the more immediate future, the plan is to extend this road through to the eastern part of the valley. And work is already underway."
Then as now, the price of progress included collecting right-of-way. Not all homeowners wanted to sell.
"I'm standing in just about the westbound lane of it," said east valley homeowner Russ Driver in early 1982. "I found out after we did a lot of work to the property and so on much to our amazement."
The prospect of a new freeway also didn't sit well with some Boulder Highway business owners, who would suddenly see a lot less traffic.
"We don't know how we battle it," sighed a shopkeeper. "But for the meantime, we think it is going to hurt the business."
There's always a downside, but many drivers, as well as politicians, were pleased to see the new segments opening one by one.
"All right. One, two three," said Nevada Governor Richard Bryan on May 23, 1986, as he cut the ribbon on the new segment from Charleston to Flamingo. "Congratulations. Done. Forty-three million dollars' worth."
Some homeowners had been trying to stop the project in the courts, but the freeway progress continued.
"We really don't know what to do at this point," said Driver following a judge's ruling. "Because we haven't had the chance to really study what he said."
In fact, their efforts came to naught.
The final segment of I-515 from Lake Mead Drive [now Lake Mead Parkway] to Wagonwheel Drive opened in 1993.
Over a decade ago, a widening project was in the planning for I-515, including more lanes and partial interchanges. However, with the economic downturn in late 2008, those plans were set aside. No timeline has been announced for reviving them.
EDIT: Added quotes around copied material. –Roadfro
MOD NOTE: Since my post on 3/18/19 about the I-11 control city has sparked a few pages of related and divergent replies, I've moved the resulting discussion to a dedicated thread: I-515/I-11 Control City discussion (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24751.0)
–Roadfro
Nevada gets $9.8M in grants for Las Vegas bridge improvements
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-gets-9-8m-in-grants-for-las-vegas-bridge-improvements-1837217/
The money going to Nevada will be used to improve two U.S. 95 overpasses, at Desert Inn Road and at Eastern Avenue.
"The Desert Inn crossing has a poor condition bridge deck, while Eastern Avenue's superstructure remains in poor shape," Illia said. "However, both bridges are still repairable due to previous infrastructure investments. The department dedicated about $12 million toward bridge preservation during fiscal years 2017-18."
The Desert Inn bridge averages more than 150,000 vehicles per day, while the Eastern Avenue crossing sees more than 130,000 vehicles per day, according to the department.
The bridges are crucial because the highway is one of three candidates for the future Interstate 11 corridor through the Las Vegas Valley, Illia said.
I drove 95 from Reno to Las Vegas this past week and noticed that with the near completion of the widening/improvements of 95 up to urban freeway standards north and west of Durango now, the "future I-11" signs are now up on this portion of the freeway. That's the only ones I have found outside of the US 93 corridors in Arizona.
Quote from: kdk on September 23, 2019, 07:05:07 PM
I drove 95 from Reno to Las Vegas this past week and noticed that with the near completion of the widening/improvements of 95 up to urban freeway standards north and west of Durango now, the "future I-11" signs are now up on this portion of the freeway. That's the only ones I have found outside of the US 93 corridors in Arizona.
Since the US 95/North Durango interchange is north of the 215 loop, that signage indicates that the formal alignment decision regarding I-11 through Las Vegas itself has yet to be made -- but it
does seem to preclude -- if the west 215 loop is indeed selected for the alignment -- that a northward "cutoff" from the loop's NW corner to US 95 has been eliminated as a routing option and that a "backward angle" connector/flyover within the cleared 95/215 interchange area would form the connection. Nevertheless, I'd still place my money on an alignment directly up US 95 through the Spaghetti Bowl!
Quote from: sparker on September 23, 2019, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: kdk on September 23, 2019, 07:05:07 PM
I drove 95 from Reno to Las Vegas this past week and noticed that with the near completion of the widening/improvements of 95 up to urban freeway standards north and west of Durango now, the "future I-11" signs are now up on this portion of the freeway. That's the only ones I have found outside of the US 93 corridors in Arizona.
Since the US 95/North Durango interchange is north of the 215 loop, that signage indicates that the formal alignment decision regarding I-11 through Las Vegas itself has yet to be made -- but it does seem to preclude -- if the west 215 loop is indeed selected for the alignment -- that a northward "cutoff" from the loop's NW corner to US 95 has been eliminated as a routing option and that a "backward angle" connector/flyover within the cleared 95/215 interchange area would form the connection. Nevertheless, I'd still place my money on an alignment directly up US 95 through the Spaghetti Bowl!
Deepen being on the location of the signs, it might not really be indicative of anything. My hunch is that these "future I-11" signs were installed as part of the SR 157/Kyle Canyon interchange project (ISTR plans for that project will also have some green-out over I-11 shields). If so, that interchange is around the spot where concept maps show the I-11 western option's connector would tie in to US 95.
Since I'm currently in Vegas for work, I might get a chance to go take a look here later this week...
We'll be up there the weekend after next. Should be interesting to compare, since I haven't been that way in a couple years (I-11 was just barely a thing at the time).
Quote from: roadfro on September 23, 2019, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 23, 2019, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: kdk on September 23, 2019, 07:05:07 PM
I drove 95 from Reno to Las Vegas this past week and noticed that with the near completion of the widening/improvements of 95 up to urban freeway standards north and west of Durango now, the "future I-11" signs are now up on this portion of the freeway. That's the only ones I have found outside of the US 93 corridors in Arizona.
Since the US 95/North Durango interchange is north of the 215 loop, that signage indicates that the formal alignment decision regarding I-11 through Las Vegas itself has yet to be made -- but it does seem to preclude -- if the west 215 loop is indeed selected for the alignment -- that a northward "cutoff" from the loop's NW corner to US 95 has been eliminated as a routing option and that a "backward angle" connector/flyover within the cleared 95/215 interchange area would form the connection. Nevertheless, I'd still place my money on an alignment directly up US 95 through the Spaghetti Bowl!
Deepen being on the location of the signs, it might not really be indicative of anything. My hunch is that these "future I-11" signs were installed as part of the SR 157/Kyle Canyon interchange project (ISTR plans for that project will also have some green-out over I-11 shields). If so, that interchange is around the spot where concept maps show the I-11 western option's connector would tie in to US 95.
Since I'm currently in Vegas for work, I might get a chance to go take a look here later this week...
I was heading southbound into Las Vegas from Reno, so was near the Kyle Canyon interchange. I didn't see any south of the construction area for the 215/95 Interchange though.
There is relatively new imagery (5/2/2019) in Google Earth on the far NW side of Las Vegas, covering the Kyle Canyon Interchange with US-95. Pretty creative looking DDI.
Quote from: kdk on September 24, 2019, 03:10:28 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 23, 2019, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 23, 2019, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: kdk on September 23, 2019, 07:05:07 PM
I drove 95 from Reno to Las Vegas this past week and noticed that with the near completion of the widening/improvements of 95 up to urban freeway standards north and west of Durango now, the "future I-11" signs are now up on this portion of the freeway. That's the only ones I have found outside of the US 93 corridors in Arizona.
Since the US 95/North Durango interchange is north of the 215 loop, that signage indicates that the formal alignment decision regarding I-11 through Las Vegas itself has yet to be made -- but it does seem to preclude -- if the west 215 loop is indeed selected for the alignment -- that a northward "cutoff" from the loop's NW corner to US 95 has been eliminated as a routing option and that a "backward angle" connector/flyover within the cleared 95/215 interchange area would form the connection. Nevertheless, I'd still place my money on an alignment directly up US 95 through the Spaghetti Bowl!
Deepen being on the location of the signs, it might not really be indicative of anything. My hunch is that these "future I-11" signs were installed as part of the SR 157/Kyle Canyon interchange project (ISTR plans for that project will also have some green-out over I-11 shields). If so, that interchange is around the spot where concept maps show the I-11 western option's connector would tie in to US 95.
Since I'm currently in Vegas for work, I might get a chance to go take a look here later this week...
I was heading southbound into Las Vegas from Reno, so was near the Kyle Canyon interchange. I didn't see any south of the construction area for the 215/95 Interchange though.
I was able to go take a look. There is a "Future I-11 Corridor" sign on southbound US 95, adjacent to the Skye Canyon Park off ramp (attached via Tapatalk). There is another one northbound–can't recall if it was just past the Durango exit or just past Skye Canyon Park. I didn't see any others in the area (I drove all the way to Snow Mountain to check)
I'm very certain these were installed as part of the Kyle Canyon interchange project, as that project also included work on the mainline.
I don't think these signs give any indication of which Vegas alignment option NDOT is leaning toward for I-11.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190928/583b45841a08c8aea00252e7c555b7c3.jpg)
^^^^^^^^^^
The only thing that the "future I-11" signage indicates is that NDOT is reasonably serious about extending that route northwest out of the LV metro region. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see additional similar signage on US 95 at least out to the end of the divided highway at Mercury deployed in relatively short order.
Let's all keep in mind that NDOT construction contracts for the Kyle Canyon and 215 interchanges both had I-11 shields on the BGSes, with a green cover-up over the shield.
The decision has been baked enough that they're including it in contracts.
From the Las Vegas Sun:
https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2019/oct/15/next-steps-toward-i-11-environmental-studies-defin/
The environmental assessment in Nevada, which is expected to take three years to develop and cost $4.75 million, is focused on the best route to connect U.S. 93 north of Nevada's border with Arizona to the Kyle Canyon interchange on U.S. 95 in northwest Clark County. The study will consider issues including safety, infrastructure condition, traffic congestion, freighÂÂt movement, economic vitality and environmental sustainability, Illia said in an email.
The selected route will likely create economic opportunities, Illia said.
"Wherever infrastructure goes, development usually follows and investment follows," he said.
There are three preliminary routes for the interstate to continue throughout the Las Vegas Valley – attaching to the Las Vegas Beltway, continuing onto Interstate 515/U.S. 95 or building a new eastern connection to the existing I-11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1gG9-DICuk
Here is a new video posted by Road Guy Rob on Interstate 11.
QuoteFirst New Interstate in 40 Years!
Have they not heard of I-99 or the new I-69s? Hell, even I-215 in the same state only dates back to the 90s.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2019, 11:03:56 PM
QuoteFirst New Interstate in 40 Years!
Have they not heard of I-99 or the new I-69s? Hell, even I-215 in the same state only dates back to the 90s.
Road Guy Rob is specifically talking about the western part of the country. As for auxiliary interstates, I guess he didn't think those counted.
Would a 3DI count though? It wouldn't exist without a 2DI so it makes sense.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2019, 03:31:03 AM
Would a 3DI count though? It wouldn't exist without a 2DI so it makes sense.
It would still be a new interstate highway.
Our next installment in the new *weekly* live broadcast (over on 'roadwaywiz') featuring AARoads Forum members will be this comprehensive Webinar introduction to the freeways of Las Vegas & vicinity. The event will kick off at 6 PM ET and will feature remote contributions from members of this forum. We look forward to seeing you there!
^ Virtual road meet in my home town? I'll be watching! :)
Quote from: roadfro on March 25, 2020, 11:26:25 AM
^ Virtual road meet in my home town? I'll be watching! :)
This one is a webinar, not a virtual meet. Big difference - the virtual meets feature live driving/stops, but the webinar is a powerpoint discussion and previously recorded footage.
Quote from: vdeane on March 25, 2020, 12:58:40 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 25, 2020, 11:26:25 AM
^ Virtual road meet in my home town? I'll be watching! :)
This one is a webinar, not a virtual meet. Big difference - the virtual meets feature live driving/stops, but the webinar is a powerpoint discussion and previously recorded footage.
It's still a great idea. Thank you for this.
Are there links to previous episodes posted? Can one watch at their own time at a different time?
Yep, roadwaywiz organizes everything into playlists to watch later. Which is great, because I've been finding that Sunday afternoon is a great time to slide a browser tab onto my TV and watch whatever was broadcast the previous day, often while working on my site or something else.
Webinars (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv2139njdKjWjGGd2mJrXsPRScJaCFujP) (like what's coming up)
Online Roadmeets (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv2139njdKjVD4L2Xx1MhZ_IwQbe1mgNU)
Live broadcasts of regular roadmeets (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv2139njdKjUPRNkFWoDVsAaXB2x8Lgl1)
Virtual tours (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv2139njdKjWvDNSz3dpkatbOHQwuJcdH) (similar to what was done last week with I-17)
I think Valerie has covered it all pretty well. The one thing I'd emphasize is that my channel is currently streaming *live* every day due to the COVID-19 outbreak across America (and the resulting suspension of most live entertainment). (The LV Webinar is just the beginning in a once-weekly series of presentations set to be broadcast in the next 8 weeks.) So there will be something unscripted/original for you to check in on that's road-related on a daily basis. (And this of course is enabling folks to take their minds off of what's stressing them out right now.)
Our next installment in the *weekly* live broadcast over on 'roadwaywiz' will be this double-header Virtual Tour presentation, where we dissect and enjoy a full-length trip along the belt highways encircling both El Paso, TX and Las Vegas, NV in real time, complete with commentary and contributions from admins/moderators/members of this forum.
The event will kick off on Saturday (4/11) at 6 PM ET and we look forward to seeing you there!
An update from what's left of Indian Springs, the tiny settlement next to Creech AFB where the speed limit on 95 drops to 45mph, and it was thought that a bypass might not be needed:
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the casino in Indian Springs, demolished in 2014, has been given approval to rebuild and reopen on the other side of the highway, possibly by Memorial Day (current closure restrictions notwithstanding). This could complicate any plans to make 95/Future-11 a freeway on the existing alignment.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/nevada-gaming-officials-give-blessing-to-new-indian-springs-casino-2002733/
QuoteThe state Gaming Control Board on Wednesday recommended approval of licensing for Herbst IS Holdings LLC for a casino in the small community bordering Creech Air Force Base 45 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
... The original Indian Springs Casino, built in the mid-1980s, closed its doors in 2014 when the Air Force acquired 16.9 acres adjacent to the base for $11.45 million. The land was needed to provide an increased security buffer around the base to comply with anti-terrorism requirements developed after the 9/11 attacks.
...Tim Herbst, manager for Herbst IS Holdings, said the new development will have a casino with 75 slot machines, an eight-pump gas station, a charging station for electric vehicles developed in a collaboration with the state, a convenience store and a Bob's Big Boy restaurant.
Quote from: Kniwt on April 09, 2020, 12:16:11 PM
An update from what's left of Indian Springs, the tiny settlement next to Creech AFB where the speed limit on 95 drops to 45mph, and it was thought that a bypass might not be needed:
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the casino in Indian Springs, demolished in 2014, has been given approval to rebuild and reopen on the other side of the highway, possibly by Memorial Day (current closure restrictions notwithstanding). This could complicate any plans to make 95/Future-11 a freeway on the existing alignment.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/nevada-gaming-officials-give-blessing-to-new-indian-springs-casino-2002733/
QuoteThe state Gaming Control Board on Wednesday recommended approval of licensing for Herbst IS Holdings LLC for a casino in the small community bordering Creech Air Force Base 45 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
... The original Indian Springs Casino, built in the mid-1980s, closed its doors in 2014 when the Air Force acquired 16.9 acres adjacent to the base for $11.45 million. The land was needed to provide an increased security buffer around the base to comply with anti-terrorism requirements developed after the 9/11 attacks.
...Tim Herbst, manager for Herbst IS Holdings, said the new development will have a casino with 75 slot machines, an eight-pump gas station, a charging station for electric vehicles developed in a collaboration with the state, a convenience store and a Bob's Big Boy restaurant.
Looks like the US 95 segment through Indian Springs is equipped with frontage roads; along one of those is presumably where the new casino will be located. That shouldn't have much bearing on I-11-related upgrades to US 95, which will likely either be (a) raised on a berm, (b) sunk in a trench, or (c) remaining on the surface but with overcrossings. The frontage roads could be reconfigured as C/D facilities with private access (TX-style), which would accommodate said casino just fine. Side note: grew up on Big Boy food; any new outlets certainly welcome!
Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2020, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on April 09, 2020, 12:16:11 PM
An update from what's left of Indian Springs, the tiny settlement next to Creech AFB where the speed limit on 95 drops to 45mph, and it was thought that a bypass might not be needed:
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the casino in Indian Springs, demolished in 2014, has been given approval to rebuild and reopen on the other side of the highway, possibly by Memorial Day (current closure restrictions notwithstanding). This could complicate any plans to make 95/Future-11 a freeway on the existing alignment.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/nevada-gaming-officials-give-blessing-to-new-indian-springs-casino-2002733/
QuoteThe state Gaming Control Board on Wednesday recommended approval of licensing for Herbst IS Holdings LLC for a casino in the small community bordering Creech Air Force Base 45 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
... The original Indian Springs Casino, built in the mid-1980s, closed its doors in 2014 when the Air Force acquired 16.9 acres adjacent to the base for $11.45 million. The land was needed to provide an increased security buffer around the base to comply with anti-terrorism requirements developed after the 9/11 attacks.
...Tim Herbst, manager for Herbst IS Holdings, said the new development will have a casino with 75 slot machines, an eight-pump gas station, a charging station for electric vehicles developed in a collaboration with the state, a convenience store and a Bob's Big Boy restaurant.
Looks like the US 95 segment through Indian Springs is equipped with frontage roads; along one of those is presumably where the new casino will be located. That shouldn't have much bearing on I-11-related upgrades to US 95, which will likely either be (a) raised on a berm, (b) sunk in a trench, or (c) remaining on the surface but with overcrossings. The frontage roads could be reconfigured as C/D facilities with private access (TX-style), which would accommodate said casino just fine. Side note: grew up on Big Boy food; any new outlets certainly welcome!
Yes, there are two-way frontage roads on both sides of US 95 in Indian Springs. This new casino is likely to be somewhere on the southern frontage, since the base bought up all adjacent land on the north side frontage road (which caused the original casino to close). The northern frontage road adjacent to the base is now virtually useless, and the only thing it serves is a gate to Creech AFB that no longer appears to be in use (I think this is the original main gate, but the main base entry has been moved east of the town)
I'm with Sparker that it shouldn't have any real impact to I-11 development. If NDOT doesn't do an Indian Springs bypass for I-11, I think they'll sink it in a trench through the town (which would afford the best security for the base) and also eliminate the northern frontage road along the base.
That Big Boy might give me a reason to stop in Indian Springs on a future Reno-to-Vegas trip.
Quote from: roadfro on April 10, 2020, 11:53:02 AM
I'm with Sparker that it shouldn't have any real impact to I-11 development. If NDOT doesn't do an Indian Springs bypass for I-11, I think they'll sink it in a trench through the town (which would afford the best security for the base) and also eliminate the northern frontage road along the base.
That Big Boy might give me a reason to stop in Indian Springs on a future Reno-to-Vegas trip.
If the casino erects a NV-typical tall massively-lit sign noting its presence -- and it shows up on roadside BBS's (big blue signs, in this case) -- even with only a southern frontage road as access, it should do just fine! And unless the Big Boy features a breakfast bar (some of them eventually did when they were proliferating in the '80's), do the place on the SB trip to Vegas; they do a better lunch/dinner menu than a fully-served breakfast (the self-serve bar -- if those ever are installed again after this COVID episode -- was actually good; the better ones gave the old Shoney's breakfast bars a run for their money!).
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2020, 06:42:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 10, 2020, 11:53:02 AM
I'm with Sparker that it shouldn't have any real impact to I-11 development. If NDOT doesn't do an Indian Springs bypass for I-11, I think they'll sink it in a trench through the town (which would afford the best security for the base) and also eliminate the northern frontage road along the base.
That Big Boy might give me a reason to stop in Indian Springs on a future Reno-to-Vegas trip.
If the casino erects a NV-typical tall massively-lit sign noting its presence -- and it shows up on roadside BBS's (big blue signs, in this case) -- even with only a southern frontage road as access, it should do just fine! And unless the Big Boy features a breakfast bar (some of them eventually did when they were proliferating in the '80's), do the place on the SB trip to Vegas; they do a better lunch/dinner menu than a fully-served breakfast (the self-serve bar -- if those ever are installed again after this COVID episode -- was actually good; the better ones gave the old Shoney's breakfast bars a run for their money!).
It's ironic to me as east of the Mississippi, Shoney's was Big Boy
Quote from: rte66man on April 17, 2020, 07:43:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2020, 06:42:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 10, 2020, 11:53:02 AM
I'm with Sparker that it shouldn't have any real impact to I-11 development. If NDOT doesn't do an Indian Springs bypass for I-11, I think they'll sink it in a trench through the town (which would afford the best security for the base) and also eliminate the northern frontage road along the base.
That Big Boy might give me a reason to stop in Indian Springs on a future Reno-to-Vegas trip.
If the casino erects a NV-typical tall massively-lit sign noting its presence -- and it shows up on roadside BBS's (big blue signs, in this case) -- even with only a southern frontage road as access, it should do just fine! And unless the Big Boy features a breakfast bar (some of them eventually did when they were proliferating in the '80's), do the place on the SB trip to Vegas; they do a better lunch/dinner menu than a fully-served breakfast (the self-serve bar -- if those ever are installed again after this COVID episode -- was actually good; the better ones gave the old Shoney's breakfast bars a run for their money!).
It's ironic to me as east of the Mississippi, Shoney's was Big Boy
The
Big Boy franchise history is all over the map; one of the more successful Eastern purveyors of that menu was the old Elby's (for some reason, I often ended up hitting either the one in St. Clairsville, OH or Erie, PA about dinner time -- lucky me!), but they went belly-up around 2000. Right now there are only 5 left in CA, including the historical 2nd location in Burbank; the largest current franchise owner revived the "Bob's" name, with most of their outlets in MI. But in this day and age, it's unlikely that this particular franchise will pop up in regions not presently served.
But if I live long enough to do a I-11 check-out trip (even as a passenger!) I'll make sure to stop at the Indian Springs restaurant.
BUMP to note the I-11 Environmental Impact Statement study for the Las Vegas area is about to begin, and a virtual public meeting will be held to solicit public input.
The NDOT Press Release (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/6302/395?fsiteid=1) dated 7/29/2020:
Quote
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), will launch an online public meeting website on July 31 for the Interstate 11 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Project in southern Nevada.
The project will help identify a preferred I-11 corridor through the Las Vegas metropolitan area, extending from the Arizona border at U.S. Highway 93 to near Kyle Canyon Road along U.S. Highway 95 in Clark County. Public feedback will shape the environmental impact statement used to evaluate potential alignments, with the final goal of obtaining a federal record of decision that leads to a single corridor for all future I-11 projects. Please note that I-11 construction will not begin on any part of the selected corridor any sooner than 8 years, and it will be dependent upon available funding.
The online meeting, found at i11nv.com (http://www.i11nv.com), offers key project information while also providing multiple ways for the public to submit valuable input. The online public meeting will be active and live 24/7 for 30 days from July 31 through August 31, 2020.
Looks like it will be a prerecorded meeting presentation viewable for a month. Surprised they're not doing a Facebook Live or similar event.
The interesting tidbit from the release is the minimum 8 year timeline before any construction begins.
Seems the most logical routing to follow I-11 is on the existing US-95 freeway through the metropolitan area, and designate the remainder of the beltway is I-215.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2020, 10:35:37 AM
Seems the most logical routing to follow I-11 is on the existing US-95 freeway through the metropolitan area, and designate the remainder of the beltway is I-215.
Odds are that is what will eventually occur; since the culmination of the Spaghetti Bowl upgrades simply utilizing the US 95 corridor would free up funds for conversion of the US 95 expressway out to Mercury to a full Interstate-grade freeway. Prior to the 2016 extension of I-11 northwest of LV, it was considered inevitable that Clark County 215, once fully to Interstate standards, would become part of a I-215 3/4 loop around metro LV; if none of that loop is subsumed by I-11, it should be safe to assume that concept still stands.
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2020, 10:35:37 AM
Seems the most logical routing to follow I-11 is on the existing US-95 freeway through the metropolitan area, and designate the remainder of the beltway is I-215.
Odds are that is what will eventually occur; since the culmination of the Spaghetti Bowl upgrades simply utilizing the US 95 corridor would free up funds for conversion of the US 95 expressway out to Mercury to a full Interstate-grade freeway. Prior to the 2016 extension of I-11 northwest of LV, it was considered inevitable that Clark County 215, once fully to Interstate standards, would become part of a I-215 3/4 loop around metro LV; if none of that loop is subsumed by I-11, it should be safe to assume that concept still stands.
Exactamundo. No matter what the northern end point of a future Nevada I-11 is, we do know what the Vegas end should be. You have been promoted to Transportation Director!
Rick
:sombrero:
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2020, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2020, 10:35:37 AM
Seems the most logical routing to follow I-11 is on the existing US-95 freeway through the metropolitan area, and designate the remainder of the beltway is I-215.
Odds are that is what will eventually occur; since the culmination of the Spaghetti Bowl upgrades simply utilizing the US 95 corridor would free up funds for conversion of the US 95 expressway out to Mercury to a full Interstate-grade freeway. Prior to the 2016 extension of I-11 northwest of LV, it was considered inevitable that Clark County 215, once fully to Interstate standards, would become part of a I-215 3/4 loop around metro LV; if none of that loop is subsumed by I-11, it should be safe to assume that concept still stands.
Exactamundo. No matter what the northern end point of a future Nevada I-11 is, we do know what the Vegas end should be. You have been promoted to Transportation Director!
Rick
I'll believe that when I get my first check from NDOT! Not holding my breath................... :sombrero:
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 07:56:49 PM
:sombrero:Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2020, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2020, 10:35:37 AM
Seems the most logical routing to follow I-11 is on the existing US-95 freeway through the metropolitan area, and designate the remainder of the beltway is I-215.
Odds are that is what will eventually occur; since the culmination of the Spaghetti Bowl upgrades simply utilizing the US 95 corridor would free up funds for conversion of the US 95 expressway out to Mercury to a full Interstate-grade freeway. Prior to the 2016 extension of I-11 northwest of LV, it was considered inevitable that Clark County 215, once fully to Interstate standards, would become part of a I-215 3/4 loop around metro LV; if none of that loop is subsumed by I-11, it should be safe to assume that concept still stands.
Exactamundo. No matter what the northern end point of a future Nevada I-11 is, we do know what the Vegas end should be. You have been promoted to Transportation Director!
Rick
I'll believe that when I get my first check from NDOT! Not holding my breath................... :sombrero:
Heading north on 95 from LV to Tonopah, there's a whole lot of nothing. A couple of small towns: Beatty and Goldfield that will need to be bypassed, but from a technical standpoint, I don't think it would be too difficult to convert 95 to I-11. Along most of the route, the conversion will be simply adding a second carriageway alongside the existing road, and eliminating the few at-grade intersections either with overpasses or interchanges. Biggest challenge is finding the $$$ to pay for construction.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 10, 2020, 11:57:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 07:56:49 PM
:sombrero:Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2020, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 30, 2020, 10:35:37 AM
Seems the most logical routing to follow I-11 is on the existing US-95 freeway through the metropolitan area, and designate the remainder of the beltway is I-215.
Odds are that is what will eventually occur; since the culmination of the Spaghetti Bowl upgrades simply utilizing the US 95 corridor would free up funds for conversion of the US 95 expressway out to Mercury to a full Interstate-grade freeway. Prior to the 2016 extension of I-11 northwest of LV, it was considered inevitable that Clark County 215, once fully to Interstate standards, would become part of a I-215 3/4 loop around metro LV; if none of that loop is subsumed by I-11, it should be safe to assume that concept still stands.
Exactamundo. No matter what the northern end point of a future Nevada I-11 is, we do know what the Vegas end should be. You have been promoted to Transportation Director!
Rick
I'll believe that when I get my first check from NDOT! Not holding my breath................... :sombrero:
Heading north on 95 from LV to Tonopah, there's a whole lot of nothing. A couple of small towns: Beatty and Goldfield that will need to be bypassed, but from a technical standpoint, I don't think it would be too difficult to convert 95 to I-11. Along most of the route, the conversion will be simply adding a second carriageway alongside the existing road, and eliminating the few at-grade intersections either with overpasses or interchanges. Biggest challenge is finding the $$$ to pay for construction.
What's interesting about much of US 95, particularly from Mercury up to US 6, is that the present carriageway parallels the original alignment (possibly dating from old NV 3 & 5 days) with generally about 40-50 feet between them. That would, if driveways or access points aren't involved, be an ideal place to place that 2nd carriageway. Of course the towns along the way call for bypasses; most are straightforward except for Hawthorne, which is surrounded on three sides by an active ammo dump (I'd follow the old SP rail line that marks the northeast perimeter of the ammo dump grounds -- which would also facilitate locating I-11 on the east side of Walker Lake). Also, Fallon and environs is growing by leaps and bounds, particularly with large-tract planned retirement communities, most located in the southwest quadrant. If, as I suspect, the northern terminus will be just northeast of Fernley so as to provide reasonably efficient to both directions of I-80 (west to Reno or east to Winnemucca), some sort of "cutoff" avoiding as many of those tracts as possible will need to be laid out (and if I were NDOT, I'd start acquiring ROW as soon as the alignment is finalized, given the areas' penchant for ever more facilities of that type).
Unfortunately, I've got to make the prediction that NV, with much of its revenue based on shaking loose $$ from tourists, will find itself (if it hasn't already) in a serious shortfall situation because of COVID; best guess is that projects will be pushed back 2-3 years at a minimum. And since I-11 was more of a "long haul" concept to begin with, its schedule will suffer along with everything else in the state, including the seemingly never-ending LV revamping of the Strip and vicinity.
I seem to remember reading/hearing that the special session of the legislature called recently, to tackle balancing the state budget due to the COVID crisis, raided part of the state highway fund to supplement the state general fund. So that is definitely going to put a hamper on some projects, but I believe part of NDOT's mitigation of that will be to delay preventative maintenance and reconstruction projects that had been planned for rural routes so that funds can still be routed to the urban areas and major rural highways.
There's not a whole lot of really big NDOT projects that are currently under construction right now. All I can think of is the current phase of the US 95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl interchange and the northern I-15/CC-215 interchange construction that just started, with visible work on the Reno-Sparks Spaghetti Bowl Phase 1 (Spaghetti Bowl "Express" project) beginning later this month. The only other major project in the near-term pipeline is the I-15/Tropicana interchange rebuild–that isn't set to start until closer to 2022, and is unlikely to see delays given it's proximity to Allegiant Stadium.
I-11 development is definitely a long-term goal. Given the pace of corridor studies underway, and knowing that full environmental would come after that, I don't think anyone expected any major construction activity related to I-11 outside of the Las Vegas Valley to come within the next decade. So likely no major delays will result purely from the current fiscal situation, and I'd say we're likely to see minimal setback to the overall timeline–especially since an overall timeline has not yet been developed!
Quote from: roadfro on August 11, 2020, 04:19:40 PM
I seem to remember reading/hearing that the special session of the legislature called recently, to tackle balancing the state budget due to the COVID crisis, raided part of the state highway fund to supplement the state general fund. So that is definitely going to put a hamper on some projects, but I believe part of NDOT's mitigation of that will be to delay preventative maintenance and reconstruction projects that had been planned for rural routes so that funds can still be routed to the urban areas and major rural highways.
There's not a whole lot of really big NDOT projects that are currently under construction right now. All I can think of is the current phase of the US 95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl interchange and the northern I-15/CC-215 interchange construction that just started, with visible work on the Reno-Sparks Spaghetti Bowl Phase 1 (Spaghetti Bowl "Express" project) beginning later this month. The only other major project in the near-term pipeline is the I-15/Tropicana interchange rebuild–that isn't set to start until closer to 2022, and is unlikely to see delays given it's proximity to Allegiant Stadium.
I-11 development is definitely a long-term goal. Given the pace of corridor studies underway, and knowing that full environmental would come after that, I don't think anyone expected any major construction activity related to I-11 outside of the Las Vegas Valley to come within the next decade. So likely no major delays will result purely from the current fiscal situation, and I'd say we're likely to see minimal setback to the overall timeline–especially since an overall timeline has not yet been developed!
Probably an accurate assessment on all counts. Within the next decade I'd expect to see I-11 construction concentrated on the divided section of US 95 out to Mercury, but no significant twinning or new-terrain projects north of there for a while (at least until the town bypass alignments have been finalized and EIS's done). In short, they're going to pick off the low-lying fruit first, particularly since one can expect some level of exurban development along that corridor outward from 215 in the not-too-distant future that would benefit from an upgraded facility.
Quote from: sparker on August 11, 2020, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 11, 2020, 04:19:40 PM
I seem to remember reading/hearing that the special session of the legislature called recently, to tackle balancing the state budget due to the COVID crisis, raided part of the state highway fund to supplement the state general fund. So that is definitely going to put a hamper on some projects, but I believe part of NDOT's mitigation of that will be to delay preventative maintenance and reconstruction projects that had been planned for rural routes so that funds can still be routed to the urban areas and major rural highways.
There's not a whole lot of really big NDOT projects that are currently under construction right now. All I can think of is the current phase of the US 95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl interchange and the northern I-15/CC-215 interchange construction that just started, with visible work on the Reno-Sparks Spaghetti Bowl Phase 1 (Spaghetti Bowl "Express" project) beginning later this month. The only other major project in the near-term pipeline is the I-15/Tropicana interchange rebuild–that isn't set to start until closer to 2022, and is unlikely to see delays given it's proximity to Allegiant Stadium.
I-11 development is definitely a long-term goal. Given the pace of corridor studies underway, and knowing that full environmental would come after that, I don't think anyone expected any major construction activity related to I-11 outside of the Las Vegas Valley to come within the next decade. So likely no major delays will result purely from the current fiscal situation, and I'd say we're likely to see minimal setback to the overall timeline–especially since an overall timeline has not yet been developed!
Probably an accurate assessment on all counts. Within the next decade I'd expect to see I-11 construction concentrated on the divided section of US 95 out to Mercury, but no significant twinning or new-terrain projects north of there for a while (at least until the town bypass alignments have been finalized and EIS's done). In short, they're going to pick off the low-lying fruit first, particularly since one can expect some level of exurban development along that corridor outward from 215 in the not-too-distant future that would benefit from an upgraded facility.
I would not anticipate much exurban development past Kyle Canyon Road, for a few reasons:
- US 95 is sandwiched between a National Conservation Area, a National Monument, a National Wildlife Refuge and a military base all the way up to the prison. That's 20 miles of undevelopable land between any potential exurban development and the northwest edge of Las Vegas
- There are easier places for developers to turn dirt, such as along SR 160 west of Las Vegas, the entire I-15 corridor south of Las Vegas and up near Apex
- Even if a developer got a wild hair, convinced the BLM to sell her some land up near Indian Springs, and decided to build an exurban community up there, they still have to figure out how to acquire water (as if there are any available groundwater rights in Southern Nevada) or pump it up from Lake Mead. Similarly, any sewage has to be piped back to Las Vegas for treatment — no way treated sewage gets into the aforementioned protected areas, particularly Tule Springs Fossil Beds NM.
Could Indian Springs grow a touch? Sure. But Southern Nevada, thus far, has not been prone to exurban development. There hasn't been a rush of people moving to Goodsprings, Sandy Valley, Moapa Valley... Pahrump's growth is about it, and the things that draw people to Pahrump (particularly Nye County's loose development regulations) don't apply in the upper Las Vegas Valley.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 21, 2020, 12:39:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 11, 2020, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 11, 2020, 04:19:40 PM
I seem to remember reading/hearing that the special session of the legislature called recently, to tackle balancing the state budget due to the COVID crisis, raided part of the state highway fund to supplement the state general fund. So that is definitely going to put a hamper on some projects, but I believe part of NDOT's mitigation of that will be to delay preventative maintenance and reconstruction projects that had been planned for rural routes so that funds can still be routed to the urban areas and major rural highways.
There's not a whole lot of really big NDOT projects that are currently under construction right now. All I can think of is the current phase of the US 95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl interchange and the northern I-15/CC-215 interchange construction that just started, with visible work on the Reno-Sparks Spaghetti Bowl Phase 1 (Spaghetti Bowl "Express" project) beginning later this month. The only other major project in the near-term pipeline is the I-15/Tropicana interchange rebuild–that isn't set to start until closer to 2022, and is unlikely to see delays given it's proximity to Allegiant Stadium.
I-11 development is definitely a long-term goal. Given the pace of corridor studies underway, and knowing that full environmental would come after that, I don't think anyone expected any major construction activity related to I-11 outside of the Las Vegas Valley to come within the next decade. So likely no major delays will result purely from the current fiscal situation, and I'd say we're likely to see minimal setback to the overall timeline–especially since an overall timeline has not yet been developed!
Probably an accurate assessment on all counts. Within the next decade I'd expect to see I-11 construction concentrated on the divided section of US 95 out to Mercury, but no significant twinning or new-terrain projects north of there for a while (at least until the town bypass alignments have been finalized and EIS's done). In short, they're going to pick off the low-lying fruit first, particularly since one can expect some level of exurban development along that corridor outward from 215 in the not-too-distant future that would benefit from an upgraded facility.
I would not anticipate much exurban development past Kyle Canyon Road, for a few reasons:
- US 95 is sandwiched between a National Conservation Area, a National Monument, a National Wildlife Refuge and a military base all the way up to the prison. That's 20 miles of undevelopable land between any potential exurban development and the northwest edge of Las Vegas
- There are easier places for developers to turn dirt, such as along SR 160 west of Las Vegas, the entire I-15 corridor south of Las Vegas and up near Apex
- Even if a developer got a wild hair, convinced the BLM to sell her some land up near Indian Springs, and decided to build an exurban community up there, they still have to figure out how to acquire water (as if there are any available groundwater rights in Southern Nevada) or pump it up from Lake Mead. Similarly, any sewage has to be piped back to Las Vegas for treatment — no way treated sewage gets into the aforementioned protected areas, particularly Tule Springs Fossil Beds NM.
Could Indian Springs grow a touch? Sure. But Southern Nevada, thus far, has not been prone to exurban development. There hasn't been a rush of people moving to Goodsprings, Sandy Valley, Moapa Valley... Pahrump's growth is about it, and the things that draw people to Pahrump (particularly Nye County's loose development regulations) don't apply in the upper Las Vegas Valley.
Fair enough; you seem to be more familiar with those environs than do I (haven't been up 95 in years) -- but if Indian Springs gets its new casino complex that might be the site of multi-unit housing for potential staff (although that's currently speculative at best). But the presence of the US 95 expressway still functions as the "low-lying fruit" spoken of; IMO that'll be elevated to I-standards in relatively short order if for no other reason than to demonstrate that something is actually being developed along the corridor. AFAIK, actual alignments for the various bypasses (Beatty, Goldfield, Tonopah, etc.) are still in the study stages -- if that far along at all. So this will be a long slog; a multi-decade undertaking. I wouldn't be surprised if not only the LV-Mercury section sees initial activity, but once the alignment in the Fallon area is finalized, the interchange with I-80 (wherever sited) and the first few northernmost miles of the corridor, possibly including a Fallon bypass, see relatively short-term development to funnel traffic onto the existing corridor, signed as I-11 since it connects to I-80. It's a blatant PR move to churn up corridor development interest within the two audiences that count -- the public and the state legislature -- but may be as effective as any other course of action.
Quote from: sparker on August 21, 2020, 02:47:33 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 21, 2020, 12:39:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 11, 2020, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 11, 2020, 04:19:40 PM
I seem to remember reading/hearing that the special session of the legislature called recently, to tackle balancing the state budget due to the COVID crisis, raided part of the state highway fund to supplement the state general fund. So that is definitely going to put a hamper on some projects, but I believe part of NDOT's mitigation of that will be to delay preventative maintenance and reconstruction projects that had been planned for rural routes so that funds can still be routed to the urban areas and major rural highways.
There's not a whole lot of really big NDOT projects that are currently under construction right now. All I can think of is the current phase of the US 95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl interchange and the northern I-15/CC-215 interchange construction that just started, with visible work on the Reno-Sparks Spaghetti Bowl Phase 1 (Spaghetti Bowl "Express" project) beginning later this month. The only other major project in the near-term pipeline is the I-15/Tropicana interchange rebuild–that isn't set to start until closer to 2022, and is unlikely to see delays given it's proximity to Allegiant Stadium.
I-11 development is definitely a long-term goal. Given the pace of corridor studies underway, and knowing that full environmental would come after that, I don't think anyone expected any major construction activity related to I-11 outside of the Las Vegas Valley to come within the next decade. So likely no major delays will result purely from the current fiscal situation, and I'd say we're likely to see minimal setback to the overall timeline–especially since an overall timeline has not yet been developed!
Probably an accurate assessment on all counts. Within the next decade I'd expect to see I-11 construction concentrated on the divided section of US 95 out to Mercury, but no significant twinning or new-terrain projects north of there for a while (at least until the town bypass alignments have been finalized and EIS's done). In short, they're going to pick off the low-lying fruit first, particularly since one can expect some level of exurban development along that corridor outward from 215 in the not-too-distant future that would benefit from an upgraded facility.
I would not anticipate much exurban development past Kyle Canyon Road, for a few reasons:
- US 95 is sandwiched between a National Conservation Area, a National Monument, a National Wildlife Refuge and a military base all the way up to the prison. That's 20 miles of undevelopable land between any potential exurban development and the northwest edge of Las Vegas
- There are easier places for developers to turn dirt, such as along SR 160 west of Las Vegas, the entire I-15 corridor south of Las Vegas and up near Apex
- Even if a developer got a wild hair, convinced the BLM to sell her some land up near Indian Springs, and decided to build an exurban community up there, they still have to figure out how to acquire water (as if there are any available groundwater rights in Southern Nevada) or pump it up from Lake Mead. Similarly, any sewage has to be piped back to Las Vegas for treatment — no way treated sewage gets into the aforementioned protected areas, particularly Tule Springs Fossil Beds NM.
Could Indian Springs grow a touch? Sure. But Southern Nevada, thus far, has not been prone to exurban development. There hasn't been a rush of people moving to Goodsprings, Sandy Valley, Moapa Valley... Pahrump's growth is about it, and the things that draw people to Pahrump (particularly Nye County's loose development regulations) don't apply in the upper Las Vegas Valley.
Fair enough; you seem to be more familiar with those environs than do I (haven't been up 95 in years) -- but if Indian Springs gets its new casino complex that might be the site of multi-unit housing for potential staff (although that's currently speculative at best). But the presence of the US 95 expressway still functions as the "low-lying fruit" spoken of; IMO that'll be elevated to I-standards in relatively short order if for no other reason than to demonstrate that something is actually being developed along the corridor. AFAIK, actual alignments for the various bypasses (Beatty, Goldfield, Tonopah, etc.) are still in the study stages -- if that far along at all. So this will be a long slog; a multi-decade undertaking. I wouldn't be surprised if not only the LV-Mercury section sees initial activity, but once the alignment in the Fallon area is finalized, the interchange with I-80 (wherever sited) and the first few northernmost miles of the corridor, possibly including a Fallon bypass, see relatively short-term development to funnel traffic onto the existing corridor, signed as I-11 since it connects to I-80. It's a blatant PR move to churn up corridor development interest within the two audiences that count -- the public and the state legislature -- but may be as effective as any other course of action.
On this we agree. There's only three remaining interchanges needed between Snow Canyon Road and Indian Springs at this point, all of which are relatively inexpensive rural-grade exits.
I think once I-11 is routed up thru Las Vegas (presumably over I-515) it will at least get extended up to Indian Springs and Creech AFB in a relatively short time. I'm guessing by around 2030. The military angle could help sell the upgrade. The freeway upgrade would be pretty easy. Some at-grade intersections and driveways along the route can be eliminated. Slip ramps onto short frontage roads the length of a rest area can serve others. A few new exits are necessary: Lee Canyon Road/NV-156, Cold Creek Rd (for the prison) and the frontage road/main lanes setup within Indian Springs itself.
Going past Indian Springs up to the outskirts of Beatty would be just as easy an upgrade. It's just a matter of doing any necessary improvements to the US-95 main lanes and adding exits for NV-160 and NV-373 at Amargosa Valley.
The big thing that's going to work against rural development of the I-11 corridor is urban/suburban highway needs in the Las Vegas area. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been a big monkey wrench thrown into the gears of the Vegas development machine. But the pandemic is not going to last forever. The I-215 loop is going to get completed. Some other corridors in the Vegas metro will need attention. Some will need "super street" treatment, getting grade separations at key intersections. But other freeway corridors will be necessary too. There's only so much funding to go around.
It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown. Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/
Quote from: splashflash on August 24, 2020, 10:01:45 AM
It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown. Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/
Watch out for the paywall -- the article flashes on for about 3 seconds, then a subscription request appears in its place. But from what I could see, this principally concerns replacing or rebuilding the sections adjacent to the "Spaghetti Bowl"/I-15 interchange from Rancho Road west of the interchange to Mojave Road east of it, including the viaduct over M.L. King Blvd which, AFAIK, is part of the original US 95/I-515 construction. Wonder if this foreshadows the alignment choice for I-11 -- would NDOT undertake a project of this magnitude unless there was a reasonable level of certitude that US 95 was the clear front-runner, if not the obvious selection.
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2020, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: splashflash on August 24, 2020, 10:01:45 AM
It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown. Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/
Watch out for the paywall -- the article flashes on for about 3 seconds, then a subscription request appears in its place. But from what I could see, this principally concerns replacing or rebuilding the sections adjacent to the "Spaghetti Bowl"/I-15 interchange from Rancho Road west of the interchange to Mojave Road east of it, including the viaduct over M.L. King Blvd which, AFAIK, is part of the original US 95/I-515 construction. Wonder if this foreshadows the alignment choice for I-11 -- would NDOT undertake a project of this magnitude unless there was a reasonable level of certitude that US 95 was the clear front-runner, if not the obvious selection.
NDOT has been studying this for some time, dating back to the late 1990s. The downtown viaduct is particularly problematic — that thing freaking heaves when you're driving it because of the amount of heat expansion built into it. And, to be honest, the viaduct itself was probably unnecessary for more than about a half mile through the core of downtown.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 24, 2020, 07:31:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2020, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: splashflash on August 24, 2020, 10:01:45 AM
It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown. Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/
Watch out for the paywall -- the article flashes on for about 3 seconds, then a subscription request appears in its place. But from what I could see, this principally concerns replacing or rebuilding the sections adjacent to the "Spaghetti Bowl"/I-15 interchange from Rancho Road west of the interchange to Mojave Road east of it, including the viaduct over M.L. King Blvd which, AFAIK, is part of the original US 95/I-515 construction. Wonder if this foreshadows the alignment choice for I-11 -- would NDOT undertake a project of this magnitude unless there was a reasonable level of certitude that US 95 was the clear front-runner, if not the obvious selection.
NDOT has been studying this for some time, dating back to the late 1990s. The downtown viaduct is particularly problematic — that thing freaking heaves when you're driving it because of the amount of heat expansion built into it. And, to be honest, the viaduct itself was probably unnecessary for more than about a half mile through the core of downtown.
Probably true but that was the style when it was designed. I would say they didn't know any better but.......
Update on the public process for possible Interstate 11 alignments east of Las Vegas, should the highway go on that direction:
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2020/09/09/i-11-through-lake-mead-rec-area-no-please-say-residents-conservationists/
QuoteEnvironmental groups and City of Henderson residents are fighting a proposal to build a freeway through the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and eastern Henderson.
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is moving forward with the development of the Interstate 11 Corridor Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement meant to study the impact of a planned freeway that would travel through the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
The project is in the scoping phase, a period used to identify and develop corridor alternatives. One of the current proposed alternatives, the "eastern alternative corridor" would potentially run through either the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Clark County Wetlands Park, or along the border of the City of Henderson. ...
Conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the National Parks Conservation Association, say NDOT's proposed eastern alignments of the highway would harm more than just Henderson neighborhoods, but also endanger protected public lands and the habitat of imperiled wildlife.
Many of the proposed eastern alignments cross Lake Mead National Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park Service that includes habitat for desert bighorn sheep and the Las Vegas bearpoppy, a rare native desert flower that has disappeared across much of the Mojave Desert. ...
Other proposed eastern alignments for the planned freeway go through Rainbow Gardens east of the Las Vegas Valley, a region classified by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as an "area of critical environmental concern," largely due to the presence of the poppy.
Map of the various corridors under study for Interstate 11 in and around Las Vegas:
(https://www.nevadacurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/11.png)
Not necessarily against the construction of an eastern loop independent of I-11 (perhaps an I-x11), though it seems logical the I-11 designation should simply follow the I-515 / US-95 freeway through Las Vegas.
I am a big supporter of I-11 taking the route of 515 through DTLV but if I-11 gets us an eastern LV loop I'd support that in a heartbeat!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 29, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
I am a big supporter of I-11 taking the route of 515 through DTLV but if I-11 gets us an eastern LV loop I'd support that in a heartbeat!
What I need from I-11 is Reno to Vegas in 5 hours in safety. The route near Las Vegas is of secondary importance to me.
Quote from: michravera on November 29, 2020, 11:07:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 29, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
I am a big supporter of I-11 taking the route of 515 through DTLV but if I-11 gets us an eastern LV loop I'd support that in a heartbeat!
What I need from I-11 is Reno to Vegas in 5 hours in safety. The route near Las Vegas is of secondary importance to me.
I hear you but regardless the direct route of 515 will be available whether signed I-11 or not. If political will to build an eastern belt in Vegas is motivated by an I-11 designation then that literally changed nothing for you but a route number.
With that being said, I will be extremely, albeit pleasantly, surprised if an eastern LV loop freeway is constructed.
The simplest solution -- and the most rational, IMO, is to simply overlay US 95/I-515 with I-11 through town. An eastern bypass, if built (and there's ample reason to not build it, much of which is outlined in the cited article), would be best designated as an extension of I-215 -- if it directly connects to the 215 corridor at one end -- or another x11 or x15 if not. Now I can understand the principal rationale for not going directly through the center of town, particularly if I-11 even comes close to its backers' projected commercial truck flow -- but to consider an environmentally precarious route to avoid that seems an overreaction compounded by bad judgment. There's a reason why the 215 bypass is configured as a 3/4 loop -- there's no good way to deploy an east-side connector in this venue.
Many of the green lines on this map I have not seen before in reference to eastern I-11 alternatives. The most intriguing to me is a path that starts either near the southern 215 terminus or near the east side of Henderson, goes north through Wetlands Park (I had no idea the Wetlands Park was that big...), and hugs the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains through the Sunrise Manor area, then curves to the northern terminus of CC 215 just north of Nellis AFB. That seems semi-feasible as a potential eastern beltway/US 93 reroute (remember the CANAMEX corridor?), concerns of Henderson residents and impacts to Wetlands Park not withstanding–it's too bad this wasn't studied as an eastern beltway alternative years ago, cause it may have had a better shot of actually happening.
That said, the US 95 or south/west 215 alignment still seems like a better choice for I-11.
Quote from: roadfro on November 30, 2020, 11:50:01 AM
Many of the green lines on this map I have not seen before in reference to eastern I-11 alternatives. The most intriguing to me is a path that starts either near the southern 215 terminus or near the east side of Henderson, goes north through Wetlands Park (I had no idea the Wetlands Park was that big...), and hugs the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains through the Sunrise Manor area, then curves to the northern terminus of CC 215 just north of Nellis AFB. That seems semi-feasible as a potential eastern beltway/US 93 reroute (remember the CANAMEX corridor?), concerns of Henderson residents and impacts to Wetlands Park not withstanding–it's too bad this wasn't studied as an eastern beltway alternative years ago, cause it may have had a better shot of actually happening.
That said, the US 95 or south/west 215 alignment still seems like a better choice for I-11.
As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.
That said, I would suggest that I-11 be used to get traffic as far from Vegas as soon as possible and as far from Vegas into Vegas as soon as possible. I don't see why we should run it through downtown, but, if it gets the rest of the road built, fine.
Quote from: michravera on November 30, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 30, 2020, 11:50:01 AM
Many of the green lines on this map I have not seen before in reference to eastern I-11 alternatives. The most intriguing to me is a path that starts either near the southern 215 terminus or near the east side of Henderson, goes north through Wetlands Park (I had no idea the Wetlands Park was that big...), and hugs the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains through the Sunrise Manor area, then curves to the northern terminus of CC 215 just north of Nellis AFB. That seems semi-feasible as a potential eastern beltway/US 93 reroute (remember the CANAMEX corridor?), concerns of Henderson residents and impacts to Wetlands Park not withstanding–it's too bad this wasn't studied as an eastern beltway alternative years ago, cause it may have had a better shot of actually happening.
That said, the US 95 or south/west 215 alignment still seems like a better choice for I-11.
As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.
That said, I would suggest that I-11 be used to get traffic as far from Vegas as soon as possible and as far from Vegas into Vegas as soon as possible. I don't see why we should run it through downtown, but, if it gets the rest of the road built, fine.
Yes, I think this is right. I also think, in the case of I-11 — the through-route is already there. US 95 / I-515 isn't going anywhere. So it's a net-neutral to put I-11 through the city rather than use I-215.
Quote from: michravera on November 30, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.
Yes, but there might be a better example of what you're saying since I-5 does miss San Jose, Oakland, S.F., and Fresno. Routing too far west of Stockton would call for going through a lot of the wetlands of the Delta, a cost and environmental problem. There is a good case that it should have gone west of West Sacramento, maybe through Davis or Webster.
I just don't see the benefit in signing I-11 over the west half of the I/CC 215 beltway, because all that does is it results in more numbers to worry about. The average driver may have a hard time with the idea that following the same NW/SE freeway will take them on I-11, then I-515, then US 95, then back to I-11. Just seems like unnecessary confusion to me. Plus 215 is already a very well-known designation for the entire belt route.
From a numbering standpoint, it would be far simpler to just give each of the three major LV freeways its own number, keeping the entire beltway as 215 and designating the entire NW-SE corridor as I-11.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2020, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: michravera on November 30, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.
Yes, but there might be a better example of what you're saying since I-5 does miss San Jose, Oakland, S.F., and Fresno. Routing too far west of Stockton would call for going through a lot of the wetlands of the Delta, a cost and environmental problem. There is a good case that it should have gone west of West Sacramento, maybe through Davis or Webster.
That's a great idea!
Rick
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2020, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: michravera on November 30, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.
Yes, but there might be a better example of what you're saying since I-5 does miss San Jose, Oakland, S.F., and Fresno. Routing too far west of Stockton would call for going through a lot of the wetlands of the Delta, a cost and environmental problem. There is a good case that it should have gone west of West Sacramento, maybe through Davis or Webster.
The original I-5 plans had it crossing the Sacramento River south of William Land Park, near the current Fruitridge interchange, crossing the original I-80 approximately at the I-80/US 50 interchange, following the east side of the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility up to just south of where CA 16 crossed the Bypass at ground level (it flooded when the bypass was in use), where it would turn west to follow CA 16 to Woodland. That plan was stymied when the Ship Channel expansion was proposed, which would have necessitated a high-level bridge over that waterway as well as one over the Sacramento River. Of course, the downtown Sacramento alignment now in use was eventually selected, abetted by the city of Sacramento's desire to make their waterfront district a tourist attraction, with I-5 for immediate access. But if the aim were to avoid city centers, the proximity of the Delta to Stockton may well have driven I-5 eastward, possibly coinciding with US/CA 99 until somewhere between Stockton and Lodi.
But back to the matter at hand -- US 95 is an Interstate (or close)-standard facility for its entire length between the two interchanges with the 215 loop; there's nothing to be lost regarding interface with the local community by simply running I-11 on it. Some LV tourist interests may prefer running it over the western portion of the 215 loop to get it nearer the Strip hotel/casinos, but the chances are that the entire loop as currently planned will eventually be I-215.
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2020, 02:53:29 AM
The original I-5 plans had it crossing the Sacramento River south of William Land Park, near the current Fruitridge interchange, crossing the original I-80 approximately at the I-80/US 50 interchange, following the east side of the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility up to just south of where CA 16 crossed the Bypass at ground level (it flooded when the bypass was in use), where it would turn west to follow CA 16 to Woodland. That plan was stymied when the Ship Channel expansion was proposed, which would have necessitated a high-level bridge over that waterway as well as one over the Sacramento River. Of course, the downtown Sacramento alignment now in use was eventually selected, abetted by the city of Sacramento's desire to make their waterfront district a tourist attraction, with I-5 for immediate access. But if the aim were to avoid city centers, the proximity of the Delta to Stockton may well have driven I-5 eastward, possibly coinciding with US/CA 99 until somewhere between Stockton and Lodi.
Thank you for this! Not for the first time, I curse how few water features Google Maps labels. But it is what it is, I've got it worked out now.
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2020, 02:53:29 AM
But back to the matter at hand -- US 95 is an Interstate (or close)-standard facility for its entire length between the two interchanges with the 215 loop; there's nothing to be lost regarding interface with the local community by simply running I-11 on it. Some LV tourist interests may prefer running it over the western portion of the 215 loop to get it nearer the Strip hotel/casinos, but the chances are that the entire loop as currently planned will eventually be I-215.
Yes, US 95 is mostly Interstate standard. There's some short stretches with minimal shoulder widths (mostly through interchanges), and a couple less-than-optimal ramps near downtown (which with NDOT's Downtown Access Project in early stages are planned to be addressed), but otherwise it hits all the marks.
The plan has always been for the entire CC 215 to become I-215, and for the county to turn it over to NDOT (likely in exchange for NDOT offloading more arterial roadway mileage to the county), once the whole loop is built to freeway standards. Finishing all phases of the US 95 interchange is going to be the final upgrade hurdle.
why would they choose any of the green routes? also when will 215 be done?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 09, 2021, 04:09:18 PM
why would they choose any of the green routes? also when will 215 be done?
My guess regarding why the "green" east side routes were in consideration to begin with is (a) a simple desire for a full beltway around LV (albeit one that partially multiplexes with the existing I-11), and (b) the fact that I-11 to the southeast and I-15 to the northeast are part of the "Canamax" corridor (HPC #26, the "vehicle" for the original I-11 designation), and someone thought it would be a good idea to expedite movement between the two corridor sections by providing a more direct connection, which an eastside routing would do. Of course, the fact that it would intersect I-11 out near Boulder City is due to the near-saturation development on the east side of LV and Henderson that occupies much of the easily traversable land -- and most DOT's avoid employing eminent domain like the plague these days, particularly with relatively new housing.
As far as the 215 schedule -- that's something that roadfro might have some insight into!
Quote from: sparker on January 09, 2021, 07:16:09 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 09, 2021, 04:09:18 PM
why would they choose any of the green routes? also when will 215 be done?
My guess regarding why the "green" east side routes were in consideration to begin with is (a) a simple desire for a full beltway around LV (albeit one that partially multiplexes with the existing I-11), and (b) the fact that I-11 to the southeast and I-15 to the northeast are part of the "Canamax" corridor (HPC #26, the "vehicle" for the original I-11 designation), and someone thought it would be a good idea to expedite movement between the two corridor sections by providing a more direct connection, which an eastside routing would do. Of course, the fact that it would intersect I-11 out near Boulder City is due to the near-saturation development on the east side of LV and Henderson that occupies much of the easily traversable land -- and most DOT's avoid employing eminent domain like the plague these days, particularly with relatively new housing.
The original high-level I-11 corridor study looked at several possible route corridors through/around the Vegas area, based on alignments of existing roadways and existing development. There were many potential east side routes as well, many of which were eliminated early on as problematic environmentally (impacts to Lake Mead NRA) or difficultly for construction through mountainous terrain. I don't recall in the original study any east side lines actually traversing the interior/Vegas side of Sunrise & Frenchman Mountains–first glimpse I recall of something like that being this map.
I believe some entity (I think NDOT, but could have been Clark County) did a feasibility study in the mid-2000s for an eastern beltway leg. That was not studied further as the concepts were coming with a billion-dollar price tag and exorbitant right-of-way acquisition costs through the more densely developed parts of town (note that the I-215 between its south end and SR 146 was built on old SR 146 alignment and virtually all of the CC 215 portion was built in areas that were undeveloped in the mid 1990s, so right of way costs for the whole facility were relatively low). So there hasn't ever really been any significant talk of an eastern beltway.
Sparker mentioned the CANAMEX Corridor as a potential rationale. I haven't heard any mentions of that corridor from NDOT in some time. But the I-11 study I believe makes reference to it–and while the study recommends I-11 follow the US 95 corridor through Nevada, also makes mention that the US 93 Nevada corridor through the state is another important north-south corridor that may need attention.
With those two ideas in consideration, these east side concepts become very intriguing. The alignments that go east of the mountains and outside of the valley through Lake Mead NRA don't have much utility for transportation in the urban area, and would only really be beneficial for through traffic utilizing US 93 or the CANAMEX corridor from Arizona to points north–through traffic on I-11 from Arizona northward to northwestern Nevada would face more miles this way as opposed to going through Vegas. But the east side lines in the valley are further east than what I remember seeing in the eastern beltway feasibility report, and hugging the foothills along the east valley could provide utility for both US 93/CANAMEX and local freeway access while also being somewhat comparable in mileage to the other through-town I-11 options.
Quote from: sparker on January 09, 2021, 07:16:09 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 09, 2021, 04:09:18 PMalso when will 215 be done?
As far as the 215 schedule -- that's something that roadfro might have some insight into!
The entire 215 loop is now freeway standard with the exception of two areas:
(1) The vicinity through the US 95 interchange. There are direct access ramps under construction now, which is the third phase of a four phase NDOT project for upgrading the junction to a system interchange. The fourth phase, which will complete the 215 freeway mainline through the interchange, just began and is expected to be completed in early 2024.
(2) The north terminus at the northern I-15 interchange. Conversion to a system interchange is under construction now with scheduled completion near the end of 2022.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
If my understanding of the situation is correct, when these projects are completed and the 215 loop is a continuous 3/4 loop around LV -- and barring an I-11 reroute over a portion of it -- that loop will be submitted, and if approved, subsequently signed, as I-215.
The Bruce Woodbury Beltway, when fully completed, should be solely signed as Interstate 215. Interstate 11 should follow Interstate 515 and US 95 throughout the Las Vegas area.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 12, 2021, 04:21:51 PM
The Bruce Woodbury Beltway, when fully completed, should be solely signed as Interstate 215. Interstate 11 should follow Interstate 515 and US 95 throughout the Las Vegas area.
That would, IMO, be the optimal situation -- and save NDOT some bucks constructing a connector from the NW corner of the beltway to US 95 north of there. But if for some reason the western beltway
is selected, then the portion hosting I-11 should be just that:
solely I-11, with I-215 signed on the northern leg between I-11 and I-15.
Top posting this thread since another I-11 thread got created.
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
I agree the central alignment for I-11 makes the most sense but Vegas needs an eastern loop to complete its beltway. Hopefully that happens at some point.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2021, 04:09:13 PM
I agree the central alignment for I-11 makes the most sense but Vegas needs an eastern loop to complete its beltway. Hopefully that happens at some point.
Any facility on the eastern side would have to be quite far-flung; the housing on the east side of town and neighboring Henderson backs right up against the ridge. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some sort of multiple-lane arterial tucked in between the residences and the mountain as an alternative to actually serve the housing rather than a simple bypass. The only precipitating factor that I could think of that would prompt construction of an outlying east freeway is if commercial traffic between AZ and SLC consistently complains about schedule issues due to congestion -- but only after the actual through-town corridor has been selected, signed, and is in full operation. The problem with any beltway that utilizes the existing 215 corridor is that the portion at south I-11 will need to make a considerable multiplexed "jog" to serve as a continuous facility.
But I agree that the through-town alignment, which would mark the demise of I-515, is the single most rational alternative, since (a) it already exists and (b) it doesn't require any new-terrain construction at the beltway's northwest corner. If an eastern belt segment
is proposed in the future, it would likely be as a 215 extension if the north end segues directly onto that freeway, or a new designation if not.
IMHO, if an Eastern leg of a Las Vegas beltway is ever built it should carry the I-215 designation. That's the only thing that makes sense. Let I-11 consume I-515.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 30, 2021, 09:10:58 PM
IMHO, if an Eastern leg of a Las Vegas beltway is ever built it should carry the I-215 designation. That's the only thing that makes sense. Let I-11 consume I-515.
If either of the termini (at I-11 to the south or I-15 to the north) of an eastern bypass segues directly onto the existing 215 3/4 beltway, I'd concur that an I-215 designation would be appropriate; if, however, it terminates farther out on
both ends, a new designation (I-415? 211?) should be selected. Two separate jogs/multiplexes for a beltway may just be a bit much!
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.
Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area. Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.
Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area. Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!
There isn't any developable land there. The city is built up to Frenchman's Mountain (except in the area downhill from the original Las Vegas landfill, not exactly prime real estate), and everything east of there is either ACEC or NPS.
It's. Never. Happening.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 10:38:21 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.
Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area. Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!
There isn't any developable land there. The city is built up to Frenchman's Mountain (except in the area downhill from the original Las Vegas landfill, not exactly prime real estate), and everything east of there is either ACEC or NPS.
It's. Never. Happening.
I tend to agree -- but someone needs to drive that point home to the regional pipedreamers who persist in submitting such corridor proposals -- let 'em know that they're probably banging their collective heads against the proverbial wall! I suppose some stubborn folks' heads are harder than others, though.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 02:26:48 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 10:38:21 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 31, 2021, 04:13:02 PM
Let us again be clear: There is no justification for the $1 billion-plus expense of an eastern leg of the 215 Beltway.
Which is probably why (a) it was originally dropped from beltway planning and (b) any attempt to reinstate it has been largely speculative, although interested parties (likely developers looking to latch on to adjacent properties) have proposed particular corridors, all of which are well east of current development and some of which actually encroach on the Lake Mead recreational area. Not a sure-fire recipe for ready implementation!
There isn't any developable land there. The city is built up to Frenchman's Mountain (except in the area downhill from the original Las Vegas landfill, not exactly prime real estate), and everything east of there is either ACEC or NPS.
It's. Never. Happening.
I tend to agree -- but someone needs to drive that point home to the regional pipedreamers who persist in submitting such corridor proposals -- let 'em know that they're probably banging their collective heads against the proverbial wall! I suppose some stubborn folks' heads are harder than others, though.
Quite honestly, the only time I've really seen any mention of a potential eastern Las Vegas Beltway over the last 10+ years has been on this forum...
IIRC, the idea was last floated circa early/mid-2000s, and an preliminary feasibility study ruled it out as cost-prohibitive since ROW costs would have been enormous to get a freeway through the more established parts of the region. Keep in mind that most of the path of 215 went in where there was no/minimal preexisting developments, so ROW was relatively cheap.
Don't get me wrong, an eastern beltway leg would've been nice (especially in the context of the CANAMEX corridor), but it's not gonna happen.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
A bit more on the deletion of the eastern alignment is provided in this article:
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/08/26/ndotscrapsoption/
QuoteFor years the Nevada Department of Transportation has proposed building a new highway system for the Interstate 11 Corridor that would run through the City of Henderson and protected public lands, including Rainbow Gardens and the Lake Mead Recreation Area.
Those plans, known as the "eastern alternative corridor," have now been abandoned after ongoing public backlash, according to the department.
"The eastern corridor alternative was dismissed from further consideration for a number of reasons, including potential impact to sensitive environmental resources and protected areas, access, mobility, connectivity, financial feasibility, and public opposition," said Ryan McInerney, director of Communications & Government Affairs for NDOT. ...
The two remaining options for the highway are the western alternative corridor, which would extend westward along existing I-11 from the Nevada-Arizona border to the I-215 before continuing further west along the I-215 to northwest Las Vegas, or the central alternative corridor which would extend along the existing I-11 from the Nevada- Arizona border to the I-215 and extend further north along the I-515 to the spaghetti bowl interchange before continuing northerly along the U.S.-95.
The eastern alternative may have been doomed from the start due to a lack of financial feasibility, access, mobility and connectivity.
Nearly 45 percent of the proposed route for the eastern alternative would require the construction of new bridges and interchanges within mountainous and treacherous terrain, putting the cost of the eastern alternative at a whopping $2.42 billion compared to a $406 million cost for the central alternative and $320 million cost for the western alternative.
Broken down, the eastern alternative was estimated to be six times as expensive as the central alternative and almost eight times as expensive as the western alternative, according to a report by NDOT.
The Eastern Corridor would have also been the longest of the three corridor alternatives and would carry substantially lower daily traffic volumes than the other two alternatives due to its relative isolation from the greater Las Vegas Area, making the cost per corridor mile and cost per user a "very high" and impractical investment.
Public comment for the future development of I-11 started on August 17 and closes on September 30. NDOT is encouraging community input at their open public online meeting for the two current corridor alternatives and the overall project.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 01, 2021, 01:14:55 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
A bit more on the deletion of the eastern alignment is provided in this article:
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/08/26/ndotscrapsoption/
QuoteFor years the Nevada Department of Transportation has proposed building a new highway system for the Interstate 11 Corridor that would run through the City of Henderson and protected public lands, including Rainbow Gardens and the Lake Mead Recreation Area.
Those plans, known as the "eastern alternative corridor," have now been abandoned after ongoing public backlash, according to the department.
"The eastern corridor alternative was dismissed from further consideration for a number of reasons, including potential impact to sensitive environmental resources and protected areas, access, mobility, connectivity, financial feasibility, and public opposition," said Ryan McInerney, director of Communications & Government Affairs for NDOT. ...
The two remaining options for the highway are the western alternative corridor, which would extend westward along existing I-11 from the Nevada-Arizona border to the I-215 before continuing further west along the I-215 to northwest Las Vegas, or the central alternative corridor which would extend along the existing I-11 from the Nevada- Arizona border to the I-215 and extend further north along the I-515 to the spaghetti bowl interchange before continuing northerly along the U.S.-95.
The eastern alternative may have been doomed from the start due to a lack of financial feasibility, access, mobility and connectivity.
Nearly 45 percent of the proposed route for the eastern alternative would require the construction of new bridges and interchanges within mountainous and treacherous terrain, putting the cost of the eastern alternative at a whopping $2.42 billion compared to a $406 million cost for the central alternative and $320 million cost for the western alternative.
Broken down, the eastern alternative was estimated to be six times as expensive as the central alternative and almost eight times as expensive as the western alternative, according to a report by NDOT.
The Eastern Corridor would have also been the longest of the three corridor alternatives and would carry substantially lower daily traffic volumes than the other two alternatives due to its relative isolation from the greater Las Vegas Area, making the cost per corridor mile and cost per user a "very high" and impractical investment.
Public comment for the future development of I-11 started on August 17 and closes on September 30. NDOT is encouraging community input at their open public online meeting for the two current corridor alternatives and the overall project.
..........one down, one to go! It's likely, IMO, that absent any major political influence from Strip interests being brandished, the western/215 alternative will also be dismissed, primarily because either a direct connection to north US 95 from the northwest corner of 215, on all-new terrain, would be required to avoid an oblique/backward connection from the east-west portion of 215 to the diagonal 95 and vice-versa. Just the time required for the obligatory studies and gathering of public comment, plus the expense of ROW acquisition and, finally, construction itself would likely add tens if not hundreds of millions to the corridor development expense. Even though there's still work to be done on 95/515 near downtown, utilizing that corridor is and always has been the most reasonable option.
Quote from: sparker on September 01, 2021, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on September 01, 2021, 01:14:55 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
It looks like the Eastern Alignments are no longer under consideration for Interstate 11 in Las Vegas: https://i11nv.com/. Hopefully, the Western Alignments will also be dismissed, so that the Central Alignment (the only one I think that makes sense) becomes the Preferred Alternative (R.I.P. Interstate 515).
A bit more on the deletion of the eastern alignment is provided in this article:
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/08/26/ndotscrapsoption/
QuoteFor years the Nevada Department of Transportation has proposed building a new highway system for the Interstate 11 Corridor that would run through the City of Henderson and protected public lands, including Rainbow Gardens and the Lake Mead Recreation Area.
Those plans, known as the "eastern alternative corridor," have now been abandoned after ongoing public backlash, according to the department.
"The eastern corridor alternative was dismissed from further consideration for a number of reasons, including potential impact to sensitive environmental resources and protected areas, access, mobility, connectivity, financial feasibility, and public opposition," said Ryan McInerney, director of Communications & Government Affairs for NDOT. ...
The two remaining options for the highway are the western alternative corridor, which would extend westward along existing I-11 from the Nevada-Arizona border to the I-215 before continuing further west along the I-215 to northwest Las Vegas, or the central alternative corridor which would extend along the existing I-11 from the Nevada- Arizona border to the I-215 and extend further north along the I-515 to the spaghetti bowl interchange before continuing northerly along the U.S.-95.
The eastern alternative may have been doomed from the start due to a lack of financial feasibility, access, mobility and connectivity.
Nearly 45 percent of the proposed route for the eastern alternative would require the construction of new bridges and interchanges within mountainous and treacherous terrain, putting the cost of the eastern alternative at a whopping $2.42 billion compared to a $406 million cost for the central alternative and $320 million cost for the western alternative.
Broken down, the eastern alternative was estimated to be six times as expensive as the central alternative and almost eight times as expensive as the western alternative, according to a report by NDOT.
The Eastern Corridor would have also been the longest of the three corridor alternatives and would carry substantially lower daily traffic volumes than the other two alternatives due to its relative isolation from the greater Las Vegas Area, making the cost per corridor mile and cost per user a "very high" and impractical investment.
Public comment for the future development of I-11 started on August 17 and closes on September 30. NDOT is encouraging community input at their open public online meeting for the two current corridor alternatives and the overall project.
..........one down, one to go! It's likely, IMO, that absent any major political influence from Strip interests being brandished, the western/215 alternative will also be dismissed, primarily because either a direct connection to north US 95 from the northwest corner of 215, on all-new terrain, would be required to avoid an oblique/backward connection from the east-west portion of 215 to the diagonal 95 and vice-versa. Just the time required for the obligatory studies and gathering of public comment, plus the expense of ROW acquisition and, finally, construction itself would likely add tens if not hundreds of millions to the corridor development expense. Even though there's still work to be done on 95/515 near downtown, utilizing that corridor is and always has been the most reasonable option.
Agreed, US 95 is the best option.
However, "the I-215" and "the I-515" ???
(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/peanuts/images/1/1f/Charliebrown-1-.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130411035507)
In lieu of an eastern beltway, perhaps Nellis Boulevard could be upgraded in key areas to a "Superarterial" between 515 and 15, in a similar manner as Desert Inn around the Strip.
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?
Likely, that $400 million cost is for the eventual downtown 515 viaduct later this decade: https://ndotdap.com/environmental-schedule
Quote from: brad2971 on September 03, 2021, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?
Likely, that $400 million cost is for the eventual downtown 515 viaduct later this decade: https://ndotdap.com/environmental-schedule
The area of I-515/US 95 covered by the Downtown Access Project is the one of the oldest stretches of freeway in the Las Vegas area, and has not seen any sort of significant upgrades since original construction in the late 1960s and early 1980s–it's the last significant stretch of freeway in the Las Vegas Valley to not have been newly constructed or undergone major reconstruction in the 21st century. The oldest section between Las Vegas Blvd and I-15 has a number of deficiencies from Interstate standards, including substandard width shoulders, closely spaced ramps, and inadequate merge distances. Other than that, I-515/US 95 is generally Interstate standard with minimal deficiencies throughout the rest of the Las Vegas Valley now, so NDOT could probably post the I-shields immediately after making their final alignment decision.
IMHO, the $400 million estimate central corridor estimate on I-11, if mostly aimed at addressing the DAP, almost seems a bit of a low-ball estimate for the scope of work they plan to do. But part of that project is to cut many of the street crossings that currently go under the viaduct (mostly residential roads) so that they don't have to build another long viaduct or have as many bridges if they go with the below-grade alternative, so perhaps this lower estimate reflects far less bridgework than I'm imagining...
What if (as an alternative to running it over the old decrepit viaduct through downtown) I-11 was routed west on 215, then north on a concurrency with I-15 to US 95? At this time, wouldn't it just be the cost to re-sign everything?
I understand it's not the most direct route, but the western bypass (were it to be chosen) certainly wouldn't be, either. It would save a ton of money and could probably be done now.
Quote from: roadfro on September 03, 2021, 03:27:55 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on September 03, 2021, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2021, 11:10:42 PM
Why would the Central Alternative (US-95/I-515) cost over $400 million? We're talking about an existing freeway, one that pretty much already complies with modern Interstate highway standards. It should just be a matter of re-signing the highway. Are they throwing in the cost of existing improvement projects along the I-515/US-95 corridor?
Likely, that $400 million cost is for the eventual downtown 515 viaduct later this decade: https://ndotdap.com/environmental-schedule
The area of I-515/US 95 covered by the Downtown Access Project is the one of the oldest stretches of freeway in the Las Vegas area, and has not seen any sort of significant upgrades since original construction in the late 1960s and early 1980s–it's the last significant stretch of freeway in the Las Vegas Valley to not have been newly constructed or undergone major reconstruction in the 21st century. The oldest section between Las Vegas Blvd and I-15 has a number of deficiencies from Interstate standards, including substandard width shoulders, closely spaced ramps, and inadequate merge distances. Other than that, I-515/US 95 is generally Interstate standard with minimal deficiencies throughout the rest of the Las Vegas Valley now, so NDOT could probably post the I-shields immediately after making their final alignment decision.
IMHO, the $400 million estimate central corridor estimate on I-11, if mostly aimed at addressing the DAP, almost seems a bit of a low-ball estimate for the scope of work they plan to do. But part of that project is to cut many of the street crossings that currently go under the viaduct (mostly residential roads) so that they don't have to build another long viaduct or have as many bridges if they go with the below-grade alternative, so perhaps this lower estimate reflects far less bridgework than I'm imagining...
Yeah I suspect NDOT gets rid of the viaduct and places the freeway below grade. Easily close to a billion if not north of it.
Quote from: Mark68 on November 12, 2021, 06:00:54 PM
What if (as an alternative to running it over the old decrepit viaduct through downtown) I-11 was routed west on 215, then north on a concurrency with I-15 to US 95? At this time, wouldn't it just be the cost to re-sign everything?
I understand it's not the most direct route, but the western bypass (were it to be chosen) certainly wouldn't be, either. It would save a ton of money and could probably be done now.
Project likely needed regardless of what the freeway is called. I think it's silly to swing 11 around on 215 because of deficiencies on an existing interstate. The "thru" traffic on I-11 will be paltry compared to local traffic anyway.
If 11 doesn't punch the core via 93/95, it will be a travesty, in my humble opinion. It's shorter and involves zero turns. If traffic is bad, that's what 215 will be for to get the handful of vehicles just passing thru out of the mess.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I suspect NDOT gets rid of the viaduct and places the freeway below grade. Easily close to a billion if not north of it.
I don't see any point of building a replacement for the elevated segment of I-515 (or future I-11) North of Downtown Las Vegas below grade. Obviously such a project would be ridiculously expensive. Only a portion of the elevated segment could be replaced. The I-15/I-515 interchange, the railroad line and the exits for Main Street, Casino Center Blvd and Las Vegas Blvd all force I-515 to be elevated in that part of town.
East of the Las Vegas Blvd exit I-515 could transition down to a below grade freeway, but the gradual downhill slope would sever a number of street connections that pass under the freeway. The same would happen on the uphill climb to the Eastern Ave exit. Deck parks that cap over the top of freeways are gaining popularity, but they're expensive to build. The neighborhood between Las Vegas Blvd and Eastern Ave isn't the greatest. Maybe a deck park there could help improve the neighborhood. Or a deck park might end up being a magnet for hoodlums and homeless people. I don't know.
I think the easiest solution is just make improvements to the existing elevated freeway structure. I'm not sure what deficiencies it has in regard to current Interstate standards.
It's more aesthetically pleasing, the below grade option. I highly doubt NDOT goes with the elevated alternative but we'll see.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 14, 2021, 11:37:23 AM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaYeah I suspect NDOT gets rid of the viaduct and places the freeway below grade. Easily close to a billion if not north of it.
I don't see any point of building a replacement for the elevated segment of I-515 (or future I-11) North of Downtown Las Vegas below grade. Obviously such a project would be ridiculously expensive. Only a portion of the elevated segment could be replaced. The I-15/I-515 interchange, the railroad line and the exits for Main Street, Casino Center Blvd and Las Vegas Blvd all force I-515 to be elevated in that part of town.
East of the Las Vegas Blvd exit I-515 could transition down to a below grade freeway, but the gradual downhill slope would sever a number of street connections that pass under the freeway. The same would happen on the uphill climb to the Eastern Ave exit. Deck parks that cap over the top of freeways are gaining popularity, but they're expensive to build. The neighborhood between Las Vegas Blvd and Eastern Ave isn't the greatest. Maybe a deck park there could help improve the neighborhood. Or a deck park might end up being a magnet for hoodlums and homeless people. I don't know.
I think the easiest solution is just make improvements to the existing elevated freeway structure. I'm not sure what deficiencies it has in regard to current Interstate standards.
May I suggest you take a look at the
Downtown Access Project thread regarding potential upgrades to I-515. We can discuss further in that thread, but two points of note: renderings of the below-grade option under consideration would place I-515 below grade from Eastern to just east of I-15, and keeping the existing structure long-term is not feasible due to age and operational and structural deficiencies.
For those who aren't aware of the 2022 AASHTO Fall Meeting Route Numbering decisions:
Item 3: Nevada, I-11 Approved
Action: Extension of a route or segment
Description: The requested Interstate Route contains portions of existing roadways previously designated by legislative action and includes the following: Segment One (currently operating as IR-515) from the IR-215/SR 564 interchange along the IR-515 corridor and terminates at the United States (US) Route US 93/US 95/IR 515/IR-15 interchange. Segment Two (currently operating as US 95) from US 93/US 95/IR-515/IR-15 interchange along the US 95 corridor to the North ramps of SR 157 (Kyle Canyon) in Clark County, NV.
How long might it take for the Interstate 11 designation to signposted north of the Interstate 215/NV 564 interchange all the way to the NV 157 interchange? I expect it to be awhile since the existing segment of Interstate 11 was only signposted in 2019.
Hopefully they'll get I-11 posted up to the NV-157 interchange sooner than later. The sooner they do it means the sooner the Interstate could start inching its way Northwest. The leg up to Indian Springs and Creech AFB is an easy upgrade. I'm guess Nevada's I-11 upgrade efforts will progress from the Las Vegas area for the years (or decades) ahead until some kind of alignment gets figured out in the Reno region.
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 05:58:11 PM
For those who aren't aware of the 2022 AASHTO Fall Meeting Route Numbering decisions:
Item 3: Nevada, I-11 Approved
Action: Extension of a route or segment
Description: The requested Interstate Route contains portions of existing roadways previously designated by legislative action and includes the following: Segment One (currently operating as IR-515) from the IR-215/SR 564 interchange along the IR-515 corridor and terminates at the United States (US) Route US 93/US 95/IR 515/IR-15 interchange. Segment Two (currently operating as US 95) from US 93/US 95/IR-515/IR-15 interchange along the US 95 corridor to the North ramps of SR 157 (Kyle Canyon) in Clark County, NV.
Do you have a link to the fall (or Spring) 2022 AASHTO meeting decisions? I've tried to find them on both in the forums and on AASHTO's site, but I've had no luck. Thank you!
Quote from: brad2971 on December 09, 2022, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 05:58:11 PM
For those who aren't aware of the 2022 AASHTO Fall Meeting Route Numbering decisions:
Item 3: Nevada, I-11 Approved
Action: Extension of a route or segment
Description: The requested Interstate Route contains portions of existing roadways previously designated by legislative action and includes the following: Segment One (currently operating as IR-515) from the IR-215/SR 564 interchange along the IR-515 corridor and terminates at the United States (US) Route US 93/US 95/IR 515/IR-15 interchange. Segment Two (currently operating as US 95) from US 93/US 95/IR-515/IR-15 interchange along the US 95 corridor to the North ramps of SR 157 (Kyle Canyon) in Clark County, NV.
Do you have a link to the fall (or Spring) 2022 AASHTO meeting decisions? I've tried to find them on both in the forums and on AASHTO's site, but I've had no luck. Thank you!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31383.msg2796348#msg2796348
Quote from: Max RockatanskyPutting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
US-95 is 4-lane divided out past Indian Springs to the
freeway exit for Mercury. I think I-11 could be built and signed at least
that far in the near term. Past that point any future upgrades are up the air. The situation would be more clear if there was specific junction with I-80 defined. NV-439 looked like a great candidate up until recently. Now Elon Musk is doing a good job making anyone feel embarrassed to drive a Telsa. That PR trend line looks like it could get a whole lot worse.
As to the 2,000-3,000 AADT counts -that could change with a proper NAFTA-style corridor (or I-5 relief route) that bypassed California. If they don't want to build something like that then, yeah, Vegas to Phoenix would be the best use for I-11.
Wouldn't it make sense to push the 4 lane divided up to the intersection with NV-160, north of Pahrump, and call it I-11 from there south? Maybe route US 95 through Pahrump, or would that be just too confusing?
Quote from: splashflashWouldn't it make sense to push the 4 lane divided up to the intersection with NV-160, north of Pahrump, and call it I-11 from there south? Maybe route US 95 through Pahrump, or would that be just too confusing?
I-11 upgrades from Las Vegas will have to be done bit by bit. Paiute Drive is another exit past NV-157. After that there is a handful of at-grade driveways between the intersection with NV-156. Then there's the prison complex (which obviously will need its own freeway exit). It's pretty much Creech AFB after that. Really, Nevada DOT could sell an I-11 upgrade to Indian Springs as one of DOD importance. Just West is Cactus Springs, which has a sort of frontage road configuration ready for a freeway exit. The freeway style exit for Mercury is after that. The 4-lane road drops to 2-lanes. But it would be really easy to expand US-95 to 4 lanes thru the intersections with NV-160 and even NV-373 at Amargosa Valley. Extending I-11 NW from Las Vegas is a pretty easy thing until the project reaches the Beatty area. After that? Some of the choices start to get complicated.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2022, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
Too much of the development of I-11 is predicated off a "build it and they will come" mindset. The priority ought to be getting the most direct Phoenix-Las Vegas corridor possible. That's been outright ignored by ADOT given the preferred routing of I-11 is west of the White Tank Mountains. At minimum there is actual money from developers and the city of Buckeye going into a freeway west of the White Tank. The same situation doesn't exist in Nevada to drive the growth of I-11 north of Las Vegas.
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2022, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
As we've probably discussed upthread, there are two main reasons to upgrade US95 from Vegas to I-80:
- To improve safety, because there's a fatal crash on this stretch of road about once every 8 weeks.
- To improve freight connectivity, both as a California bypass for freight moving from I-10 and I-40 to/from the Pacific Northwest, and for Nevada's economy discretely.
I don't think anyone's saying it's time to dump $5 billion into "overnight interstate" on US 95, but following the Arizona model from US 93 — twinning it in segments, building interchanges at the key intersections, finding funding as available for the major bypasses, that's the way to get it done and save lives. (Plus, because of the sparse nature of the western Nevada desert, you're probably looking at what, 20? exits between Mercury and Fallon? Maybe 25?)
And let's be honest - if the Eisenhower largesse were raining down on America today (ahh, the days of the 91% income tax brackets...) and we were building an Interstate System from scratch, this would be on the map.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 12, 2022, 05:44:47 PM
And let's be honest - if the Eisenhower largesse were raining down on America today (ahh, the days of the 91% income tax brackets...) and we were building an Interstate System from scratch, this would be on the map.
Oh, it probably would be, but you'd have the chorus of "whyyy did we spend money on this?" Just like some people complain now about four-laning stuff like I-95 in Maine, I-15 in northern Montana, or I-70 in Utah.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 12, 2022, 05:44:47 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2022, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
As we've probably discussed upthread, there are two main reasons to upgrade US95 from Vegas to I-80:
- To improve safety, because there's a fatal crash on this stretch of road about once every 8 weeks.
- To improve freight connectivity, both as a California bypass for freight moving from I-10 and I-40 to/from the Pacific Northwest, and for Nevada's economy discretely.
I don't think anyone's saying it's time to dump $5 billion into "overnight interstate" on US 95, but following the Arizona model from US 93 — twinning it in segments, building interchanges at the key intersections, finding funding as available for the major bypasses, that's the way to get it done and save lives. (Plus, because of the sparse nature of the western Nevada desert, you're probably looking at what, 20? exits between Mercury and Fallon? Maybe 25?)
And let's be honest - if the Eisenhower largesse were raining down on America today (ahh, the days of the 91% income tax brackets...) and we were building an Interstate System from scratch, this would be on the map.
Nobody paid those 91% brackets. There were many, many more available deductions back in those old days.
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2022, 07:17:58 PM
I don't Nobody paid those 91% brackets. There were many, many more available deductions back in those old days.
Exactly. I remember my first partner bitching about interest for credit cards being removed as a tax deduction. He actually paid his cards off monthly after that.
Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2022, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2022, 07:17:58 PM
I don't Nobody paid those 91% brackets. There were many, many more available deductions back in those old days.
Exactly. I remember my first partner bitching about interest for credit cards being removed as a tax deduction. He actually paid his cards off monthly after that.
Back when there were 91% brackets, from what I've read, only a handful of people (less than 10) paid the full 91% rate, and they were the richest of the rich at the time who could afford to give the IRS 91% of their earnings and still have plenty to live lavishly.
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 12, 2022, 11:24:53 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2022, 10:48:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2022, 07:17:58 PM
I don't Nobody paid those 91% brackets. There were many, many more available deductions back in those old days.
Exactly. I remember my first partner bitching about interest for credit cards being removed as a tax deduction. He actually paid his cards off monthly after that.
Back when there were 91% brackets, from what I've read, only a handful of people (less than 10) paid the full 91% rate, and they were the richest of the rich at the time who could afford to give the IRS 91% of their earnings and still have plenty to live lavishly.
Given the old tax code, I find this very hard to believe. When rich, you pay your accountants to lessen your liability and there were ample opportunities to do so.
Didn't change until Reagan messed with the brackets and greatly reduced deductions.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2022, 12:44:55 AM
Quote from: splashflashWouldn't it make sense to push the 4 lane divided up to the intersection with NV-160, north of Pahrump, and call it I-11 from there south? Maybe route US 95 through Pahrump, or would that be just too confusing?
I-11 upgrades from Las Vegas will have to be done bit by bit. Paiute Drive is another exit past NV-157. After that there is a handful of at-grade driveways between the intersection with NV-156. Then there's the prison complex (which obviously will need its own freeway exit). It's pretty much Creech AFB after that. Really, Nevada DOT could sell an I-11 upgrade to Indian Springs as one of DOD importance. Just West is Cactus Springs, which has a sort of frontage road configuration ready for a freeway exit. The freeway style exit for Mercury is after that. The 4-lane road drops to 2-lanes. But it would be really easy to expand US-95 to 4 lanes thru the intersections with NV-160 and even NV-373 at Amargosa Valley. Extending I-11 NW from Las Vegas is a pretty easy thing until the project reaches the Beatty area. After that? Some of the choices start to get complicated.
I agree that pushing I-11 any further than SR 157 will be a piecemeal process. They could get it up to Indian Springs/Creech AFB with very little effort: Interchanges at Corn Creek/Desert National Wildlife Refuge, SR 156, Cold Creek (prison complex), Creech AFB main/east entry, and one or two for Indian Springs itself. There'd probably need to be a bit of realignment or reconstruction in and near Indian Springs (since the Creech AFB border comes so close to US 95 ROW, although the northern frontage road could probably be eliminated since the AFB took up all the commercial properties that used to be along it years ago), and there may need to be a new frontage road in some places to maintain local access.
You could push it further to the existing Mercury (test site) interchange by putting in one more interchange at Cactus Springs. Although, I'm not sure that there's anything relevant at Cactus Springs any more besides a couple residences.
After Indian Springs and Mercury, though, the AADT drops significantly. So twinning and adding interchanges for eventual interstate status will really become an exercise in cost-benefit analysis. Yes, it would be fairly easy to make it interstate even north of Beatty (with some town bypasses), but the benefit decreases.
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2022, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
I wouldn't say NDOT has zero interest, given the scoping study they started a few years ago...
I'm a native Nevadan. I grew up in Las Vegas, went to college in Reno and still live there. While in college, I made the Vegas—Reno drive multiple times a year, and still do it at least once a year. From that perspective, I would love for I-11 to exist to make that drive a little easier and to avoid the slowdowns of going through each town along the way–it would probably shave another half hour or so off the journey.
But the practical part of me agrees with cl94. NDOT's dollars would be much better spent directed towards areas that need it: future phases of Reno Spaghetti Bowl, Las Vegas' Downtown Access Project on current I-515, US 395 north valleys improvements, I-580 exit 1 in Carson, local projects for the rural towns, etc. NDOT has wisely spent some money along the US 95/future I-11 corridor in recent years, constructing a few truck climbing lanes and a passing lane section along the US 6 concurrency–more investment of this type would be a much greater cost-benefit in the near and middle term. A full freeway, while a roadgeek's dream, just isn't realistic unless outside factors drastically change.
It almost seems easier to just use parts of 395 to create the rest of the freeway (it's built as 580 already down to Carson City anyways) and could either cut over to Fallon on 50 to meet 95 or just keep going down the 395 corridor to Bishop and over to 6 since 395 is largely expressway in those sections.
Quote from: roadfro on December 13, 2022, 11:30:09 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2022, 12:44:55 AM
Quote from: splashflashWouldn't it make sense to push the 4 lane divided up to the intersection with NV-160, north of Pahrump, and call it I-11 from there south? Maybe route US 95 through Pahrump, or would that be just too confusing?
I-11 upgrades from Las Vegas will have to be done bit by bit. Paiute Drive is another exit past NV-157. After that there is a handful of at-grade driveways between the intersection with NV-156. Then there's the prison complex (which obviously will need its own freeway exit). It's pretty much Creech AFB after that. Really, Nevada DOT could sell an I-11 upgrade to Indian Springs as one of DOD importance. Just West is Cactus Springs, which has a sort of frontage road configuration ready for a freeway exit. The freeway style exit for Mercury is after that. The 4-lane road drops to 2-lanes. But it would be really easy to expand US-95 to 4 lanes thru the intersections with NV-160 and even NV-373 at Amargosa Valley. Extending I-11 NW from Las Vegas is a pretty easy thing until the project reaches the Beatty area. After that? Some of the choices start to get complicated.
I agree that pushing I-11 any further than SR 157 will be a piecemeal process. They could get it up to Indian Springs/Creech AFB with very little effort: Interchanges at Corn Creek/Desert National Wildlife Refuge, SR 156, Cold Creek (prison complex), Creech AFB main/east entry, and one or two for Indian Springs itself. There'd probably need to be a bit of realignment or reconstruction in and near Indian Springs (since the Creech AFB border comes so close to US 95 ROW, although the northern frontage road could probably be eliminated since the AFB took up all the commercial properties that used to be along it years ago), and there may need to be a new frontage road in some places to maintain local access.
You could push it further to the existing Mercury (test site) interchange by putting in one more interchange at Cactus Springs. Although, I'm not sure that there's anything relevant at Cactus Springs any more besides a couple residences.
After Indian Springs and Mercury, though, the AADT drops significantly. So twinning and adding interchanges for eventual interstate status will really become an exercise in cost-benefit analysis. Yes, it would be fairly easy to make it interstate even north of Beatty (with some town bypasses), but the benefit decreases.
I made the drive between LV and Reno round trip 5 times in the past year.
there have been some additional improvements this summer. I believe Nye County has taken these on. Between Amargosa Valley and Beatty they have widened the shoulders, added turning lanes at a few intersections and there is an additional passing lane in each direction. NB 95 now has two passing lanes between Beatty and Goldfield, in addition to a truck climbing lane. SB doesn't for some reason though.
I'm surprised the AADT drops significantly north of Mercury. My experience is four lanes are needed up to Beatty. It may be when I travel, mostly in the summer, but with the truck traffic and particularly the RV traffic, the drive between Mercury and Beatty can be particularly tough. Passing one truck is doable, but when you end up with a slow moving line of 10 vehicles, it's pretty much impossible to safely pass and end up driving 45-50 mph. I think the Death Valley tourism traffic is a big part of this up to Beatty, so maybe AADT is high in the summer and less in the off season periods. North of Beatty, and additional passing lane NB closer to Beatty, and a few SB would be sufficient for now, as well as another passing lane closer to Hawthorne.
Quote from: thsftwIt almost seems easier to just use parts of 395 to create the rest of the freeway (it's built as 580 already down to Carson City anyways) and could either cut over to Fallon on 50 to meet 95 or just keep going down the 395 corridor to Bishop and over to 6 since 395 is largely expressway in those sections.
If I-11 was routed through Fallon there would be no point at involving I-580 at all. I-11 would just go West from Fallon to meet I-80 in Fernley by following along or near the Alt US-50 corridor.
If I-11 was routed down I-580
with the intent to go to Las Vegas the route would have to follow US-395 down almost to Topaz Lake then turn East along/near NV-208 to Smith Valley. And then there would be the
fun part, cutting a mountain pass in order to connect to US-95 at Walker Lake. Such a thing is do-able (there are dirt roads going off US-95 into the mountains by Sportsmans Beach). Still, for high speed commercial traffic some tunneling would be likely.
I still think the most realistic option is using NV-439 from I-80 down to Silver Springs and then using parts of Alt US-95 to reach US-95 somewhere near or North of Schurz. There is an interesting possibility to bypass Walker Lake to the East (using CR-89) to create a more direct path to Tonopah.
Nevada just has so many damned rows of North-South running mountain ranges.
Quote from: roadfro on December 13, 2022, 11:30:09 AM
I wouldn't say NDOT has zero interest, given the scoping study they started a few years ago...
I'm a native Nevadan. I grew up in Las Vegas, went to college in Reno and still live there. While in college, I made the Vegas—Reno drive multiple times a year, and still do it at least once a year. From that perspective, I would love for I-11 to exist to make that drive a little easier and to avoid the slowdowns of going through each town along the way–it would probably shave another half hour or so off the journey.
But the practical part of me agrees with cl94. NDOT's dollars would be much better spent directed towards areas that need it: future phases of Reno Spaghetti Bowl, Las Vegas' Downtown Access Project on current I-515, US 395 north valleys improvements, I-580 exit 1 in Carson, local projects for the rural towns, etc. NDOT has wisely spent some money along the US 95/future I-11 corridor in recent years, constructing a few truck climbing lanes and a passing lane section along the US 6 concurrency–more investment of this type would be a much greater cost-benefit in the near and middle term. A full freeway, while a roadgeek's dream, just isn't realistic unless outside factors drastically change.
Zero interest is probably a slight exaggeration, but it would not surprise me if that study was intended to satisfy federal requirements for a congressionally-designated corridor more than an actual intent to build in the medium term. I would be shocked if anywhere close to half of the corridor is full freeway by 2050 and it looks like NDOT has barely done anything with 11 north of Vegas since 2018.
I've gone through some of the public comments and there is a ton of concern from towns along 95 about a freeway potentially killing downtown businesses. Given experiences elsewhere, these are probably more founded than the claim a freeway will bring economic development, especially given how far many of these towns are from the rest of civilization. It doesn't appear that they have done a full cost-benefit analysis yet. They have done a decent environmental analysis and the results of that aren't pretty, especially north of Tonopah.
As far as route, they've all but eliminated anything that doesn't follow 95 or 95A due to cost, environmental concerns, and resource availability. If it's ever built, it will hit 80 somewhere between 439 and 95. 580 becoming I-11 is a roadgeek pipe dream due to terrain and how built up the 395 corridor is south of 580.
Short to medium term, the only things I can really see them doing are spot improvements and maaaaaybe extending the divided highway north or constructing one where crashes are an issue. A full freeway or even expressway-grade road is ludicrous for most of the corridor unless traffic counts triple. Not saying they couldn't, but you'd need major changes in development and transportation patterns for that to happen. For comparison purposes, I-80 bottoms out at a little over 6,000 east of Wells, more than double the lowest count along the study corridor and more than the
highest count between Mercury and Fallon.
Quote from: cl94I've gone through some of the public comments and there is a ton of concern from towns along 95 about a freeway potentially killing downtown businesses. Given experiences elsewhere, these are probably more founded than the claim a freeway will bring economic development, especially given how far many of these towns are from the rest of civilization. It doesn't appear that they have done a full cost-benefit analysis yet. They have done a decent environmental analysis and the results of that aren't pretty, especially north of Tonopah.
Small towns in remote areas, such as Tonopah and Goldfield, have already been losing population. In the best case scenario (the federal government fast-tracks a Vegas-Reno I-11 project and provides nearly all the funding) it would probably take at least 10 years to get any bypass projects for Tonopah and Goldfield completed. In the meantime both towns could lose hundreds more residents they really can't afford to lose. Goldfield could practically be a ghost town by 2040; there's barely over 200 residents there now. Tonopah has a population of only a couple thousand people.
What these small towns are going through is not unique. Small towns and rural areas across the US have been shedding more and more of their living, working-age,
tax-paying residents to cities and suburbs. The remaining residents get older and die-off. It costs a lot of money to staff a public school or provide various city services. Many older Americans like small-town living, but they need more in the way of health care or assisted living services,
which are more available in cities and suburbs.
If Nevada actually builds out a leg of I-11 from Las Vegas to Reno
and builds that highway in the same manner Interstates are currently being built it will take them 30 or more years to do it. By the 2040 time frame towns like Beatty, Goldfield and Tonopah may have lost enough population that NDOT wouldn't have to build any town bypasses. The highway could just be plowed straight through.
Goldfield is down from a peak population of somewhere between 10,000-15,000, effectively it is a ghost town already. The only reason Goldfield has any relevance at all is due to it still being the Esmeralda County seat. Tonopah, Hawthorne and Beatty are the only locales on US 95 between Vegas-Fallon with an actual active pulse. Mina, Luning and Coaldale are all similarly corpse-like as Goldfield.
According the US Census Goldfield had around 400 residents in the 2000 Census and was down to around 250 by 2010. Now it's just over 200.
If I was living in some small rural Nevada town with a grim future I'd be trying to get a new Interstate highway to come to my town rather than block it. If NDOT was absolutely determined to build-out I-11 between the Vegas and Reno areas there are do-able alignments that can bypass many of those towns entirely.
Beatty can by bypassed fairly easily to the West. Traveling North on US-95 you just veer off to the left several miles South of Beatty. I-11 could cross NV-374 near the Titus Canyon Trailhead and have a fairly open gap through some rocky hills. Then it could shoot North directly across some flat land, re-joining US-95 a few miles North of the NV-267 intersection.
Goldfield and Tonopah could both be bypassed by sending I-11 to the West near Silver Peak (population 120) and overlapping NV-265 up to the US-95/US-6 junction.
Both of those bypasses would shave significant mileage off the I-11 route, especially that corner jog thru Tonopah. The lack of service stations along the way would be an issue if those towns were bypassed. But at the rate those towns are going there's no guarantee highway service related businesses in those towns will be able to survive over the coming decades. Oklahoma's turnpikes have some service plazas. A remote I-11 thru Nevada might need some of the same types of service plazas.
Mina (pop 177) and Luling (pop under 100) take up such small footprints in the valley NDOT would have no problem going well around either town and still be miles away from mountain slopes.
Hawthorne has around 3100 residents and is sustained for the most part by the Hawthorne Army Depot. I could imagine the US Army seeing some value in having an improved highway connection there. They mainly use rail for a lot of equipment movement, but good highways also help with logistics. The town of Hawthorne already has a bypass of sorts going around it.
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2022, 12:32:17 AM
I've gone through some of the public comments and there is a ton of concern from towns along 95 about a freeway potentially killing downtown businesses. Given experiences elsewhere, these are probably more founded than the claim a freeway will bring economic development, especially given how far many of these towns are from the rest of civilization. It doesn't appear that they have done a full cost-benefit analysis yet. They have done a decent environmental analysis and the results of that aren't pretty, especially north of Tonopah.
One has to be kind of pragmatic about this.
Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne are spaced well enough that they're going to be fine as service centers.
Beatty has national park gateway access so it has a secondary economic support.
Tonopah has lithium mining and government so it has a secondary economic support.
Hawthorne has the ammo depot and has a secondary economic support.
The other whistle-stops — Goldfield, Mina, Luning, Lathrop Wells — there's not a lot of hope there as it is.
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2022, 07:17:58 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 12, 2022, 05:44:47 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2022, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
As we've probably discussed upthread, there are two main reasons to upgrade US95 from Vegas to I-80:
- To improve safety, because there's a fatal crash on this stretch of road about once every 8 weeks.
- To improve freight connectivity, both as a California bypass for freight moving from I-10 and I-40 to/from the Pacific Northwest, and for Nevada's economy discretely.
I don't think anyone's saying it's time to dump $5 billion into "overnight interstate" on US 95, but following the Arizona model from US 93 — twinning it in segments, building interchanges at the key intersections, finding funding as available for the major bypasses, that's the way to get it done and save lives. (Plus, because of the sparse nature of the western Nevada desert, you're probably looking at what, 20? exits between Mercury and Fallon? Maybe 25?)
And let's be honest - if the Eisenhower largesse were raining down on America today (ahh, the days of the 91% income tax brackets...) and we were building an Interstate System from scratch, this would be on the map.
Nobody paid those 91% brackets. There were many, many more available deductions back in those old days.
That may be, but even the poorest people paid a 20% rate on the first dollars they earned, and it was even worse during the FDR and Truman days during and shortly after WW II.
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 16, 2022, 01:23:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 12, 2022, 07:17:58 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 12, 2022, 05:44:47 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 11, 2022, 06:05:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2022, 09:41:37 PM
Putting it out there that I think it's kind of silly to scope I-11 beyond the Nevada Test Site. We are talking about 2,000-3,000 AADT north of there on US 95. If you're willing to pass a truck on occasion the corridor as presently configured is adequate.
Mmhmm. Unless you have a freeway fetish, it's pointless. Traffic already moves at freeway speeds along that stretch of 95. It won't cut travel times by enough to induce demand between Vegas and Reno away from airlines. That's still gonna be a 7+ hour drive with virtually nothing along the way apart from a few small towns that basically survive on the little through traffic that exists. NDOT has zero interest and, speaking as a Nevada resident, I don't want them wasting my money on a freeway that will get no use.
It is highly unlikely that this corridor will ever get enough traffic to warrant a freeway, let alone 4 lanes. There is nothing for over 300 miles and, more importantly, not enough water to support future growth. If you want to convert something in the western Great Basin to a freeway, US 395 is a little more reasonable.
As we've probably discussed upthread, there are two main reasons to upgrade US95 from Vegas to I-80:
- To improve safety, because there's a fatal crash on this stretch of road about once every 8 weeks.
- To improve freight connectivity, both as a California bypass for freight moving from I-10 and I-40 to/from the Pacific Northwest, and for Nevada's economy discretely.
I don't think anyone's saying it's time to dump $5 billion into "overnight interstate" on US 95, but following the Arizona model from US 93 — twinning it in segments, building interchanges at the key intersections, finding funding as available for the major bypasses, that's the way to get it done and save lives. (Plus, because of the sparse nature of the western Nevada desert, you're probably looking at what, 20? exits between Mercury and Fallon? Maybe 25?)
And let's be honest - if the Eisenhower largesse were raining down on America today (ahh, the days of the 91% income tax brackets...) and we were building an Interstate System from scratch, this would be on the map.
Nobody paid those 91% brackets. There were many, many more available deductions back in those old days.
That may be, but even the poorest people paid a 20% rate on the first dollars they earned, and it was even worse during the FDR and Truman days during and shortly after WW II.
https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
Those are just brackets. Again, there were many, many more available deductions back then.
Hope you're using software or some help with your own taxes to lessen your own liability.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 15, 2022, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2022, 12:32:17 AM
I've gone through some of the public comments and there is a ton of concern from towns along 95 about a freeway potentially killing downtown businesses. Given experiences elsewhere, these are probably more founded than the claim a freeway will bring economic development, especially given how far many of these towns are from the rest of civilization. It doesn't appear that they have done a full cost-benefit analysis yet. They have done a decent environmental analysis and the results of that aren't pretty, especially north of Tonopah.
One has to be kind of pragmatic about this.
Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne are spaced well enough that they're going to be fine as service centers.
Beatty has national park gateway access so it has a secondary economic support.
Tonopah has lithium mining and government so it has a secondary economic support.
Hawthorne has the ammo depot and has a secondary economic support.
The other whistle-stops — Goldfield, Mina, Luning, Lathrop Wells — there's not a lot of hope there as it is.
I think it's more likely US 95 will be slowly upgraded to four lanes between towns with the highway, posted as I-11, and remain going through the towns as US 95 for some time. This is how I-40 replaced US 66 west of Oklahoma City (like Winslow was when the Eagles song was written). Bypasses will be built as needed. It wouldn't surprise me if the highway was mostly four lanes from Las Vegas to Fallon with a few I-11 bypasses (maybe Hawthorne, Tonopah, Beatty) in 2050 but still contained a few gaps.
From the perspective of safety, I would just hope NDOT can twin as much of US-95 as they can (or at least add more passing lane zones). Head-on collisions are far less likely with a divided highway. Oklahoma has a decent number of rural 4-lane divided highways that weren't divided due to high AADT counts. They were divided to cut down on the grisly fatal collisions.
I really don't like driving on 2-lane roads for long distances. Even though NM DOT did a crappy job with it; I was really happy once US-64/87 thru NE New Mexico was turned into a 4-lane divided highway. It really really sucked as a 2-lane road. It was hard as hell to pass slow drivers safely because the rolling terrain often blocked the view of on-coming traffic. During the daytime you could get stuck behind some RV or "grandma" driving a tank-sized sedan 20mph under the speed limit. There would be a "train" of cars backed up behind the slow-poke.
Passing on 2-lane US-95 in rural Nevada might be a little easier since the terrain appears more flat and the road appears to run more straight. RVs and other slow-pokes are still a factor at creating traffic back-ups.
Fatalities from highway crashes are on the rise. More people appear to be driving while impared by alcohol or drugs. Obviously drowsy drivers are a hazard late at night, but some people even fall asleep behind the wheel during the day. Sometimes it's not a good idea to wake up too early to embark on a long road trip. Then there's the ever-present syndrome of distracted drivers. They're texting or doing other things that can cause them to veer into the opposing lane.
Safety improvements on US-95 can happen as part of an eventual I-11 upgrade or just done on their own (such as adding passing lanes). If I-11 is built from Vegas to the Reno area and takes multiple decades to complete I wouldn't be surprised if the route ultimately built bypasses towns like Beatty and Tonopah in favor of a more direct route.
Between Hawthorne and Tonopah, my experience has been that, given the chance, traffic on US 95 really flies. Everyone is in such a hurry -- especially if they get trapped behind a slowpoke for a few miles -- that I've regularly seen (and [redacted]) speeds well over 90mph on the two-lane road. It's a miracle there aren't more fatalities out there.
Even with a low AADT, the importance of the road, and its continuing use by long-haul truckers, would seem to make a very strong case for twinning outside the "towns." (And then that cop in Goldfield can really clean up in that crazy 25mph zone.)
Quote from: Kniwt on December 20, 2022, 01:50:27 PM
Between Hawthorne and Tonopah, my experience has been that, given the chance, traffic on US 95 really flies. Everyone is in such a hurry -- especially if they get trapped behind a slowpoke for a few miles -- that I've regularly seen (and [redacted]) speeds well over 90mph on the two-lane road. It's a miracle there aren't more fatalities out there.
Even with a low AADT, the importance of the road, and its continuing use by long-haul truckers, would seem to make a very strong case for twinning outside the "towns." (And then that cop in Goldfield can really clean up in that crazy 25mph zone.)
Esmeralda County loves to set Goldfield up as a speed trap. The speed through town could easily handle 45 MPH and kept artificially low.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2022, 04:50:36 PM
Goldfield is down from a peak population of somewhere between 10,000-15,000, effectively it is a ghost town already. The only reason Goldfield has any relevance at all is due to it still being the Esmeralda County seat. Tonopah, Hawthorne and Beatty are the only locales on US 95 between Vegas-Fallon with an actual active pulse. Mina, Luning and Coaldale are all similarly corpse-like as Goldfield.
Goldfield is going to at least have a gas station/truck stop finally, for the time in decades there will be a place to buy gas there. It's been planned for years but construction is finally moving pretty far along and looks like it should be open by the spring. it's on the south end of town. NVDOT will have to update the "next gas 100 miles" signs between Beatty and Tonopah. not that I expect this to turn around Goldfield, but it's something. Amazes me that this will only be the second gas station in the entire Esmaralda County (the other is in the Fish Lake Valley area).
Quote from: kdk on December 20, 2022, 03:35:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2022, 04:50:36 PM
Goldfield is down from a peak population of somewhere between 10,000-15,000, effectively it is a ghost town already. The only reason Goldfield has any relevance at all is due to it still being the Esmeralda County seat. Tonopah, Hawthorne and Beatty are the only locales on US 95 between Vegas-Fallon with an actual active pulse. Mina, Luning and Coaldale are all similarly corpse-like as Goldfield.
Goldfield is going to at least have a gas station/truck stop finally, for the time in decades there will be a place to buy gas there. It's been planned for years but construction is finally moving pretty far along and looks like it should be open by the spring. it's on the south end of town. NVDOT will have to update the "next gas 100 miles" signs between Beatty and Tonopah. not that I expect this to turn around Goldfield, but it's something. Amazes me that this will only be the second gas station in the entire Esmaralda County (the other is in the Fish Lake Valley area).
That is quite something isn't it? I always wondered how people in Goldfield managed their lives around having to go all the way to Tonopah for basic services like gasoline. Will this station also by chance include EV chargers? That would be quite amusing to see the corpse of Goldfield dragged into the the 21st Century by way of one service station.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2022, 03:56:29 PM
Quote from: kdk on December 20, 2022, 03:35:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2022, 04:50:36 PM
Goldfield is down from a peak population of somewhere between 10,000-15,000, effectively it is a ghost town already. The only reason Goldfield has any relevance at all is due to it still being the Esmeralda County seat. Tonopah, Hawthorne and Beatty are the only locales on US 95 between Vegas-Fallon with an actual active pulse. Mina, Luning and Coaldale are all similarly corpse-like as Goldfield.
Goldfield is going to at least have a gas station/truck stop finally, for the time in decades there will be a place to buy gas there. It's been planned for years but construction is finally moving pretty far along and looks like it should be open by the spring. it's on the south end of town. NVDOT will have to update the "next gas 100 miles" signs between Beatty and Tonopah. not that I expect this to turn around Goldfield, but it's something. Amazes me that this will only be the second gas station in the entire Esmaralda County (the other is in the Fish Lake Valley area).
That is quite something isn't it? I always wondered how people in Goldfield managed their lives around having to go all the way to Tonopah for basic services like gasoline. Will this station also by chance include EV chargers? That would be quite amusing to see the corpse of Goldfield dragged into the the 21st Century by way of one service station.
There's a FB page active on it with some info. https://www.facebook.com/people/Goldfield-TRUCK-STOP/100063733170922/ Last update was in August on the page but I drove by it in late October and it was much further along since. Amazes me in that until this opens you cannot really buy anything in Goldfield as of today other than a meal at the one restaurant in town, or the random antique shops etc which never seem open when I'm through there.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.
Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit :)
heh, i'd totally drive that route just for the idea i could always go 5 miles over and never get caught, doing 95 mph on a freeway, even if it isn't interstate, would be so much fun!
while ive read up to page 11 on this subject, assuming that there still hasn't been a decision, there really should be 2 freeways.
1. I-580 extended down to las vegas or mercury (or just a realignment of US-95 or a realignment plus extension of US-95 Alt northwest with US-95 or US-95A business added to tonopah and other areas that would be bypassed as a freeway, even if its a simple super-2 alignment through the mountains into US-395)
2. I-11 up to just past elko, up to boise ID.
this solves 2 problems and serves both sides of the state better overall.
1. the political pressure to get a proper connection to reno and vegas without going through any major points of political obstacles
2. having I-11 parallel to the eastern part and connect with elko or to the west of elko with I-80, then to the north and northeast to boise would at least have the interstate connect the western side closest to salt lake and provide a route from boise to phoenix.
the super 2 (2 laned freeway) along the western side of the state would better serve as a proper bypass around LA metro, considering it would be very expensive to cross the mountain ranges a proper super 2 would be sufficient till the traffic demands require a extra tunnel and a widening to a proper freeway. on top of it, the super 2 alignment could be better served with passing lanes in certain high traffic areas or in areas where slow ass grandmas and slow RVs are a thing and you could have the 90 mph speed limit throughout most of the super 2 if need be. hell add some extra wide curves so people could just drift around the bends and you'd be golden.
Quote from: civilengineeringnerd on December 27, 2022, 10:07:40 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on October 29, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
It just seems a little odd that a state's two largest metro areas aren't connected by Interstate, let alone one single route designation.
Besides, if we can get the freeway built, maybe we can get the country's first 90 MPH speed limit :)
heh, i'd totally drive that route just for the idea i could always go 5 miles over and never get caught, doing 95 mph on a freeway, even if it isn't interstate, would be so much fun!
Not 90 mph, but SH-130 in Texas has a 40 mile segment posted at 85 mph.
I'm fairly certain there's at least one country with a 90 mph freeway speed limit (not counting Germany).
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2022, 05:47:54 AM
Quote from: civilengineeringnerd on December 27, 2022, 10:07:40 PM
heh, i'd totally drive that route just for the idea i could always go 5 miles over and never get caught, doing 95 mph on a freeway, even if it isn't interstate, would be so much fun!
Not 90 mph, but SH-130 in Texas has a 40 mile segment posted at 85 mph.
Yep, I've driven the whole stretch, both directions. We were heavy-laden, though, so I didn't drive faster than 85—87 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2022, 05:47:54 AM
I'm fairly certain there's at least one country with a 90 mph freeway speed limit (not counting Germany).
One highway in the UAE has a speed limit of 99 mph.
(https://www.arabianbusiness.com/cloud/2021/09/15/r9KRQb98-abu-dhabi-speed-sign.jpg)
Even if there was a 90mph speed limit in a remote area I certainly wouldn't drive that fast. Others can do so if they like. The fuel economy in my pickup truck really starts going to hell above 75mph. I get the best mileage in the 60-65mph range (as much as 33mpg).
Quote from: civilengineernerdwhile ive read up to page 11 on this subject, assuming that there still hasn't been a decision, there really should be 2 freeways.
1. I-580 extended down to las vegas or mercury (or just a realignment of US-95 or a realignment plus extension of US-95 Alt northwest with US-95 or US-95A business added to tonopah and other areas that would be bypassed as a freeway, even if its a simple super-2 alignment through the mountains into US-395)
2. I-11 up to just past elko, up to boise ID.
I've been looking at the Las Vegas to Reno freeway riddle for quite some time. The more and more I look at the situation the more I believe a version of I-11 using up I-580 is a non-starter
-at least until the United States stops sucking at tunnel building.
Overlapping I-580 would require going down almost to Topaz Lake and the CA border to get around the South side of the Mt Siegel range. Then the highway would have to take an abrupt turn East toward Walker Lake. The highway would have to punch through another mountain range to reach Walker Lake and the US-95 corridor. That would probably involve having to build at least one or more tunnel locations.
And that's the easiest route possibility. The diagonal Southwestern NV border straddles lots and lots of mountains.
Out of a standpoint of security, I would probably rather I-11 just completely bypass Walker Lake to the East so it avoids the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot. That depot is mainly serviced by rail anyway.
If I-11 was routed through Goldfield and Tonopah a more direct I-11 route could be developed by following along CR-89. That would have I-11 continuing to go Northwest out of Tonopah. The Interstate would have a somewhat unobstructed path to Schurz. But it would involve going through the Walker River Reservation. However that area is so freaking desolate that it's possible tribal leaders might welcome what an Interstate could do to boost economic development out there. From Schurz I-11 should parallel the railroad corridor up to Alt US-95. From there it's a straight shot from Silver Springs up to Clark and I-80. There's a bunch of logistical centers there, along with a Tesla factory. NV-439 is already four lane divided and wouldn't be difficult to upgrade to Interstate standards.
As for an Interstate from Elko to Boise: there is too much desolate mountain and canyon country between both locations. The US-95 corridor from Winnemucca up to the Boise metro would have the best chance at any upgrades. Even that route is not very direct, due to dodging around a complex of deep canyons in the SE corner of Oregon. I think it would be worth it for some portions of that US-95 segment to be upgraded to four lane divided highway and have more passing lanes built along other 2-lane segments. IMHO, a full blown Interstate would be overkill
at least for now. The Boise region is growing. The metro has 800,000 and is forecast to reach 1.3 million by 2060. IMHO, if any
movers and shakers in the Boise region want an Interstate highway going South to I-80 as a sort of California gateway they need to solve highway problems in the immediate Boise area first. Right now there are no good upgrade-able highway outlets going South out of Boise, Nampa or Caldwell. It's just a lot of square street grids getting covered up in commercial and residential development. As populous as the Boise area is the only secondary Interstate or freeway in the area is the little I-184 stub going into downtown Boise.
I-11 north of Las Vegas would be a highly questionable extension of an already questionable interstate. North of LV doesn't need two freeways, it doesn't even need one.
The best route from LV to Reno doesn't go through Carson City. I'm not sure there's much LV-Reno traffic, but if there is it would be US 95 to Fallon and then west.
Tunnels are expensive everywhere, and tunneling for Nevada low-use roads would just be silly.
Nevada should be saving its money for a third lane each way on I-80, or I-15, or something else they're more likely to need.
Quote from: kktI-11 north of Las Vegas would be a highly questionable extension of an already questionable interstate.
There is no questioning the merits of linking the Las Vegas metro and Phoenix metro directly with an Interstate highway. OTOH some of the proposed I-11 routing choices
going well around the Phoenix metro are indeed highly questionable.
The merits of extending I-11 Northwest of Las Vegas up to the Reno area really depend on the link to Phoenix being built. In the near term I see no problem at all for I-11 to be extended up to Indian Springs, Creech AFB and the exit for Mercury.
As for a choice to simply have I-11 overlap US-95 all the way to Fallon and then go to Fernley: that sucks. There's no mileage savings and no time savings. And it would have I-11 meet I-80 roughly 30 miles East of Reno. I think NV-439 and Clark is a much better choice for an I-11 junction with I-80. My suggestion of bypassing Walker Lake to the East would cut a lot of mileage off the route and make I-11 much more of a straight shot.
No tunnels required either. The towns of Mena and Luning wouldn't that route choice. But those towns are drying up anyway. Hawthorne mainly exists because of the Army depot there. It might not be so easy sending a new Interstate thru that mostly military territory.
Running I-11 up the east side of Walker Lake (and north of the army base) might be easier than keeping it close to US 95 near Hawthorne. The Army would probably prefer that the main highway not run between all those reinforced munitions bunkers currently on both sides of US 95. There is still the issue of the route through the Paiute Walker River Reservation but I think Nevada can come to an agreement with the Walker River Band.
My own preference is to run I-11 to Fallon but it's probably better to run it to Silver Springs if the final plan is to run I-11 NW of Reno to I-5 or just end it at I-80. I realize some don't feel the traffic merits it, but traffic didn't merit building I-70 between Salina and Green River UT either. It will far more important as a truck corridor between Mexico and the Pac NW than for cars which is why I'm fine with I-11 going to Buckeye instead of Phoenix. (It would be better going to Phoenix but I can't see a freeway along the US 60 corridor going east of AZ 303. A freeway won't even be able to get that far if Arizona doesn't do something quick to preserve the corridor.) I can even see it taking over AZ 85 between Buckeye and I-8 but don't see any point in running it further south. In any case construction of I-11 north of Vegas can be done incrementally and more northerly preferred freight routes should become more clear once US 95 is made four lanes up to Beatty regardless of freeway status.
IMHO, I don't see much benefit of running a possible I-11 route on the East side of Walker Lake versus the West side where US-95 currently runs. It looks like there would be little if any mileage savings. Motorists would probably benefit more from having I-11 skirt the edge of Hawthorne and go thru Babbitt so they have access to the roadside services there. An I-11 path around the East side of Walker Lake could run just outside the East boundaries of the Hawthorne Army Depot.
If I-11 were to just avoid the town of Hawthorne why even have I-11 run next to Walker Lake at all? That crooked 40 mile jog to the West that US-95 takes West out of Tonopah could be avoided along with the crooked path US-95 takes from the Western US-6 junction up North to Walker Lake. Currently US-95 from Tonopah to Schurz is roughly 135 miles. The path I'm describing would be about 110 miles.
Add that detour going NW out of Tonopah to additional mileage savings gained by avoiding the Fallon and Fernley nonsense. Having I-11 follow the rail corridor NW out of Schurz would cut even more mileage off the route. I-11 could follow about 20 miles of Alt US-95 South of Silver Springs and tie directly into NV-439 and reach I-80 in Clark.
The other problem with the Fallon-Fernley concept is there are no easy/clear spaces where to build I-11. Fallon would require a Southern bypass well outside the town (locals there wouldn't like too much). A junction with I-80 in Fernley would probably have to be built well East of town.
Hawthorne's future is another wrinkle.
The US Army's Joint Munitions Command has 18 different installations around the nation. The ammunition depot in Hawthorne is the largest in terms of land area. The one in McAlester, OK has the greatest munitions capacity. I don't know how secure the Hawthorne installation's future is from possible BRAC meetings. The Army likes moving its missions from one post to another due to various factors (including cost of living). Anyway, if the Army decided to close the Hawthorne facility and move its missions elsewhere the towns along that segment of US-95 would dissolve almost immediately.
If I-11 was ever built between the Reno and Las Vegas regions it would take decades to complete (unless the feds suddenly found Jesus with Interstate highways again). I think the best near term strategy is establishing the I-80 outlet for I-11 going South. I think Clark and NV-439 is the best option. They could build out I-11 down to Schurz and just leave that stub there for the time being. From Vegas: do the easy extensions up to the Mercury exit. After that it's just a piece meal process to meet somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2022, 05:10:57 PM
IMHO, I don't see much benefit of running a possible I-11 route on the East side of Walker Lake versus the West side where US-95 currently runs. It looks like there would be little if any mileage savings. Motorists would probably benefit more from having I-11 skirt the edge of Hawthorne and go thru Babbitt so they have access to the roadside services there. An I-11 path around the East side of Walker Lake could run just outside the East boundaries of the Hawthorne Army Depot.
If I-11 were to just avoid the town of Hawthorne why even have I-11 run next to Walker Lake at all? That crooked 40 mile jog to the West that US-95 takes West out of Tonopah could be avoided along with the crooked path US-95 takes from the Western US-6 junction up North to Walker Lake. Currently US-95 from Tonopah to Schurz is roughly 135 miles. The path I'm describing would be about 110 miles.
Add that detour going NW out of Tonopah to additional mileage savings gained by avoiding the Fallon and Fernley nonsense. Having I-11 follow the rail corridor NW out of Schurz would cut even more mileage off the route. I-11 could follow about 20 miles of Alt US-95 South of Silver Springs and tie directly into NV-439 and reach I-80 in Clark.
The other problem with the Fallon-Fernley concept is there are no easy/clear spaces where to build I-11. Fallon would require a Southern bypass well outside the town (locals there wouldn't like too much). A junction with I-80 in Fernley would probably have to be built well East of town.
Hawthorne's future is another wrinkle.
The US Army's Joint Munitions Command has 18 different installations around the nation. The ammunition depot in Hawthorne is the largest in terms of land area. The one in McAlester, OK has the greatest munitions capacity. I don't know how secure the Hawthorne installation's future is from possible BRAC meetings. The Army likes moving its missions from one post to another due to various factors (including cost of living). Anyway, if the Army decided to close the Hawthorne facility and move its missions elsewhere the towns along that segment of US-95 would dissolve almost immediately.
If I-11 was ever built between the Reno and Las Vegas regions it would take decades to complete (unless the feds suddenly found Jesus with Interstate highways again). I think the best near term strategy is establishing the I-80 outlet for I-11 going South. I think Clark and NV-439 is the best option. They could build out I-11 down to Schurz and just leave that stub there for the time being. From Vegas: do the easy extensions up to the Mercury exit. After that it's just a piece meal process to meet somewhere in the middle.
I think the reasoning for building on the east side of the lake is that north of Hawthorne US 95 is built on a cliff for a fairly long stretch. You couldn't even widen the road to four lanes without blasting into the mountain or having to move the road off the cliff to build bridges in portions. The east side of the lake has been discussed just being that it would be much cheaper and easier to build a new road there.
I still think the option (someone brought up a while back) of the Gabbs Pole Line Road alignment makes the most sense overall.
Following 95 up to Tonopah which seems to be the agreed upon route for the south half works fine. From just a few miles northwest of Tonopah it would head northwest along Gabbs Pole Line Road to the current NV 361 alignment NW to US 50 at Middlegate. Upgrade US 50, but would need to bypass through the farmland south of Fallon, then back along US 50 to Fernley, would probably need to bypass through the flat land south of Fernley to connect to I-80.
Very little ROW needs to be acquired, mainly some of the farmland south of Fallon and even a portion of that is currently County Routes 117 and 118. It would cut through the town of Gabbs but there's maybe 180 people left living there now anyway.
A couple years ago on a drive from Reno to Las Vegas I checked traffic on my phone and it actually suggested I take this route. It showed it would be 50 minutes shorter than the usual route along I80, NV 439, ALT 95, US 95 that I normally take. I thought it seemed too good to be true but tried it anyway. It was initially fine, much less two lane road driving, and east of Fernley US 50 and NV 361 there was very little traffic and didn't need to pass any slow vehicles.
However, just south of Gabbs I saw Gabbs Pole Line Road, and almost missed it. it's just a dirt road in that area. I didn't know how long it's a dirt road or the conditions, so didn't trust taking it and even if I did I'm not sure it would save me 50 minutes. I know it's paved near Tonopah so not sure how long that lasts. Ended up just taking NV 361 down to US 95 at Luning. I probably didn't save any time or miles doing that, but certainly if Gabbs Pole Line was paved it would cut miles off.
Also this alignment would not only shorten the drive between Las Vegas and Reno but also be attractive for Las Vegas to Boise. Boise traffic would head north in Fallon on US 95 to I-80 the north, but being I-11 wouldn't veer as far west it would be a more direct route than taking 93 through eastern Nevada on a mostly 2 lane route.
Quote from: kdk on January 26, 2023, 03:25:13 PM
Also this alignment would not only shorten the drive between Las Vegas and Reno but also be attractive for Las Vegas to Boise. Boise traffic would head north in Fallon on US 95 to I-18 the north, but being I-11 wouldn't veer as far west it would be a more direct route than taking 93 through eastern Nevada on a mostly 2 lane route.
I think you mean I-80.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2022, 05:10:57 PM
IMHO, I don't see much benefit of running a possible I-11 route on the East side of Walker Lake versus the West side where US-95 currently runs. It looks like there would be little if any mileage savings. Motorists would probably benefit more from having I-11 skirt the edge of Hawthorne and go thru Babbitt so they have access to the roadside services there. An I-11 path around the East side of Walker Lake could run just outside the East boundaries of the Hawthorne Army Depot.
If I-11 were to just avoid the town of Hawthorne why even have I-11 run next to Walker Lake at all? That crooked 40 mile jog to the West that US-95 takes West out of Tonopah could be avoided along with the crooked path US-95 takes from the Western US-6 junction up North to Walker Lake. Currently US-95 from Tonopah to Schurz is roughly 135 miles. The path I'm describing would be about 110 miles.
Add that detour going NW out of Tonopah to additional mileage savings gained by avoiding the Fallon and Fernley nonsense. Having I-11 follow the rail corridor NW out of Schurz would cut even more mileage off the route. I-11 could follow about 20 miles of Alt US-95 South of Silver Springs and tie directly into NV-439 and reach I-80 in Clark.
The other problem with the Fallon-Fernley concept is there are no easy/clear spaces where to build I-11. Fallon would require a Southern bypass well outside the town (locals there wouldn't like too much). A junction with I-80 in Fernley would probably have to be built well East of town.
Hawthorne's future is another wrinkle.
The US Army's Joint Munitions Command has 18 different installations around the nation. The ammunition depot in Hawthorne is the largest in terms of land area. The one in McAlester, OK has the greatest munitions capacity. I don't know how secure the Hawthorne installation's future is from possible BRAC meetings. The Army likes moving its missions from one post to another due to various factors (including cost of living). Anyway, if the Army decided to close the Hawthorne facility and move its missions elsewhere the towns along that segment of US-95 would dissolve almost immediately.
If I-11 was ever built between the Reno and Las Vegas regions it would take decades to complete (unless the feds suddenly found Jesus with Interstate highways again). I think the best near term strategy is establishing the I-80 outlet for I-11 going South. I think Clark and NV-439 is the best option. They could build out I-11 down to Schurz and just leave that stub there for the time being. From Vegas: do the easy extensions up to the Mercury exit. After that it's just a piece meal process to meet somewhere in the middle.
There has to be something approaching a current logistical reason for I-11 to be built from Reno-Las Vegas. A cursory look at this application from NDOT:
https://ndot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=278339b4605e4dda8da9bddd2fd9f1e9
shows some...very interesting traffic patterns. For example, other than driving through towns like Hawthorne, Fallon, and Tonopah, the most heavily trafficked stretch of US 95 is between the south end of US 95A and the north end of SR 360. The sign right south of that SR 360 intersection says it is 269 miles to Las Vegas. Based on that, how can NDOT justify that I-11 plan beyond even scoping and planning stages?
And as for Hawthorne Army Depot: The post was originally on the 2005 BRAC list. (You can thank NV's congressional delegation for getting it off that list). Considering that all the munitions work related to Iraq and Afghanistan was handled by places at least as far east as McAlester Army Ammunition Plat, the place has likely seen a diminishing work load since that BRAC list.
Quote from: kdkI think the reasoning for building on the east side of the lake is that north of Hawthorne US 95 is built on a cliff for a fairly long stretch. You couldn't even widen the road to four lanes without blasting into the mountain or having to move the road off the cliff to build bridges in portions.
The
fairly long stretch you speak of is a 1.7 mile segment of US-95 just South of Sportsmans Beach. The segment is short enough that a couple options are available for adding a second set of lanes on the lake side of the existing US-95 lanes. Land could be built up or they could even build a short bridge.
My own opinion is they should just bypass Walker Lake completely and build a direct route from Tonopah to Schurz (or rather a junction with US-95 to the North of Schurz). Then it would follow alongside the existing rail path to Alt US-95, then follow Alt US-95 up to near Silver Springs where it would aim at the junction with NV-439 and US-50.
Quote from: kdkI still think the option (someone brought up a while back) of the Gabbs Pole Line Road alignment makes the most sense overall.
If Gabbs Pole Line Road and CR-89 are the same thing then it would be I who made the suggestion earlier. But rather than hang right on NV-361 to go thru Gabbs and up to Middlegate I would rather this I-11 concept cut across a bunch of empty land between the CR-89/NV-361 junction and Schurz.
The only problem with this direct Tonopah-Schurz idea is the route would cut thru the Walker River Reservation. There's no telling how receptive or not tribe leaders would be to this idea. An Interstate could dramatically boost economic activity on otherwise desolate land that probably isn't attracting any visitors or new business. But some tribes don't mind letting prime real estate just sit empty. For example there is a good bit of "trust land" here in Lawton that falls into that category.
Quote from: brad2971There has to be something approaching a current logistical reason for I-11 to be built from Reno-Las Vegas.
IMHO, the only way an I-11 route going NW of Las Vegas makes any sense is if I-11 was intended to be built as a much larger corridor. Vegas to Reno alone wouldn't cut it. If I-11 went farther North to connect with I-5 somewhere in Oregon the corridor could have a far more valuable purpose. It would serve as a relief valve for I-5, allowing traffic from the Pacific Northwest to head toward the Mexico border without having to deal with going thru the busy/expensive parts of California.
So basically the leading argument for I-11 north of Las Vegas is:
"I think it is needed."
Um, not really.
A mere Vegas to Reno Interstate would be a waste of money. Under the current plans the only thing that makes sense is Vegas to Phoenix.
A larger corridor that connected bigger population centers (Vancouver, Seattle & Portland on one end then Vegas and Phoenix on the other end) might be more worthwhile. The route would attract a lot more commerce. But the US government rarely ever thinks in big picture terms. I-69 is technically a big picture project. But we're over 20 years into that effort and only a small amount of that route has been built.
I'm amused at how you fail to see the parallels with this "build it and they will come mindset" and some of the more choice items seen on the fictional board. It's one thing to be aspirational, quite another to ignore every single person trying to given you actual data about the US 95 corridor north of Las Vegas. But then again so much about I-11 as actually presently presented has let's say "questionable assumptions" about where it should be and who will use it.
There is a pretty easy explanation for why traffic counts are minimal on US-95 going Northwest out of Las Vegas: the route absolutely sucks ass as any sort of long distance travel route. It sucks for every reason a highway could suck. Between Vegas and Reno the route has as indirect a route as it gets. It's only 2 lanes and thru very desolate territory, making it great for road hypnosis and potential head-on collisions -or at least potentially running out of fuel. North of Reno, going into Northern California and Southern Oregon isn't much better. I can't imagine anyone driving trucks or other commercial vehicles using that current corridor as a "short cut" or alternative to I-5.
Most of the existing Interstates that cross parts of the Western US go through desolate territory almost devoid of population. But those routes eventually go to big destinations. Being able to drive fast/efficient from Seattle to Phoenix shouldn't be all that different than Seattle to Minneapolis.
Or more simply, the amount of freight traffic that will US 95 is already there and isn't likely to increase significantly with improvements. You want us all to consider your assumption that a fictional highway to points north of Reno will be some huge thing. Problem is that's a huge assumption that doesn't have a significant study back it and this isn't a fictional board.
It might do you well to research the traffic counts roads like US 395 and CA 139/OR 39 north of Reno. Those corridors aren't per se lacking the ability to facilitate freight traffic and yet don't meet the demand of bringing back 1956 era legislation to improve to full limited access.
There would be one fairly big incentive for long haul traffic from the Pacific Northwest heading South to bypass California
if such a thing was actually possible at all: California has by far the highest gasoline prices in the contiguous 48 states. That's on top of all the other negative aspects involved with driving thru California.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyIt might do you well to research the traffic counts roads like US 395 and CA 139/OR 39 north of Reno.
Those numbers might not mean much since the vehicle counts would likely consist of local traffic by an overwhelming margin. A small percentage of it would be long distance traffic. Any semi trucks on those routes are going to be driving to specific locations in that immediate region. A truck heading from Portland to Phoenix would just stay on I-5 until reaching Southern California, then taking either I-40 or I-10 to enter Arizona
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
To Portland, OR by way of Bend , OR? :hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 27, 2023, 12:03:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
To Portland, OR by way of Bend , OR? :hmmm:
Mike
By default I would assume Bend and US 97 is part of the conceptual corridor being envisioned here.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".
Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.
Quote from: Henry on January 27, 2023, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".
Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.
That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 27, 2023, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".
Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.
That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.
Sure, it would be great if absolute NIMBY resistance in states like Oregon wasn't a thing. Trouble is that is the current reality with Oregon does have that NIMBY factor and it isn't likely to change anytime soon. So again I ask everyone, why are we speculating on I-11 north of Reno when the corridor has never been explored and basically has no chance of happening?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 27, 2023, 12:37:43 AM
There is a pretty easy explanation for why traffic counts are minimal on US-95 going Northwest out of Las Vegas: the route absolutely sucks ass as any sort of long distance travel route. It sucks for every reason a highway could suck. Between Vegas and Reno the route has as indirect a route as it gets. It's only 2 lanes and thru very desolate territory, making it great for road hypnosis and potential head-on collisions -or at least potentially running out of fuel. North of Reno, going into Northern California and Southern Oregon isn't much better. I can't imagine anyone driving trucks or other commercial vehicles using that current corridor as a "short cut" or alternative to I-5.
Most of the existing Interstates that cross parts of the Western US go through desolate territory almost devoid of population. But those routes eventually go to big destinations. Being able to drive fast/efficient from Seattle to Phoenix shouldn't be all that different than Seattle to Minneapolis.
Oh, it does not suck for every possible reason a highway could suck. How about counting our blessings?
- US 95 has 12 foot lanes and similar weigh limits and height limits as interstates. There's no barrier to big rigs.
- the route from Las Vegas to Reno is not absolutely straight, due to topography. Even if Nevada wanted to go to the expense of building a route dead straight over pretty high mountain ranges, they'd get no thanks for doing so when in the winter traffic was forced up into the ice and snow zone instead of going around the tall mountains like a sensible road.
- 2 lanes is ample for the amount of traffic it gets.
- Road hypnosis is actually less on 2-lane roads than on freeways.
- Lack of gas stations results from lack of traffic, and building a freeway where few people want to drive is not going to make more gas stations open.
There's precious little need for I-11 at all, and none for I-11 north of Las Vegas.
The thing that gives me pause about the "there's no need for I-11 north of Vegas" drumbeating is where NDOT asked for the northern terminus to be.
- They could have left it where it is now, at I-215. This is sort of stupid because the mainline becomes I-515.
- They could have extended it to I-15. This would have been reasonable, essentially folding I-515 into I-11.
- They could have extended it to CC-215 on the north side. This makes some degree of sense, as it's applying an Interstate designation to an existing freeway. (And CC-215 will be I-215 at some point.)
- What they actually asked for (and got), which is to extend it past CC-215 to a stub end out in the desert north of town. That makes absolutely no sense unless you think there's a chance you'll want to extend it to Northern Nevada somewhere.
So are we thinking we know better than NDOT here? I mean, yeah, DOTs do dumb stuff all the time, but spending as much money as this sucker is going to take isn't something that would be done without a whole lot of people checking the numbers to make sure it makes sense. So what is it they know in Carson City that we don't?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 10:13:26 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 27, 2023, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2023, 11:29:27 AM
Let me rephrase, is there an active or past study to extend I-11 north of Reno places like Seattle? If not (and I don't think I've missed anything) then how is anything we are talking about anything more than purely fictional speculation?
There has been nothing concrete for north of I-80 apart from "maybe if demand is there".
Maybe if Portland (and OR, as a whole) wasn't filled with all those NIMBYs, then there might be a way to effectively connect it to Reno, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a single number, which I-11 would accomplish.
That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.
Sure, it would be great if absolute NIMBY resistance in states like Oregon wasn't a thing. Trouble is that is the current reality with Oregon does have that NIMBY factor and it isn't likely to change anytime soon. So again I ask everyone, why are we speculating on I-11 north of Reno when the corridor has never been explored and basically has no chance of happening?
Quote from: kkt on January 27, 2023, 10:57:20 PM
Oh, it does not suck for every possible reason a highway could suck. How about counting our blessings?
- US 95 has 12 foot lanes and similar weigh limits and height limits as interstates. There's no barrier to big rigs.
- the route from Las Vegas to Reno is not absolutely straight, due to topography. Even if Nevada wanted to go to the expense of building a route dead straight over pretty high mountain ranges, they'd get no thanks for doing so when in the winter traffic was forced up into the ice and snow zone instead of going around the tall mountains like a sensible road.
- 2 lanes is ample for the amount of traffic it gets.
- Road hypnosis is actually less on 2-lane roads than on freeways.
- Lack of gas stations results from lack of traffic, and building a freeway where few people want to drive is not going to make more gas stations open.
There's precious little need for I-11 at all, and none for I-11 north of Las Vegas.
Everything here. Even without the NIMBY factor it comes down to "is this really needed?" The answer to that is a resounding "no" given how dead that part of the country is.
For those who haven't been to the region: most of Nevada is either high mountains or desert. Eastern Oregon is mostly high mountains or desert. There isn't enough water to create the type of development that a freeway may induce. As it is, 95 has a couple places high enough to get snow. Those mountains 95 goes around all get snowed on for half of the year. Tunneling under them would not only be insanely expensive just because long tunnels, but also due to seismic and volcanic concerns. Those mountains are all active uplift zones and western NV has several volcanic basins, at least one of which is right along one of the preferred routes.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2023, 11:07:32 PM
The thing that gives me pause about the "there's no need for I-11 north of Vegas" drumbeating is where NDOT asked for the northern terminus to be.
- They could have left it where it is now, at I-215. This is sort of stupid because the mainline becomes I-515.
- They could have extended it to I-15. This would have been reasonable, essentially folding I-515 into I-11.
- They could have extended it to CC-215 on the north side. This makes some degree of sense, as it's applying an Interstate designation to an existing freeway.
- What they actually asked for (and got), which is to extend it past CC-215 to a stub end out in the desert north of town. That makes absolutely no sense unless you think there's a chance you'll want to extend it to Northern Nevada somewhere.
So are we thinking we know better than NDOT here? I mean, yeah, DOTs do dumb stuff all the time, but spending as much money as this sucker is going to take isn't something that would be done without a whole lot of people checking the numbers to make sure it makes sense. So what is it they know in Carson City that we don't?
It ends where it does because that's where the I-grade freeway ends. There is a Congressionally-designated corridor north of there, but I say with a decent degree of confidence that NDOT isn't yet putting money beyond what is required by the feds toward I-11 north of there. Everything they have done so far north of Vegas is the bare minimum required by Congress and the end being where it is provides a "so you say there's a chance".
(personal opinion emphasized)
I thought I-11 north of Las Vegas had to do with Nevada getting something from the feds for using Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. It had looked like that was a possibility a decade ago, so NDoT had a route chosen and costing done, but had no illusion Nevada would be paying for it. If Yucca Mountain waste storage were to happen, then I-11 would be built between the two casino resort cities, among other things. Or so that is what I thought was the case.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2023, 11:13:24 PM
Quote from: kdkI think the reasoning for building on the east side of the lake is that north of Hawthorne US 95 is built on a cliff for a fairly long stretch. You couldn't even widen the road to four lanes without blasting into the mountain or having to move the road off the cliff to build bridges in portions.
The fairly long stretch you speak of is a 1.7 mile segment of US-95 just South of Sportsmans Beach. The segment is short enough that a couple options are available for adding a second set of lanes on the lake side of the existing US-95 lanes. Land could be built up or they could even build a short bridge.
My own opinion is they should just bypass Walker Lake completely and build a direct route from Tonopah to Schurz (or rather a junction with US-95 to the North of Schurz). Then it would follow alongside the existing rail path to Alt US-95, then follow Alt US-95 up to near Silver Springs where it would aim at the junction with NV-439 and US-50.
Quote from: kdkI still think the option (someone brought up a while back) of the Gabbs Pole Line Road alignment makes the most sense overall.
If Gabbs Pole Line Road and CR-89 are the same thing then it would be I who made the suggestion earlier. But rather than hang right on NV-361 to go thru Gabbs and up to Middlegate I would rather this I-11 concept cut across a bunch of empty land between the CR-89/NV-361 junction and Schurz.
The only problem with this direct Tonopah-Schurz idea is the route would cut thru the Walker River Reservation. There's no telling how receptive or not tribe leaders would be to this idea. An Interstate could dramatically boost economic activity on otherwise desolate land that probably isn't attracting any visitors or new business. But some tribes don't mind letting prime real estate just sit empty. For example there is a good bit of "trust land" here in Lawton that falls into that category.
Quote from: brad2971There has to be something approaching a current logistical reason for I-11 to be built from Reno-Las Vegas.
IMHO, the only way an I-11 route going NW of Las Vegas makes any sense is if I-11 was intended to be built as a much larger corridor. Vegas to Reno alone wouldn't cut it. If I-11 went farther North to connect with I-5 somewhere in Oregon the corridor could have a far more valuable purpose. It would serve as a relief valve for I-5, allowing traffic from the Pacific Northwest to head toward the Mexico border without having to deal with going thru the busy/expensive parts of California.
If the feds are going to end up funding large portions of all this construction (whether by earmark or USDOT), the easier, cheaper, and more logistically sensible option, instead of I-11 from Vegas-Reno, would be to fund the remaining freeway connection of SR 58 (or I-40!) from the Westside Parkway to I-5 in Kern County. While I-5 in the Central Valley can be a hazard on weekends and during times of Tule Fog, the routing of I-5 through there is not that busy or expensive.
Furthermore, I-5 also conveniently connects with California's ports, which are more important for intermodal shipping than any port in the Pacific Northwest. People need to get off this notion that road-bypassing California (whether freight or passenger) is some social and cultural good.
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I know that. I'm just needling some folks who want that extension even though Bakersfield (much less Caltrans) doesn't want that extended designation. Still though, my point stands about the cost-effectiveness of completing that SR 58 extension to I-5, as opposed to I-11 between Vegas and Reno.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2023, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.
I caught he meant I-5. I don't think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2023, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.
I caught he meant I-5. I don't think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.
What, you don't think they can force a freeway across the Temblor and La Panza Ranges?
Quote from: cl94 on January 28, 2023, 11:55:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2023, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.
I caught he meant I-5. I don't think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.
What, you don't think they can force a freeway across the Temblor and La Panza Ranges?
Only if Pozo Road (old CA 178) and the La Panza town site get a dedicated exit.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2023, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.
I caught he meant I-5. I don't think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.
I've seen several proposals in Fictional that do run I-40 to the ocean. It's not just Fritzowl. Some here consider CA 58 a de facto I-40 extension even though it's not in Caltrans plans to do so. This thread from last August (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31958.0) was moved to Fictional when the first "realistic" proposal was to eventually run I-40 to US 101 which would be "wonderful" in the poster's eyes.
Quote from: skluth on January 29, 2023, 11:08:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2023, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Where you guys even getting this I-40 to I-5 stuff from? The last time the Division of Highways tried to get an Interstate designation on CA 58 between Bakersfield-Barstow was during 1968 when more chargeable miles became available.
I think he was just talking about the CA-58 extension west to I-5, not upgrading the full corridor to I-40.
I caught he meant I-5. I don't think even the more outlandish fictional board users would think an Interstate would be feasible west of I-5.
I've seen several proposals in Fictional that do run I-40 to the ocean. It's not just Fritzowl. Some here consider CA 58 a de facto I-40 extension even though it's not in Caltrans plans to do so. This thread from last August (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31958.0) was moved to Fictional when the first "realistic" proposal was to eventually run I-40 to US 101 which would be "wonderful" in the poster's eyes.
Irony with that thread is that CA 239 might actually end up being a thing that happens.
What is weird to me is how did this whole CA 58/I-40 thing start? I saw it pop up on Facebook road groups firsts followed by an un-referenced citation on Wikipedia. Is it really just as simple as the minds eye looking at something on paper that seems to fit an obvious pattern? To an extent I think we might be seeing something similar with I-11 beyond the scope it has actually has been studied. I think that I even referenced this whole phenomenon in the Road Mandela Effects thread.
People have been talking about it since the days of yore (MTR).
QuoteOnly if Pozo Road (old CA 178) and the La Panza town site get a dedicated exit.
Truck stop at Simmler!
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 29, 2023, 01:41:33 PM
QuoteOnly if Pozo Road (old CA 178) and the La Panza town site get a dedicated exit.
Truck stop at Simmler!
Just a couple miles west of the I-40 San Andreas Fault/Soda Lake Overlook.
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2023, 10:09:12 PM
That would require it to cross the Cascades. While anything north of 80 is pure fiction at this point, Oregon may be the last state I'd expect to build another mile of new freeway, especially through national forest lands.
I think politically, there's a challenge at the moment, although I have to wonder if the transition to EVs will nullify that within a decade-or-so. It's one thing to be a Climate Doomer and say "We are drawing the line on freeways," it's another thing to be a Climate Doomer when 80% of your friends and neighbors are driving by battery powered by wind, solar and water. Maybe that's a pipe dream, but it's a hopeful one...
As for crossing the Cascades, the lowest pass is also the pass that makes the most sense for this project — Government Camp, at 4000'. It's rarely completely closed — and is often used by truck traffic when I-84 is closed through the Columbia River Gorge due to ice and snow (its elevation tends to protect it from the severe weather that hits at sea level, giving it more steady snow vs. the ice/snow mix in the Gorge).
More importantly, as Portland and Bend have grown, so has traffic on the 26 corridor, closing in on 11,000 ADT west of Government Camp and more than 6,200 ADT south of the Mt. Hood Meadows turnoff. Those are on par with other rural western interstates. And Bend remains the largest US city connected to the rest of the world exclusively by 2-lane roads. It's outright dangerous, and at some point, people are going to get tired of being scared to drive that road.
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:05 PM
More importantly, as Portland and Bend have grown, so has traffic on the 26 corridor, closing in on 11,000 ADT west of Government Camp and more than 6,200 ADT south of the Mt. Hood Meadows turnoff. Those are on par with other rural western interstates. And Bend remains the largest US city connected to the rest of the world exclusively by 2-lane roads. It's outright dangerous, and at some point, people are going to get tired of being scared to drive that road.
That won't require replacing US-26 with I-11 or anything like it. It will require fourlaning it, and maybe dividing it. And that will be sufficient for another 30 years. I think we'll have flying cars (well, not me, I'll be long gone) before we have an interstate highway from Reno to Portland.
Quote from: pderocco on January 31, 2023, 02:46:19 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:05 PM
More importantly, as Portland and Bend have grown, so has traffic on the 26 corridor, closing in on 11,000 ADT west of Government Camp and more than 6,200 ADT south of the Mt. Hood Meadows turnoff. Those are on par with other rural western interstates. And Bend remains the largest US city connected to the rest of the world exclusively by 2-lane roads. It's outright dangerous, and at some point, people are going to get tired of being scared to drive that road.
That won't require replacing US-26 with I-11 or anything like it. It will require fourlaning it, and maybe dividing it. And that will be sufficient for another 30 years. I think we'll have flying cars (well, not me, I'll be long gone) before we have an interstate highway from Reno to Portland.
Howabout a highway that looks to be 'aspiring' to be I-11, like many in here believe that CA 58 is 'aspiring' to be a westward extension of I-40?
Mike
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
Quote from: mgk920 on January 31, 2023, 11:22:32 AM
Quote from: pderocco on January 31, 2023, 02:46:19 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:05 PM
More importantly, as Portland and Bend have grown, so has traffic on the 26 corridor, closing in on 11,000 ADT west of Government Camp and more than 6,200 ADT south of the Mt. Hood Meadows turnoff. Those are on par with other rural western interstates. And Bend remains the largest US city connected to the rest of the world exclusively by 2-lane roads. It's outright dangerous, and at some point, people are going to get tired of being scared to drive that road.
That won't require replacing US-26 with I-11 or anything like it. It will require fourlaning it, and maybe dividing it. And that will be sufficient for another 30 years. I think we'll have flying cars (well, not me, I'll be long gone) before we have an interstate highway from Reno to Portland.
Howabout a highway that looks to be 'aspiring' to be I-11, like many in here believe that CA 58 is 'aspiring' to be a westward extension of I-40?
I just doubt that much of US-26 will warrant fully controlled access. It could end up like US-395 in California's Owens Valley. That would be lovely. I prefer such roads, as long as the traffic isn't heavy.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 31, 2023, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
That's not too surprising though on the exit numbers. It was years after signing I-580 and a separate contract unrelated to anything else (if not an in-house job) before NDOT changed the exit numbers to match 580 mileage instead US 395.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
Do you have a link to it?
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 10:39:42 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 31, 2023, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
That's not too surprising though on the exit numbers. It was years after signing I-580 and a separate contract unrelated to anything else (if not an in-house job) before NDOT changed the exit numbers to match 580 mileage instead US 395.
EXCEPT they did the exit numbers in Henderson south of the Fiesta Bowl, so......
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 01, 2023, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 10:39:42 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 31, 2023, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
That's not too surprising though on the exit numbers. It was years after signing I-580 and a separate contract unrelated to anything else (if not an in-house job) before NDOT changed the exit numbers to match 580 mileage instead US 395.
EXCEPT they did the exit numbers in Henderson south of the Fiesta Bowl, so......
IIRC, NDOT switching over I-515 to I-11 south of the 215/564 interchange was a pure signing contract. I believe they replaced a lot of the overhead signs in that stretch simultaneously (I think many of them may have been original to the mid-1990's opening of that stretch of freeway).
The stretch of I-515 between I-215 and Charleston has had several overhead signs replaced in the last few years, through one-offs or other projects. So it might be interesting to see what they're planning to replace with the signage plans.
When NDOT renumbered exits on US 395/I-580 here in Reno recently, they did it mostly with green-out/blue-out patches on the roadside signs and new exit tabs on the existing overheads (which resulted in a couple places where the main sign is in Clearview but the exit tab is in FHWA).
Quote from: pderocco on January 31, 2023, 02:46:19 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:05 PM
More importantly, as Portland and Bend have grown, so has traffic on the 26 corridor, closing in on 11,000 ADT west of Government Camp and more than 6,200 ADT south of the Mt. Hood Meadows turnoff. Those are on par with other rural western interstates. And Bend remains the largest US city connected to the rest of the world exclusively by 2-lane roads. It's outright dangerous, and at some point, people are going to get tired of being scared to drive that road.
That won't require replacing US-26 with I-11 or anything like it. It will require fourlaning it, and maybe dividing it. And that will be sufficient for another 30 years. I think we'll have flying cars (well, not me, I'll be long gone) before we have an interstate highway from Reno to Portland.
You are, of course, correct! We already have flying cars! I have a license to drive them and so do a half a million other Americans. Now, if I could just find one with a good enough STOL kit (or could afford one that's VTOL capable) to let me land in a parking lot, I'd probably buy one and drive it to work. Cameron Park, California was designed for people with flying cars.
Quote from: roadfro on February 02, 2023, 11:54:04 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 01, 2023, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 10:39:42 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 31, 2023, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
That's not too surprising though on the exit numbers. It was years after signing I-580 and a separate contract unrelated to anything else (if not an in-house job) before NDOT changed the exit numbers to match 580 mileage instead US 395.
EXCEPT they did the exit numbers in Henderson south of the Fiesta Bowl, so......
IIRC, NDOT switching over I-515 to I-11 south of the 215/564 interchange was a pure signing contract. I believe they replaced a lot of the overhead signs in that stretch simultaneously (I think many of them may have been original to the mid-1990's opening of that stretch of freeway).
The stretch of I-515 between I-215 and Charleston has had several overhead signs replaced in the last few years, through one-offs or other projects. So it might be interesting to see what they're planning to replace with the signage plans.
When NDOT renumbered exits on US 395/I-580 here in Reno recently, they did it mostly with green-out/blue-out patches on the roadside signs and new exit tabs on the existing overheads (which resulted in a couple places where the main sign is in Clearview but the exit tab is in FHWA).
That's what's weird. They actually *are* replacing the signs, exit number panels and exit markers. I'm curious if there was a deliberate decision or if someone goofed.
You can't help but be impressed by how the engineers managed to clear a path through very rugged mountains for the freeway.
(https://i.imgur.com/mwLAwVK.jpg)
Quote from: kernals12 on April 10, 2023, 01:30:25 PM
You can't help but be impressed by how the engineers managed to clear a path through very rugged mountains for the freeway.
Dynamite and bulldozers.
It's kind of fun to drive over. It's a slight annoyance going thru the security check point if you want to exit I-11 (onto what is now NV-172) to either drive over the top of Hoover Dam or park at the memorial plaza to walk out onto the Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge. Pretty cool sights to see there. Kind of sad about the really tall "bathtub ring" around Lake Mead. Seeing it in person is a bit different than just looking at photos.
Also rather avoidable had NDOT chosen a different routing
I assume you mean upgrading along the existing US-93 alignment thru Boulder City, right? That wasn't do-able, at least not without buying and demolishing a significant number of properties (and inciting a lot of political blow-back). The new Boulder City bypass does follow a pretty loopy path but it was arguably the most practical to build.
Quote from: kkt on April 10, 2023, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 10, 2023, 01:30:25 PM
You can't help but be impressed by how the engineers managed to clear a path through very rugged mountains for the freeway.
Dynamite and bulldozers.
Lots of dynamite
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
Even if Interstate 11 never reaches this point, exit 99 on US 95 should also be renumbered to correspond with the mileage of Interstate 11 from the Arizona/Nevada border on the Mike O'Callaghan—Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge.
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2023, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Irrelevant, people will come once I-11 and Buc-ee's are constructed.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
Buc-ee's does not do franchise agreements. All of their stores are company-owned.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 11, 2023, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
Buc-ee's does not do franchise agreements. All of their stores are company-owned.
They'll make an exception for manifest destiny.
I wouldn't be surprised if I-11 suffered the same fate as the I-70 extension plans of some five and a half decades ago: cancelled due to the lack of traffic. But a Reno-Vegas freeway certainly would be nice to have.
Nice to have, yes. It would also be very difficult and expensive to build. It would also be heavily underutilized (like Henry said). The farthest I could see it potentially going is to NV 373. The terrain is too mountainous to bypass Beatty, and going beyond there is probably ludicrous (as is my train of thought on this post).
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
I've been to Tonopah! There was a gas station with a fairly clueless attendant there. I was about 15 and with my mom. She ask for gas and opened the hood to refill the radiator. Hot day. Attendant moved over to the hood to "help" and reached for the radiator cap. Mom: "Don't just open the cap all at once when it's been overheating!" Attendant just scoffed about clueless city women telling him how to do his job. Went ahead and opened the radiator cap all at once and was treated to a faceful of hot steam mixed with antifreeze. He wasn't seriously hurt and was okay once he rinsed off his face, while Mom filled the radiator....
Quote from: Henry on April 11, 2023, 09:18:31 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if I-11 suffered the same fate as the I-70 extension plans of some five and a half decades ago: cancelled due to the lack of traffic. But a Reno-Vegas freeway certainly would be nice to have.
I thought the Sierra Club or some environmentalist group was responsible for it not being extended? I still think it should via a tunnel under the Sierras. It would greatly improve mobility during the winter when I-80 is shut down.
Regarding I-11, I basically could care less what happens now given they nixed the alternative to tie it into Carson City and put it way east of Reno which makes me so mad I could break a lamp shade. Why even do that? I don't see the point of NDOT pursuing I-11 north of Vegas unless they rethink the alignment which won't happen either way for a long time. I don't mind the current drive at the moment because if you time it right there isn't much traffic and it's a fun drive.
I-70 being canceled west of I-15 was mostly lack of money, but it was also completely ludicrous to build a freeway there. There's a reason a decent road didn't even exist along what is now US 50 between Delta and Ely until the 50s. Sure, it might serve some cross-country traffic, but so few people actually drive straight across the country. Salt Lake and Vegas are major freight hubs; you need population to support a freight hub. Never mind the fact that terrain along 50 isn't nearly as forgiving as old US 40/ modern I-80. The part of the western extension that had the best chance of being built was between Sacramento and Carson City and, indeed, much of that was alive into the 2000s. California long wanted an alternate to Donner Pass, but cost eventually killed it. Never mind the fact that you're never building a freeway through the Tahoe Basin.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 10:50:44 PM
Nice to have, yes. It would also be very difficult and expensive to build. It would also be heavily underutilized (like Henry said). The farthest I could see it potentially going is to NV 373. The terrain is too mountainous to bypass Beatty, and going beyond there is probably ludicrous (as is my train of thought on this post).
Very expensive. Several mountain ranges in very active seismic zones and large military reservations prevent a more direct route than you'd get along modern US 95. Which, honestly, is mostly a high-speed road. A freeway will not cut the drive time enough to encourage more people to drive between Vegas and Reno/Tahoe.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2023, 11:14:05 PMRegarding I-11, I basically could care less what happens now given they nixed the alternative to tie it into Carson City and put it way east of Reno which makes me so mad I could break a lamp shade. Why even do that? I don't see the point of NDOT pursuing I-11 north of Vegas unless they rethink the alignment which won't happen either way for a long time. I don't mind the current drive at the moment because if you time it right there isn't much traffic and it's a fun drive.
Have fun getting a freeway across the mountains between Hawthorne and Minden. As it is, there is only one paved road that does it inside Nevada and it passes through a very narrow canyon. The cost would have been immense. Really need to go around those mountains, at which point you may as well just go straight to I-80. Do note that an upgrade of US 395 between the south side of Gardnerville and Carson is in the works, including a Minden/Gardnerville bypass.
It's always cost and our inability to build tunnels in this fucking country. Look at projects in Europe. Tunnels are considered a no brainer over there.
In all fairness many of the highway and railroad tunnels built in places like Europe and Far East nations like Japan were built decades ago when the costs were far less. Still, the US doesn't do itself any favors with all the damned Draft EIS, EIS and Public Comment stages -all of which get pock-marked by lawsuits. ACCESS Oklahoma doesn't involve building any tunnels at all. But lawyers wanna get paid anyway. So the whole thing is held up by lawsuits. That's "America" for you, home to roughly 70% of the world's attorneys.
Odds are pretty slim for I-11 ever getting completed between Las Vegas and Reno. Still, I think the project is very do-able from a construction perspective. Carson City as a destination is just way out of the running though due to all the tunnels that would be necessary to get there.
IMHO, the best spot for I-11 to begin off I-80 is in Clark and the NV-439 corridor. The Tesla plant and other distribution centers are there in that location. NV-439 is already 4-lane divided there. It's all factory buildings there, so if a new-terrain segment is needed there would probably be less outcry in that location than ram-rodding it through any residential area. Ultimately the goal would be to create a leg of I-11 that extended down to Schurz.
Here's a probably unpopular, but workable idea: from the intersection with US-95 at Schurz, make I-11 bypass Walker Lake, Hawthorne, Luning, Mina and Coaldale to take a more direct route to Tonopah. CR-89 already covers much of that route going NW from the Tonopah area. Those small (and dying) towns along US-95 wouldn't like being bypassed. But it would make a Vegas-Reno I-11 route quite a bit more direct. People on the Walker River Reservation could be a hurdle. But they might like the idea of a freeway possibly bringing more commerce thru their locale.
I-11 between Las Vegas and Phoenix is an obviously valid connection. Going NW out of Vegas is more questionable. I think I-11 could only work well going NW out of Vegas if the concept was bigger. That means not just going to Reno, but going farther North and connecting into I-5 in the Medford, OR area. I-11 could be a "NAFTA" style route that bypasses much of California.
Well, connecting to Carson City wouldn't just be for Carson City would be a more direct route to Reno as well.
Not really. If they were to build I-11 with a fairly direct, diagonal route from Tonopah up to Schurz (bypassing the current route thru Coledale, Mina, Luning, Hawthorne & Walker Lake) it would eliminate more than 30 miles of driving. From Schurz up to Clark & I-80 could be a fairly straight route too. Follow alongside the existing rail corridor and the Walker River rather than the V-shaped nonsense Alt US-95 does. Yerington gets bypassed, but that's not a big deal. The end result connects I-11 to I-80 a short drive outside of Reno. That's better than I-11 reach I-80 at Fernley, which would be a half hour's drive East of Reno.
In order to route I-11 up into Carson City the Interstate would have to follow the existing US-95 path (including all the stupid L-shaped bends it makes hitting Tonopah and Coledale) up to Walker Lake. And then they would have to punch the Interstate thru that mountain range on the lake's West side. That would be in order to open a gateway due West to Smith Valley where there is a gap between other mountain ranges. I-11 would have to overlap parts of NV-208 to reach US-395 just North of Topaz Lake. It would be tricky building I-11 parallel to US-395 up into the Gardnerville and Carson City areas in order to eventually overlap I-580. The end result would not be any sort of direct looking route at all.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 12:16:19 AM
It's always cost and our inability to build tunnels in this fucking country. Look at projects in Europe. Tunnels are considered a no brainer over there.
Look at the tax rates and population density of Europe...
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2023, 02:11:35 PM
Not really. If they were to build I-11 with a fairly direct, diagonal route from Tonopah up to Schurz (bypassing the current route thru Coledale, Mina, Luning, Hawthorne & Walker Lake) it would eliminate more than 30 miles of driving. From Schurz up to Clark & I-80 could be a fairly straight route too. Follow alongside the existing rail corridor and the Walker River rather than the V-shaped nonsense Alt US-95 does. Yerington gets bypassed, but that's not a big deal. The end result connects I-11 to I-80 a short drive outside of Reno. That's better than I-11 reach I-80 at Fernley, which would be a half hour's drive East of Reno.
In order to route I-11 up into Carson City the Interstate would have to follow the existing US-95 path (including all the stupid L-shaped bends it makes hitting Tonopah and Coledale) up to Walker Lake. And then they would have to punch the Interstate thru that mountain range on the lake's West side. That would be in order to open a gateway due West to Smith Valley where there is a gap between other mountain ranges. I-11 would have to overlap parts of NV-208 to reach US-395 just North of Topaz Lake. It would be tricky building I-11 parallel to US-395 up into the Gardnerville and Carson City areas in order to eventually overlap I-580. The end result would not be any sort of direct looking route at all.
IMO it would be direct than what is being considered with the added benefit of serving the Tahoe-Carson city area as well.
Quote from: kkt on April 12, 2023, 03:36:20 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 12:16:19 AM
It's always cost and our inability to build tunnels in this fucking country. Look at projects in Europe. Tunnels are considered a no brainer over there.
Look at the tax rates and population density of Europe...
There's more to it than that. They can just build tunnels cheaper, faster, and are more ambitious than we are. We're the second richest country on earth. Compare their ADTs on their tunnels to ours. There is no excuse.
Blame our political leaders for why we can't have nice things in this country. I already blame them for everything under the sun anyway.
I won't pretend to know anything about European land rights, but maybe it's just easier to get whatever easement is required to tunnel under private properties there.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/infrastructure-us-costly-explained-solutions-11658263884
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:01:11 PM
Blame our political leaders for why we can't have nice things in this country. I already blame them for everything under the sun anyway.
It has to be something. It's just so frustrating how whenever a tunnel project is announced in this country it becomes such a big deal and is subject to so much scrutiny.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 02:26:28 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:01:11 PM
Blame our political leaders for why we can't have nice things in this country. I already blame them for everything under the sun anyway.
It has to be something. It's just so frustrating how whenever a tunnel project is announced in this country it becomes such a big deal and is subject to so much scrutiny.
I think it's less to do with will and more to do with the litigious nature of our political system developed by lawyers to enrich their ranks at everyone else's expense.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2023, 11:14:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 11, 2023, 09:18:31 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if I-11 suffered the same fate as the I-70 extension plans of some five and a half decades ago: cancelled due to the lack of traffic. But a Reno-Vegas freeway certainly would be nice to have.
I thought the Sierra Club or some environmentalist group was responsible for it not being extended? I still think it should via a tunnel under the Sierras. It would greatly improve mobility during the winter when I-80 is shut down.
They probably weren't paying too much attention to that extension because they were focusing more on the eastward extension through Baltimore.
Quote from: cl94 on April 12, 2023, 12:13:02 AM
I-70 being canceled west of I-15 was mostly lack of money, but it was also completely ludicrous to build a freeway there. There's a reason a decent road didn't even exist along what is now US 50 between Delta and Ely until the 50s. Sure, it might serve some cross-country traffic, but so few people actually drive straight across the country. Salt Lake and Vegas are major freight hubs; you need population to support a freight hub. Never mind the fact that terrain along 50 isn't nearly as forgiving as old US 40/ modern I-80. The part of the western extension that had the best chance of being built was between Sacramento and Carson City and, indeed, much of that was alive into the 2000s. California long wanted an alternate to Donner Pass, but cost eventually killed it. Never mind the fact that you're never building a freeway through the Tahoe Basin.
Mystery solved.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 12, 2023, 02:11:35 PM
Not really. If they were to build I-11 with a fairly direct, diagonal route from Tonopah up to Schurz (bypassing the current route thru Coledale, Mina, Luning, Hawthorne & Walker Lake) it would eliminate more than 30 miles of driving. From Schurz up to Clark & I-80 could be a fairly straight route too. Follow alongside the existing rail corridor and the Walker River rather than the V-shaped nonsense Alt US-95 does. Yerington gets bypassed, but that's not a big deal. The end result connects I-11 to I-80 a short drive outside of Reno. That's better than I-11 reach I-80 at Fernley, which would be a half hour's drive East of Reno.
In order to route I-11 up into Carson City the Interstate would have to follow the existing US-95 path (including all the stupid L-shaped bends it makes hitting Tonopah and Coledale) up to Walker Lake. And then they would have to punch the Interstate thru that mountain range on the lake's West side. That would be in order to open a gateway due West to Smith Valley where there is a gap between other mountain ranges. I-11 would have to overlap parts of NV-208 to reach US-395 just North of Topaz Lake. It would be tricky building I-11 parallel to US-395 up into the Gardnerville and Carson City areas in order to eventually overlap I-580. The end result would not be any sort of direct looking route at all.
As much as I'd love to see a direct route to Reno swallowing up I-580 in the process, it would be better to just build it on top of NV 439 and end it at I-80. Too far east, sure, but that would be the best option of all.
TBH, if you're going from Reno to points southeast, Carson is out of the way. Even if you spend countless billions of dollars building a tunnel system between the Carson Valley and Hawthorne, 80-439-50-95A would at worst be a wash in terms of distance and travel time. And you'd need a crapton of earthmoving along NV SR 208, because you're not squeezing anything else through the canyon 208 uses between Smith and Mason Valleys.
Part of the impetus for NV 439 was to make a more direct route between Reno and Vegas that bypasses Fernley and Fallon. And indeed, it chops 10 miles and 10 or so minutes off of the trip. It's only about 15 miles longer than the straight-line distance between Reno and Hawthorne and isn't particularly mountainous. If it becomes necessary, I could see them formalizing the unofficial Yerington bypass, but what exists now works. US 50 is 4-lane expressway between I-580 and US 95A, with plans to make it a continuous 4 lanes to Fallon. That doesn't need a freeway bypass to the south.
I maintain that a far more worthy endeavor would be 4-laning the rest of US 395 between Lee Vining and Gardnerville. That actually has nearly the traffic counts to warrant it.
Quote from: cl94 on April 13, 2023, 11:12:47 PM
I maintain that a far more worthy endeavor would be 4-laning the rest of US 395 between Lee Vining and Gardnerville. That actually has nearly the traffic counts to warrant it.
You'd need a crapton of earthmoving along US 395, because you're not squeezing anything else through the canyon 395 uses between Sonora Junction and Antelope Valley.
Also, I've driven between Lee Vining and Gardnerville a dozen or two times, and at least in California the traffic never seemed enough to warrant fourlaning. But I was mostly there on weekends.
That said, I'm all for it.
Quote from: cl94 on April 13, 2023, 11:12:47 PM
TBH, if you're going from Reno to points southeast, Carson is out of the way. Even if you spend countless billions of dollars building a tunnel system between the Carson Valley and Hawthorne, 80-439-50-95A would at worst be a wash in terms of distance and travel time. And you'd need a crapton of earthmoving along NV SR 208, because you're not squeezing anything else through the canyon 208 uses between Smith and Mason Valleys.
Part of the impetus for NV 439 was to make a more direct route between Reno and Vegas that bypasses Fernley and Fallon. And indeed, it chops 10 miles and 10 or so minutes off of the trip. It's only about 15 miles longer than the straight-line distance between Reno and Hawthorne and isn't particularly mountainous. If it becomes necessary, I could see them formalizing the unofficial Yerington bypass, but what exists now works. US 50 is 4-lane expressway between I-580 and US 95A, with plans to make it a continuous 4 lanes to Fallon. That doesn't need a freeway bypass to the south.
I maintain that a far more worthy endeavor would be 4-laning the rest of US 395 between Lee Vining and Gardnerville. That actually has nearly the traffic counts to warrant it.
But like I said it also is more convenient for traffic heading to the Carson-Tahoe area as an added benefit so it's a win win on all fronts. Yes it'd be expensive but money is not an issue in this country. We can just up and decide to send $40 billion to Ukraine on a whim. We should be able to do same with road projects on our land.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 11, 2023, 12:30:50 PM
I assume you mean upgrading along the existing US-93 alignment thru Boulder City, right? That wasn't do-able, at least not without buying and demolishing a significant number of properties (and inciting a lot of political blow-back). The new Boulder City bypass does follow a pretty loopy path but it was arguably the most practical to build.
One of the proposed through-town alignments could have been easily workable with fairly minimal ROW purchase, and construction costs would've been less. The freeway would've been close to homes though, and I think tbat's where a lot of the backlash occurred. I recall business owners greatly preferred a through-town routing.
Quote from: roadfro on April 14, 2023, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 11, 2023, 12:30:50 PM
I assume you mean upgrading along the existing US-93 alignment thru Boulder City, right? That wasn't do-able, at least not without buying and demolishing a significant number of properties (and inciting a lot of political blow-back). The new Boulder City bypass does follow a pretty loopy path but it was arguably the most practical to build.
One of the proposed through-town alignments could have been easily workable with fairly minimal ROW purchase, and construction costs would've been less. The freeway would've been close to homes though, and I think tbat's where a lot of the backlash occurred. I recall business owners greatly preferred a through-town routing.
Boulder City has always had a disproportionate amount of political power, mainly thanks to an entrenched internal power structure highly centralized among certain church members. They usually get what they want, and they wanted an around-town bypass with no exit on the east end of town.
Quote from: roadfro on April 14, 2023, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 11, 2023, 12:30:50 PM
I assume you mean upgrading along the existing US-93 alignment thru Boulder City, right? That wasn't do-able, at least not without buying and demolishing a significant number of properties (and inciting a lot of political blow-back). The new Boulder City bypass does follow a pretty loopy path but it was arguably the most practical to build.
One of the proposed through-town alignments could have been easily workable with fairly minimal ROW purchase, and construction costs would've been less. The freeway would've been close to homes though, and I think tbat's where a lot of the backlash occurred. I recall business owners greatly preferred a through-town routing.
EDIT: I found the alignments in the EIS https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/EIS-0490-Adopted-Volume1.pdf
When/if US 93 is eventually decommissioned in Arizona, as well as eventually truncated south of Exit 64 on Interstate 15, does anyone think Business 93 in Boulder City will eventually become Business 11?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2023, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Irrelevant, people will come once I-11 and Buc-ee's are constructed.
Land in Coaldale will be dirt cheap, especially given there is nothing in Coaldale aside from a few long-abandoned buildings. But good luck finding staffing, given the nearest population center is Tonopah.
But also, Buc-ee's is an interesting choice given they don't seem to operate outside the south and only a handful of locations are outside of Texas...
Plus, you'd have a bit of competition. When I drove between Reno and Vegas in early January, I saw a new truck stop under construction (might've been a Love's) just north of Tonopah (close enough to be considered in town, but it's technically in Esmeralda County not Nye County). Based on the progress I could see just driving by, I gotta imagine that the truck stop is open by now.
Worth noting, most posts I do regarding Buc-ee's are dripping with sarcasm given the chain seems to have acolytes in certain parts of the road community. I'm sure several of you got the joke given it's one that has become a meme largely off forum.
The irony is that Coaldale would probably be a decent place for a truck stop already given it is the junction of US 6 and US 95. Trouble is that Coaldale is too far from Tonopah to really draw anyone to work there (which probably explains why it's a ghost town).
Cross posting the blog I did on I-11 after a recent drive I did:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/06/interstate-11-and-boulder-city-bypass.html?m=1
Quote from: roadfro on April 15, 2023, 01:50:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2023, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Irrelevant, people will come once I-11 and Buc-ee's are constructed.
Plus, you'd have a bit of competition. When I drove between Reno and Vegas in early January, I saw a new truck stop under construction (might've been a Love's) just north of Tonopah (close enough to be considered in town, but it's technically in Esmeralda County not Nye County). Based on the progress I could see just driving by, I gotta imagine that the truck stop is open by now.
Surprisingly still not open as of this week, although it looks like now it could be open within 30 days, all that seems to be done on the outside would be the actual paving of the parking lots. It's much needed as I have learned to avoid needing gas in Tonopah as the existing gas stations tend to have a wait time at each pump and the parking lots tend to fill up as well, as was the case last week.
On a related note, the Goldfield Truck Stop in Goldfield still looks to be an active construction site but little progress has been made in the past 8 months since I had last driven by.
Quote from: kdk on June 23, 2023, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 15, 2023, 01:50:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2023, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Irrelevant, people will come once I-11 and Buc-ee's are constructed.
Plus, you'd have a bit of competition. When I drove between Reno and Vegas in early January, I saw a new truck stop under construction (might've been a Love's) just north of Tonopah (close enough to be considered in town, but it's technically in Esmeralda County not Nye County). Based on the progress I could see just driving by, I gotta imagine that the truck stop is open by now.
Surprisingly still not open as of this week, although it looks like now it could be open within 30 days, all that seems to be done on the outside would be the actual paving of the parking lots. It's much needed as I have learned to avoid needing gas in Tonopah as the existing gas stations tend to have a wait time at each pump and the parking lots tend to fill up as well, as was the case last week.
On a related note, the Goldfield Truck Stop in Goldfield still looks to be an active construction site but little progress has been made in the past 8 months since I had last driven by.
Just made the Reno-Vegas and back drive earlier this month. The Love's is just about ready. They'll have to move the sign on NB 95 that says how far to next gas, though.
While there may not be enough traffic to build I-11 out there, I could easily see building it as far as the Mercury exit, and I don't see it being much of an issue (except for the bypass around Indian Springs/Cactus Springs), but NDOT REALLY needs more passing lanes north of Tonopah.
Does anyone know why the exit numbers on US 95 (future Interstate 11) make the jump from Exit 85 at W. Craig Rd. to Exit 90A (NV 599/Business 95) and 90B (W. Ann Rd.), even though 85 and 90A are only about half of a mile apart? That doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully, this exit number jump will be corrected when this portion becomes part of Interstate 11 and starts using Interstate 11's mileage for exit numbers.
I don't know for sure, but Business 95 is the old route of 95, so my guess is the discontinuity has something to do with a discrepancy between the old and current alignments' lengths.
So what is the present northern terminus of I-11? How serious is a northern extension to Reno?
Quote from: Quillz on August 13, 2023, 12:46:37 AM
So what is the present northern terminus of I-11? How serious is a northern extension to Reno?
Present northern terminus is the interchange with I-515 and I-215 in Henderson. Seems only a matter of a couple years before it gets extended over I-515 and the US 95 freeway through Las Vegas.
The extension to Reno is actually written into federal law somewhere, but I will be shocked if it happens in my lifetime.
Quote from: US 89 on August 13, 2023, 01:04:07 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 13, 2023, 12:46:37 AM
So what is the present northern terminus of I-11? How serious is a northern extension to Reno?
Present northern terminus is the interchange with I-515 and I-215 in Henderson. Seems only a matter of a couple years before it gets extended over I-515 and the US 95 freeway through Las Vegas.
Probably far sooner than that–the extension has already been approved by AASHTO, so it's basically "whenever NDOT feels like printing a bunch of I-11 shields up".
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 13, 2023, 01:40:47 AM
Probably far sooner than that–the extension has already been approved by AASHTO, so it's basically "whenever NDOT feels like printing a bunch of I-11 shields up".
AASHTO approved I-265 over the East End Bridge in Louisville years ago, and it is not signed. FHWA has a list of "can't sign it unless/until..." that is yet to be completed - the big points are setting the mileage "zero" point to the I-65/I-265 interchange in KY, and unified mileage & exit numbers between KY & IN, and since those haven't happened, not officially I-265 yet
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2023, 12:15:54 PM
Does anyone know why the exit numbers on US 95 (future Interstate 11) make the jump from Exit 85 at W. Craig Rd. to Exit 90A (NV 599/Business 95) and 90B (W. Ann Rd.), even though 85 and 90A are only about half of a mile apart? That doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully, this exit number jump will be corrected when this portion becomes part of Interstate 11 and starts using Interstate 11's mileage for exit numbers.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2023, 11:17:30 PM
I don't know for sure, but Business 95 is the old route of 95, so my guess is the discontinuity has something to do with a discrepancy between the old and current alignments' lengths.
Note that the original routing of US 95 followed Boulder Hwy (SR 582) from Henderson into downtown Las Vegas, cutting over to Bonanza Rd (SR 579) and Rancho Dr (US 95 Bus/SR 599) to leave town to the northwest. This is a much straighter alignment than current US 95 freeway. Mileposting related to the old routing would result in the US 95 exit number being much lower than 90 at the northern Rancho Dr interchange.
I believe it's most likely a measurement error that has been in place for a long while and never corrected–perhaps related to not knowing a definite final routing for what would eventually become the US 95 freeway through Las Vegas. Note that the current alignment was first constructed as a freeway beginning in the 1960s from downtown and heading west toward the Rainbow Curve by the late 1970s, and then northward to Rancho Dr was added as an expressway in the early 1980s (upgraded to freeway in the late 1980s) and Rancho Dr was not made into an interchange and the US 95 a freeway north from there until early 1990s. What is now I-515 expanded southeastward towards Henderson piecemeal during the 1980s and reaching Boulder Hwy at Railroad Pass circa 1994. So two different study processes led to the current alignment. So it's possible that planners picked an approximate milepoint to start from that seemed like it might work or be close.
Interestingly, if you measure distance along US 95 from the state line south of the Laughlin turnoff (and following the alignment that existed prior to I-11) to a point just north of the Rancho part of the Rancho/Ann interchange, you get about 90.2 miles–so the exit 90 designation is the correct mileage and all other exit numbers on US 95 south of there are off. If you measure the distance along the old US 95 routing via Boulder Hwy and Rancho Rd, you'll get closer to 86 miles–which is what the Rancho/Ann exit number would be if going by the mileposts that the freeway is currently using.
Also, a fun fact is that the Snow Mountain interchange has been an interchange for a long while, longer than all of the interchanges between there and the current exit 90 (one of NDOT's first forays into interchange aesthetics, actually). Snow Mountain was originally numbered as exit 95; however, as new interchanges cropped up north of exit 90 using exit numbers reflecting true mileage, Snow Mountain was renumbered as exit 99.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2023, 12:15:54 PM
Does anyone know why the exit numbers on US 95 (future Interstate 11) make the jump from Exit 85 at W. Craig Rd. to Exit 90A (NV 599/Business 95) and 90B (W. Ann Rd.), even though 85 and 90A are only about half of a mile apart? That doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully, this exit number jump will be corrected when this portion becomes part of Interstate 11 and starts using Interstate 11's mileage for exit numbers.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 13, 2023, 01:40:47 AM
Quote from: US 89 on August 13, 2023, 01:04:07 AM
Present northern terminus is the interchange with I-515 and I-215 in Henderson. Seems only a matter of a couple years before it gets extended over I-515 and the US 95 freeway through Las Vegas.
Probably far sooner than that–the extension has already been approved by AASHTO, so it's basically "whenever NDOT feels like printing a bunch of I-11 shields up".
Likely, US 95 exit numbers will be changed when NDOT decides to post the freeway as I-11.
The portion of I-515 south of the I-215/SR 564 interchange that was converted from I-515 to I-11 a few years ago, had its exit numbers changed simultaneously to reflect I-11 mileage instead US 95 mileage–the conversion corresponded with a big freeway signing contract to replace virtually all the BGSs and other signs (many of which may have been original to the circa 1994 construction of that segment of freeway).
Even with that, I don't know how fast NDOT will carry out the signage change despite the approval of I-11 designation from AASHTO. (Keep in mind that I-515 had an AASHTO approval in 1976 as the freeway was being planned, but did not put up I-515 shields until the mid-1990s, after the final segment of the spur was completed.) My hunch is that NDOT will start by converting the remainder of I-515 first, but may hold off on converting the I-15 to SR 157 segment for a little while.
Quote from: US 89 on August 13, 2023, 01:04:07 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 13, 2023, 12:46:37 AM
So what is the present northern terminus of I-11? How serious is a northern extension to Reno?
Present northern terminus is the interchange with I-515 and I-215 in Henderson. Seems only a matter of a couple years before it gets extended over I-515 and the US 95 freeway through Las Vegas.
The extension to Reno is actually written into federal law somewhere, but I will be shocked if it happens in my lifetime.
With three more Reno - Santa Barbara round-trips behind me covering all three routes (395-14-5-126-101, 80-5-41-46-101, and 80-680-101), I am very unconvinced that there is any need for a full interstate-standard limited access highway between Reno and Las Vegas. Improvements to make it four-lane divided with bypasses around the towns and no traffic lights (like 101 between Gilroy and Santa Barbara and 395/14 is getting close to between Lee Vining and Lancaster) gets you 95+% of what a full freeway gets you at much less cost. Of those three ways to Santa Barbara I listed, the one with the most freeway mileage - 80-5-41-46-101 - is my least favorite. I'd rather see any federal funds that could be used for an interstate between Reno and Las Vegas instead used to widen I-5 between I-580 and Wheeler Ridge.
When available the highway you'll want to incorporate into a Santa Barbara trip is 33 to 150.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2023, 07:29:16 PM
When available the highway you'll want to incorporate into a Santa Barbara trip is 33 to 150.
Coming up 5 last night, I did think about that (and was on 33 from 41 to Avenal as that is how Google Maps always tells me to go). But we already started two hours later than planned and was looking at a near midnight arrival in Reno.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2023, 07:29:16 PM
When available the highway you'll want to incorporate into a Santa Barbara trip is 33 to 150.
Might as well take 4 across the Sierra Nevada, too, if you have that kind of time on your hands.
Quote from: pderocco on August 13, 2023, 10:25:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2023, 07:29:16 PM
When available the highway you'll want to incorporate into a Santa Barbara trip is 33 to 150.
Might as well take 4 across the Sierra Nevada, too, if you have that kind of time on your hands.
The Maricopa Highway segment of CA 33 is a quality 45-60 MPH mountain road (sadly closed right now in Wheeler Gorge). It's not quite the time sink that CA 4 becomes over Pacific Grade Summit/Ebbetts Pass with the one lane/low gear segments.
Addressing a bunch of things...
Re: I-11 north of the current approved end: I'd be shocked if it happens within my lifetime. Very little along that stretch of 95 is even in NDOT's 2050 plan. Though there are a couple of places were extra passing lanes would be nice, a full freeway is overkill and NDOT knows it. This isn't an agency that overbuilds frequently. There are other places in the state that need the money far more and, unless the feds are funding 100% of construction, I bet NDOT would agree.
395 in CA is the example of what an ideal 95 corridor would look like. Which...is pretty close to what it already is. Maybe build better bypasses of a couple of time sinks, but the towns along 95 survive on business generated by through traffic, so I expect a Tonopah bypass, for example, to get a lot of pushback. The majority of 395/14 south of Bridgeport is 4 lanes, and the parts that aren't south of Lee Vining have it coming in the relatively near future.
Re: mountain crossings: 4 gets the attention, but 108 is as crazy with curves/grades despite having a centerline. I might argue 108 is a better driving road, 4 just has the "need to move over for 2 cars to pass" factor. You can go faster on 108, which arguably makes it more dangerous given it has most of the same hazards minus the lack of 2 full lanes.
[Personal opinion emphasized]
I don't disagree that a potential Tonopah bypass would meet some pushback, but this I think is one of the rare cases where it wouldn't actually hurt. That part of Nevada is so sparse and isolated that Tonopah will always be a gas and food stop for people on 95. I can't imagine there are many people spending money in Tonopah today who would not continue to do so if a bypass existed. Not to mention you'll still have some small amount of through traffic on US 6 that presumably will still have to drive through town.
Beyond the NV 157 interchange, I could see the Interstate 11 designation going at least as far as NV 156 (with upgrades to freeway standards), or possibly even as far as NV 160 (again with freeway upgrades). Beyond there, I don't see any further need to upgrade the US 95 corridor into Interstate 11, and I would not be shocked if 11 never makes it past NV 157. Due to the difficult terrain and sparsely populated areas, I don't see Interstate 11 ever making it to Interstate 80.
Quote from: lstone19 on August 13, 2023, 07:25:36 PM
Quote from: US 89 on August 13, 2023, 01:04:07 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 13, 2023, 12:46:37 AM
So what is the present northern terminus of I-11? How serious is a northern extension to Reno?
Present northern terminus is the interchange with I-515 and I-215 in Henderson. Seems only a matter of a couple years before it gets extended over I-515 and the US 95 freeway through Las Vegas.
The extension to Reno is actually written into federal law somewhere, but I will be shocked if it happens in my lifetime.
With three more Reno - Santa Barbara round-trips behind me covering all three routes (395-14-5-126-101, 80-5-41-46-101, and 80-680-101), I am very unconvinced that there is any need for a full interstate-standard limited access highway between Reno and Las Vegas. Improvements to make it four-lane divided with bypasses around the towns and no traffic lights (like 101 between Gilroy and Santa Barbara and 395/14 is getting close to between Lee Vining and Lancaster) gets you 95+% of what a full freeway gets you at much less cost. Of those three ways to Santa Barbara I listed, the one with the most freeway mileage - 80-5-41-46-101 - is my least favorite. I'd rather see any federal funds that could be used for an interstate between Reno and Las Vegas instead used to widen I-5 between I-580 and Wheeler Ridge.
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2023, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
SLO is close in latitude to Vegas, so the route is more direct (101 to 58 to 15). In SB, you have to jog north by driving East into LA or the Inland Empire via 14 to Pearblossom to 138 to 18 or via 210 to Cajon Pass, respectively.
Quote from: RZF on August 16, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2023, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
SLO is close in latitude to Vegas, so the route is more direct (101 to 58 to 15). In SB, you have to jog north by driving East into LA or the Inland Empire via 14 to Pearblossom to 138 to 18 or via 210 to Cajon Pass, respectively.
There may be a better route today, but when I was in SLO back in 1990 land looking for legal Blackjack, I discovered that Tahoe was closer. I just looked it up. It's VERY close.
Quote from: Mark68 on June 24, 2023, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: kdk on June 23, 2023, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 15, 2023, 01:50:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2023, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Irrelevant, people will come once I-11 and Buc-ee's are constructed.
Plus, you'd have a bit of competition. When I drove between Reno and Vegas in early January, I saw a new truck stop under construction (might've been a Love's) just north of Tonopah (close enough to be considered in town, but it's technically in Esmeralda County not Nye County). Based on the progress I could see just driving by, I gotta imagine that the truck stop is open by now.
Surprisingly still not open as of this week, although it looks like now it could be open within 30 days, all that seems to be done on the outside would be the actual paving of the parking lots. It's much needed as I have learned to avoid needing gas in Tonopah as the existing gas stations tend to have a wait time at each pump and the parking lots tend to fill up as well, as was the case last week.
On a related note, the Goldfield Truck Stop in Goldfield still looks to be an active construction site but little progress has been made in the past 8 months since I had last driven by.
Just made the Reno-Vegas and back drive earlier this month. The Love's is just about ready. They'll have to move the sign on NB 95 that says how far to next gas, though.
While there may not be enough traffic to build I-11 out there, I could easily see building it as far as the Mercury exit, and I don't see it being much of an issue (except for the bypass around Indian Springs/Cactus Springs), but NDOT REALLY needs more passing lanes north of Tonopah.
Loves was open last week when I did a Vegas-Reno-Vegas drive. They were overwhelmed with business, and out of products inside, etc. I have seen a lot of busy Loves but this one was the busiest, and it's not on an interstate. Stopped both on way north and south. Didn't notice if they updated the next gas signs yet though.
Quote from: kdk on August 29, 2023, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on June 24, 2023, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: kdk on June 23, 2023, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 15, 2023, 01:50:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2023, 06:14:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on April 11, 2023, 05:46:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2023, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2023, 02:11:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Do they have a date on when they will renumber the rest of Interstate 515, and co-designate the rest of US 95 to NV 157 as Interstate 11? Or will we have to wait a few years for it to happen?
Likely later this year. Enjoy the I-11 extension now, because it's probably the last one we'll see in Nevada for a loooooooong time (if ever). On which note, I was on US 95 south of Hawthorne on Saturday. There were periods when I couldn't even see another car on the road. Hard to imagine that ever becoming a freeway.
But, but, but, if you build it they will come for Tonopah, Luning, Mina and Coaldale!
Can't wait to see how such road can "induce demand" in the middle of nowhere :bigass:
.
I'm planning on buying into a Buc-ee's franchise at the Coaldale exit.
How much does the 20 acres of land necessary for a Buc-ee's cost in Coaldale? Also, does it have enough of a nearby population to adequately staff just the bathroom maintenance requirements of an Buc-ee's alone?
Irrelevant, people will come once I-11 and Buc-ee's are constructed.
Plus, you'd have a bit of competition. When I drove between Reno and Vegas in early January, I saw a new truck stop under construction (might've been a Love's) just north of Tonopah (close enough to be considered in town, but it's technically in Esmeralda County not Nye County). Based on the progress I could see just driving by, I gotta imagine that the truck stop is open by now.
Surprisingly still not open as of this week, although it looks like now it could be open within 30 days, all that seems to be done on the outside would be the actual paving of the parking lots. It's much needed as I have learned to avoid needing gas in Tonopah as the existing gas stations tend to have a wait time at each pump and the parking lots tend to fill up as well, as was the case last week.
On a related note, the Goldfield Truck Stop in Goldfield still looks to be an active construction site but little progress has been made in the past 8 months since I had last driven by.
Just made the Reno-Vegas and back drive earlier this month. The Love's is just about ready. They'll have to move the sign on NB 95 that says how far to next gas, though.
While there may not be enough traffic to build I-11 out there, I could easily see building it as far as the Mercury exit, and I don't see it being much of an issue (except for the bypass around Indian Springs/Cactus Springs), but NDOT REALLY needs more passing lanes north of Tonopah.
Loves was open last week when I did a Vegas-Reno-Vegas drive. They were overwhelmed with business, and out of products inside, etc. I have seen a lot of busy Loves but this one was the busiest, and it's not on an interstate. Stopped both on way north and south. Didn't notice if they updated the next gas signs yet though.
Well, it's the last gas for a pretty long distance on either 95 or 6, and the only other comparable establishment in town is the crappy Chevron just down the road. The Love's in Ely also gets pretty busy for the same reason, despite not getting nearly enough traffic passing by to warrant a freeway.
Quote from: kdk on August 29, 2023, 05:58:11 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on June 24, 2023, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: kdk on June 23, 2023, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 15, 2023, 01:50:21 PM
Plus, you'd have a bit of competition. When I drove between Reno and Vegas in early January, I saw a new truck stop under construction (might've been a Love's) just north of Tonopah (close enough to be considered in town, but it's technically in Esmeralda County not Nye County). Based on the progress I could see just driving by, I gotta imagine that the truck stop is open by now.
Surprisingly still not open as of this week, although it looks like now it could be open within 30 days, all that seems to be done on the outside would be the actual paving of the parking lots. It's much needed as I have learned to avoid needing gas in Tonopah as the existing gas stations tend to have a wait time at each pump and the parking lots tend to fill up as well, as was the case last week.
On a related note, the Goldfield Truck Stop in Goldfield still looks to be an active construction site but little progress has been made in the past 8 months since I had last driven by.
Just made the Reno-Vegas and back drive earlier this month. The Love's is just about ready. They'll have to move the sign on NB 95 that says how far to next gas, though.
While there may not be enough traffic to build I-11 out there, I could easily see building it as far as the Mercury exit, and I don't see it being much of an issue (except for the bypass around Indian Springs/Cactus Springs), but NDOT REALLY needs more passing lanes north of Tonopah.
Loves was open last week when I did a Vegas-Reno-Vegas drive. They were overwhelmed with business, and out of products inside, etc. I have seen a lot of busy Loves but this one was the busiest, and it's not on an interstate. Stopped both on way north and south. Didn't notice if they updated the next gas signs yet though.
It's about time.
There wouldn't really be a need to update any "next gas" signs, given the Love's is only a half mile or so from the next closest gas station in Tonopah. Also, at least for US 95, I don't think there are any such signs.
This is the best shot on Google Maps Street View that I could get of the forementioned new Love's Truck Stop in Tonopah: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0785343,-117.2537189,3a,75y,5.82h,92.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sP1husy7AJoreZ0kIxOLMig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DP1husy7AJoreZ0kIxOLMig%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.94889%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. The area around the new truck stop is pretty barren. The Satellite View of the same location was taken before construction started, so we'll have to wait for an update to get an overhead shot of it.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:43:45 PM
This is the best shot on Google Maps Street View that I could get of the forementioned new Love's Truck Stop in Tonopah: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0785343,-117.2537189,3a,75y,5.82h,92.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sP1husy7AJoreZ0kIxOLMig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DP1husy7AJoreZ0kIxOLMig%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.94889%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. The area around the new truck stop is pretty barren. The Satellite View of the same location was taken before construction started, so we'll have to wait for an update to get an overhead shot of it.
That Street View was taken in May 2023. But the view there is about what it looked like when I passed through in early January 2023, just none of the actual "Love's" signage had been placed yet (I think maybe some of the panels on the gas island canopy had been installed or some glimpse of signage sitting on the site was what made me think it might be a Love's until I could confirm independently). Kinda sad that so little progress had been made in four months.
Quote from: RZF on August 16, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2023, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
SLO is close in latitude to Vegas, so the route is more direct (101 to 58 to 15). In SB, you have to jog north by driving East into LA or the Inland Empire via 14 to Pearblossom to 138 to 18 or via 210 to Cajon Pass, respectively.
I can see that you've never driven CASR-58 between US-101 and I-5. CalTrans has put up a sign along US-101 saying, in effect, "If you can possibly use some other road, don't take CASR-58"
Quote from: michravera on September 01, 2023, 02:38:30 PM
Quote from: RZF on August 16, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2023, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
SLO is close in latitude to Vegas, so the route is more direct (101 to 58 to 15). In SB, you have to jog north by driving East into LA or the Inland Empire via 14 to Pearblossom to 138 to 18 or via 210 to Cajon Pass, respectively.
I can see that you've never driven CASR-58 between US-101 and I-5. CalTrans has put up a sign along US-101 saying, in effect, "If you can possibly use some other road, don't take CASR-58"
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with this section of road?
Quote from: Ellie on September 01, 2023, 02:57:21 PM
Quote from: michravera on September 01, 2023, 02:38:30 PM
Quote from: RZF on August 16, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2023, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
SLO is close in latitude to Vegas, so the route is more direct (101 to 58 to 15). In SB, you have to jog north by driving East into LA or the Inland Empire via 14 to Pearblossom to 138 to 18 or via 210 to Cajon Pass, respectively.
I can see that you've never driven CASR-58 between US-101 and I-5. CalTrans has put up a sign along US-101 saying, in effect, "If you can possibly use some other road, don't take CASR-58"
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with this section of road?
Nothing wrong with it, it's just low design speed. Route 46, parallel about 10 miles north, is the faster road, for those who like that kind of thing.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
I didn't mean to imply it would. I was just trying to point out that the non-freeway 4-lane divided US 395 and US 101 I drove between Reno and SB are more than adequate for moving the traffic they have and that I expect a non-freeway 4-lane divided US-95 will be more than adequate at moving Reno-Las Vegas traffic without the added expense of a full freeway I-11.
The Interstate 11 designation should run west of Interstate 15 so that it aligns withe the "grid" . Of course, aligning with the Interstate grid isn't saying much (Interstates 99 and 238 come to mind), but then again, the US Highway System isn't exactly grid-worthy either.
Grid perfection is so boring though. What if the grid was perfect and nobody had anything to complain about?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2023, 10:20:56 PM
Grid perfection is so boring though. What if the grid was perfect and nobody had anything to complain about?
Oh, isn't your life extremely flat
With nothing whatever to grumble at!
- Princess Ida, by Gilbert and Sullivan
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2023, 10:12:44 PM
The Interstate 11 designation should run west of Interstate 15 so that it aligns withe the "grid" . Of course, aligning with the Interstate grid isn't saying much (Interstates 99 and 238 come to mind), but then again, the US Highway System isn't exactly grid-worthy either.
Once it is N of Las Vegas, it is W of I-15.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2023, 10:20:56 PM
Grid perfection is so boring though. What if the grid was perfect and nobody had anything to complain about?
Grid perfection is inefficient, because it can only be attained by abolishing all diagonal routes.
Maybe we needed a three-way grid, numbered according to the remainder when divided by three.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 01, 2023, 10:12:44 PM
The Interstate 11 designation should run west of Interstate 15 so that it aligns withe the "grid" . Of course, aligning with the Interstate grid isn't saying much (Interstates 99 and 238 come to mind), but then again, the US Highway System isn't exactly grid-worthy either.
Interstate 74 said that Interstate 82 would like to have a word with you by the bike racks after school. :-/
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
This stretch of freeway also includes the last remaining "McCarran Airport" signs.
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2023, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: Ellie on September 01, 2023, 02:57:21 PM
Quote from: michravera on September 01, 2023, 02:38:30 PM
Quote from: RZF on August 16, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
Quote from: michravera on August 16, 2023, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 15, 2023, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 15, 2023, 02:16:50 PM
San Luis Obispo (and probably Santa Barbara) is closer by road to Tahoe than to Las Vegas. US-95/I-11 would be involved in the trip (unless your goal is "out of the way and more boring").
From experience I can tell you Santa Barbara is much quicker to Vegas (5 hours) than Tahoe (7+ hours, depending on what side of the lake you're heading towards). I'm unsure how/why either SLO or SB would need to use US-95/I-11, though.
Yeah. It's close to equal from SLO. but closer to South Lake Tahoe. Santa Barabara is about 90 minutes south. So, your numbers are certainly compatible with mine.
SLO is close in latitude to Vegas, so the route is more direct (101 to 58 to 15). In SB, you have to jog north by driving East into LA or the Inland Empire via 14 to Pearblossom to 138 to 18 or via 210 to Cajon Pass, respectively.
I can see that you've never driven CASR-58 between US-101 and I-5. CalTrans has put up a sign along US-101 saying, in effect, "If you can possibly use some other road, don't take CASR-58"
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with this section of road?
Nothing wrong with it, it's just low design speed. Route 46, parallel about 10 miles north, is the faster road, for those who like that kind of thing.
Thinking that it was the "quick and direct route", I actually drove it once coming to San Luis Obispo from Las Vegas. I-5 to CASR-46 to US-101 would certainly have been faster. I-5 to CASR-166 would PROBABLY have been faster. CASR-58 MIGHT be fun on a motorcycle, but in just about anything with three or more wheels (including trying to follow it in an airplane) is no fun.
Quote from: michravera on September 02, 2023, 10:25:20 PM
Thinking that it was the "quick and direct route", I actually drove it once coming to San Luis Obispo from Las Vegas. I-5 to CASR-46 to US-101 would certainly have been faster. I-5 to CASR-166 would PROBABLY have been faster. CASR-58 MIGHT be fun on a motorcycle, but in just about anything with three or more wheels (including trying to follow it in an airplane) is no fun.
I'm guessing you drove it at night, if you were coming home from Vegas. Yes, that would be a drag. All winding roads are awful at night. (Not that long ago, I drove CA-1 up in Leggett at night, and it was a nightmare.) But during the day, I love roads like that, especially in wildflower season.
And CA-166 may not be faster, but I think that route is really pretty. Try going from Gorman through Frazier Park and Pine Mountain Club. It's gorgeous, and avoids the deadly dull part of 166 in the Central Valley.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 31, 2023, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
I just drove through this project area today while heading to a work function. Median barrier rail and high mast lighting installation going on from roughly Russell Road north to Boulder Hwy. It was down to two lanes and super annoying (and unexpected because I had forgotten about it) during evening rush. No new I-11 signage seen.
However, going south on I-515 near Eastern Ave, there was an I-11 shield in place there. This was the only 11 shield I saw on the 515 stretch in either direction. Not sure if it was an errant one-off or the result of a different project (the viaduct between Las Vegas Blvd and Eastern was repaved and the bridge over Eastern was replaced fairly recently, and there are separate improvements currently happening around the adjacent Charleston Blvd interchange).
Quote from: roadfro on October 25, 2023, 03:55:56 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 31, 2023, 05:51:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 31, 2023, 11:42:00 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 30, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
This may not be news, but the NDOT plans for the I-515 repaving / rehab contract from last fall included replacing all the 515 shields with I-11 shields from 215 to Charleston Boulevard.
That was news to me, as I was unaware of that project. But also interesting because NDOT just got the AASHTO approval for extending I-11 in October.
Technically it's "mainline spot slab replacements, spall repair, and median barrier replacement; ramps coldmill with pbs and open grade; new median lighting and drainage improvements."
Interesting side note - the new signs in the contract plans keep the old US 95 exit numbers (measured from the CA/NV border) and not the new I-11 numbers from Hoover Dam.
I just drove through this project area today while heading to a work function. Median barrier rail and high mast lighting installation going on from roughly Russell Road north to Boulder Hwy. It was down to two lanes and super annoying (and unexpected because I had forgotten about it) during evening rush. No new I-11 signage seen.
However, going south on I-515 near Eastern Ave, there was an I-11 shield in place there. This was the only 11 shield I saw on the 515 stretch in either direction. Not sure if it was an errant one-off or the result of a different project (the viaduct between Las Vegas Blvd and Eastern was repaved and the bridge over Eastern was replaced fairly recently, and there are separate improvements currently happening around the adjacent Charleston Blvd interchange).
Not surprised at all if you spotted a one-off. For a real laugh, check out the "US 515" directional shields on Gibson Rd/Broadbent Blvd.
^^^
Erroneous signs thread says hi if someone gets a photo.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 28, 2023, 12:40:06 PM
^^^
Erroneous signs thread says hi if someone gets a photo.
I snipped a photo off Google Maps (Stephanie, not Gibson, my bad)...but apparently this board makes it near impossible to post a pic.
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 29, 2023, 04:58:09 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 28, 2023, 12:40:06 PM
^^^
Erroneous signs thread says hi if someone gets a photo.
I snipped a photo off Google Maps (Stephanie, not Gibson, my bad)...but apparently this board makes it near impossible to post a pic.
Posting photos is not simple but for GSV images you can just copy the image URL and paste that in to your message
Quote from: heynow415 on October 30, 2023, 11:59:59 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 29, 2023, 04:58:09 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 28, 2023, 12:40:06 PM
^^^
Erroneous signs thread says hi if someone gets a photo.
I snipped a photo off Google Maps (Stephanie, not Gibson, my bad)...but apparently this board makes it near impossible to post a pic.
Posting photos is not simple but for GSV images you can just copy the image URL and paste that in to your message
OK, try this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0790793,-115.0451611,3a,15y,22.41h,95.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU8pC_GC3-1xp0jPQ7YvDpw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DU8pC_GC3-1xp0jPQ7YvDpw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D323.7174%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
That worked, and yikes.
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8004/395
NDOT is holding a public meeting on I-11 Northwest of Vegas
It looks like the study limits would extend Interstate 11 all the way to present-day Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) on US 95. I guess extending 11 any further, say to Interstate 80, is not being planned at this time (and it may never happen).
That portion is cheap. Handful of at-grades need to be closed and you're at I-standards. If the feds will fund it, may as well look at it.
North of Mercury isn't even in the 2050 statewide transportation plan. You'd need to bypass several towns and it honestly isn't necessary. Just not enough traffic to warrant more than passing lanes.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2023, 05:45:40 PM
It looks like the study limits would extend Interstate 11 all the way to present-day Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) on US 95. I guess extending 11 any further, say to Interstate 80, is not being planned at this time (and it may never happen).
What an interesting place to end the interstate...there's nothing there and if you went at least to Beatty you'd have the Death Valley connection.
Quote from: thsftw on November 15, 2023, 06:15:39 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2023, 05:45:40 PM
It looks like the study limits would extend Interstate 11 all the way to present-day Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) on US 95. I guess extending 11 any further, say to Interstate 80, is not being planned at this time (and it may never happen).
What an interesting place to end the interstate...there's nothing there and if you went at least to Beatty you'd have the Death Valley connection.
This would instantly become the most desolate termination of an interstate highway in the US.
Quote from: cl94 on November 15, 2023, 05:49:19 PM
That portion is cheap. Handful of at-grades need to be closed and you're at I-standards. If the feds will fund it, may as well look at it.
North of Mercury isn't even in the 2050 statewide transportation plan. You'd need to bypass several towns and it honestly isn't necessary. Just not enough traffic to warrant more than passing lanes.
I mean, there are at-grade intersections with state highways, so maybe not just "close the at-grades".
Quote from: thsftw on November 15, 2023, 06:15:39 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2023, 05:45:40 PM
It looks like the study limits would extend Interstate 11 all the way to present-day Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) on US 95. I guess extending 11 any further, say to Interstate 80, is not being planned at this time (and it may never happen).
What an interesting place to end the interstate...there's nothing there and if you went at least to Beatty you'd have the Death Valley connection.
Looks like there's some kind of government facility.
Quote from: vdeane on November 15, 2023, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: thsftw on November 15, 2023, 06:15:39 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2023, 05:45:40 PM
It looks like the study limits would extend Interstate 11 all the way to present-day Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) on US 95. I guess extending 11 any further, say to Interstate 80, is not being planned at this time (and it may never happen).
What an interesting place to end the interstate...there's nothing there and if you went at least to Beatty you'd have the Death Valley connection.
Looks like there's some kind of government facility.
Nevada Test Site - where nuclear weapons were tested.
Mercury was a small, closed town built for the workers at the test site.
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
Quote from: Alps on November 15, 2023, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 15, 2023, 05:49:19 PM
That portion is cheap. Handful of at-grades need to be closed and you're at I-standards. If the feds will fund it, may as well look at it.
North of Mercury isn't even in the 2050 statewide transportation plan. You'd need to bypass several towns and it honestly isn't necessary. Just not enough traffic to warrant more than passing lanes.
I mean, there are at-grade intersections with state highways, so maybe not just "close the at-grades".
Overly simplified. Build a half dozen interchanges and some minimum maintenance frontage roads for the BLM roads and you're good.
Re: the ending, it would end there because that's where the 4-lane road ends. Also precedent for Interstates ending at military installations, which NNSS is.
I will also highlight that this is a
feasibility study, not a "we're going to build this." I would not be surprised if the end result is little more than "we do a few spot improvements in the medium term to improve safety." AADT just north of Exit 99 is close to 14k, but it drops below 10k north of SR 156 and below 5k north of Indian Springs.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
I-80's western end is at US 101 without another two-digit interstate anywhere nearby...
NC I-87 currently ends 13 miles east of the I-440 loop around Raleigh, and just transitions back into US-64, since that portion is not up to interstate standards.
A similar situation will exist with NC I-42 when it's designated around Clayton and Goldsboro.
NC I-73 terminates about 10–15 miles north of Greensboro and transitions into 4 lane US-220. Similar situation with I-74 in the southern part of the state and US-74.
It's not unprecedented. They are not meant as permanent terminations, just temporary until the rest of the highway gets built at some point in the... long-term future.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
Pretty common for partially completed Interstates from what I've seen. I-2 ends kind of out in nowhere at US-83 west of McAllen. I-74 and I-87 have several termini that aren't near any population center. I-86 in New York ends in a small town before having a 1 mile crossover into Pennsylvania and then back. It's certainly possible that some of these will never be connected, but many of these eventually will and just like it was back in the 1960s-1990s, there will be highways with interesting termini and gaps, until they're all finished. I-10 or I-90 wasn't built in a day.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2023, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
I-80's western end is at US 101 without another two-digit interstate anywhere nearby...
I-80s end at US 101 very near downtown San Francisco is hardly the middle of nowhere as asked above. It also ends at an interchange with another freeway, albeit a non-Interstate freeway.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2023, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
I-80's western end is at US 101 without another two-digit interstate anywhere nearby...
But it ends in the heart of San Francisco. That's not "the middle of nowhere".
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 16, 2023, 12:34:35 AM
NC I-87 currently ends 13 miles east of the I-440 loop around Raleigh, and just transitions back into US-64, since that portion is not up to interstate standards.
A similar situation will exist with NC I-42 when it's designated around Clayton and Goldsboro.
NC I-73 terminates about 10–15 miles north of Greensboro and transitions into 4 lane US-220. Similar situation with I-74 in the southern part of the state and US-74.
It's not unprecedented. They are not meant as permanent terminations, just temporary until the rest of the highway gets built at some point in the... long-term future.
Again, those are temporary. CL94 is saying that I-11 ending in Mercury will be the permanent situation.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that, under AASHTO rules, an interstate from Las Vegas to Mercury would be a spur route and have to be given a 3 digit designation. I hope they choose 711.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2023, 07:53:48 AM
Again, those are temporary. CL94 is saying that I-11 ending in Mercury will be the permanent
situation.
The I-11 corridor is slated to eventually be constructed north towards Reno. While it may not happen for 50+ years, that is the long term plan. Mercury would not be the permanent end for I-11 for planning purposes.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2023, 07:53:48 AM
Again, those are temporary. CL94 is saying that I-11 ending in Mercury will be the permanent situation.
cl94 pointed out that this is a feasibility study to upgrade a portion of divided highway to interstate, and given existing traffic volumes that a full upgrade may seem unlikely over targeted spot improvements. I think cl94 (correctly) implied current traffic volumes suggest it unlikely for further upgrades beyond this for the foreseeable future.
The news release for the public hearing included this little nugget in the last paragraph (emphasis added):
Quote from: https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8004/395In 2022, highway authorities pinpointed the preferred route for Interstate 11 through the Las Vegas Valley. This route will utilize I-515 and U.S. 95, traversing Clark County between Henderson and Kyle Canyon. The official process of renaming and resigning those freeways is slated to begin in early 2024.
Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2023, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2023, 07:53:48 AM
Again, those are temporary. CL94 is saying that I-11 ending in Mercury will be the permanent situation.
cl94 pointed out that this is a feasibility study to upgrade a portion of divided highway to interstate, and given existing traffic volumes that a full upgrade may seem unlikely over targeted spot improvements. I think cl94 (correctly) implied current traffic volumes suggest it unlikely for further upgrades beyond this for the foreseeable future.
This. Mercury wouldn't be a "permanent" end, but simply where the current divided highway ends. This is a relatively easy study given the current conditions. Will I-11 extend further 50-100 years from now? Possibly. But there's a decent chance this ends up like I-73.
Quote from: lstone19 on November 16, 2023, 02:31:09 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2023, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
I-80's western end is at US 101 without another two-digit interstate anywhere nearby...
I-80s end at US 101 very near downtown San Francisco is hardly the middle of nowhere as asked above. It also ends at an interchange with another freeway, albeit a non-Interstate freeway.
And "The 10" (I-10) ends at a state highway, though Santa Monica is hardly in the middle of nowhere either.
Quote from: heynow415 on November 16, 2023, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: lstone19 on November 16, 2023, 02:31:09 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2023, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 15, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
That would be extremely unusual for a 2 digit interstate to end in the middle of nowhere without intersecting another interstate. I-99 is the only other example I can think of, and of course that doesn't comply with AASHTO numbering rules.
I-80's western end is at US 101 without another two-digit interstate anywhere nearby...
I-80s end at US 101 very near downtown San Francisco is hardly the middle of nowhere as asked above. It also ends at an interchange with another freeway, albeit a non-Interstate freeway.
And "The 10" (I-10) ends at a state highway, though Santa Monica is hardly in the middle of nowhere either.
I-80's end at US 101 is not the original planned west terminus; the original proposal would have involved the highly opposed Western Freeway all the way to Golden Gate Park to end at the original I-280 routing that also got nixed.
I-10 was added to the Santa Monica Freeway routing ca. 1959, correct? Before the Interstate era, this was planned as Olympic Parkway (relocated sign route 26?).
There's also one other mainline interstate with a non-interstate terminus in California, and that is I-8 in San Diego's Mission Bay near a tennis complex. This was not added to the I-8 route until around 1972 or so, subsuming the former State Route 109.
I would assume that the feasibility study will determine the feasibility of an Indian Springs bypass to be...infeasible given the funds available.
Quote from: Mark68 on November 16, 2023, 08:02:08 PM
I would assume that the feasibility study will determine the feasibility of an Indian Springs bypass to be...infeasible given the funds available.
That's not the job of a feasibility study, necessarily.
As much fun as an I-711 would be, I would imagine any odd interstate spur in Nevada would be I-511, since NDOT uses 5xx numbers for its urban routes. (This probably explains how I-515 and I-580 got their numbers.)
I doubt there will be any 3dis of Interstate 11 designated. I don't think any are really needed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2023, 09:45:47 PM
As much fun as an I-711 would be, I would imagine any odd interstate spur in Nevada would be I-511, since NDOT uses 5xx numbers for its urban routes. (This probably explains how I-515 and I-580 got their numbers.)
It could just be coincidence. Both 515 and 580 are out of sequence. 51x routes were Carson City, 58x is Las Vegas. Furthermore, the 5xx/6xx routes are urban
secondary. Weirdly, every x15 and x80 below 700 apart from 215, 515, and 580 is unassigned.
Also, since Nevada generally doesn't reuse numbers, 511 is likely out. Former SR 511 was in Carson City, but no x11s are currently in use.
I will also note that there is evidence of 515 and 580 that predates the renumbering. Both received final approval around when the renumbering began. Not to say that the numbers weren't chosen with that in mind (they may have been), but it's possible NDOT was just trying to avoid reusing an x15 from another state or preserve numbers below 499. 215 is a more recent development than both 515 and 580.
Quote from: The GhostbusterI doubt there will be any 3dis of Interstate 11 designated. I don't think any are really needed.
There is a couple or so possibilities in the Vegas metro. They could
cheat and sign the short freeway spur of Business US-93 going into Boulder City as an I-x11 spur. Lake Mead Parkway (NV-564) going thru Henderson could be upgraded into a freeway. It would be a tight squeeze and involve some elevated structures, but I think it is do-able. As the Vegas metro continues to grow
and sprawl farther outward more super highways will be needed.
The Reno-Carson City region is less clear on the need of additional super highways. They're finally doing some work to 4-lane the US-50 corridor between Carson City and Fallon. If big warehouses and factories keep getting built in the Clark area NV-439 will need to be upgraded into a freeway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 17, 2023, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: The GhostbusterI doubt there will be any 3dis of Interstate 11 designated. I don't think any are really needed.
There is a couple or so possibilities in the Vegas metro. They could cheat and sign the short freeway spur of Business US-93 going into Boulder City as an I-x11 spur. Lake Mead Parkway (NV-564) going thru Henderson could be upgraded into a freeway. It would be a tight squeeze and involve some elevated structures, but I think it is do-able. As the Vegas metro continues to grow and sprawl farther outward more super highways will be needed.
The Reno-Carson City region is less clear on the need of additional super highways. They're finally doing some work to 4-lane the US-50 corridor between Carson City and Fallon. If big warehouses and factories keep getting built in the Clark area NV-439 will need to be upgraded into a freeway.
NV-613 seems well positioned to be an I-x11.
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor. Is there talk of putting US 93 along the surface street and just redirecting through traffic on I-11, especially if the I-11 designation makes it further into Arizona to at least Kingman?
And perhaps if I-11 makes it to Wickenburg, US 93 would be deleted completely south of Las Vegas, and the US 93 business can be an I-11 business or perhaps just an extension of NV-172.
The Summerlin Parkway would probably need to connect with CC-215 via a freeway-to-freeway interchange for it to become an Interstate. I would leave the roadway NV 613.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2023, 09:28:19 PM
The Summerlin Parkway would probably need to connect with CC-215 via a freeway-to-freeway interchange for it to become an Interstate. I would leave the roadway NV 613.
I think I remember reading somewhere that there are long-term plans to make that interchange freeway-freeway.
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor. Is there talk of putting US 93 along the surface street and just redirecting through traffic on I-11, especially if the I-11 designation makes it further into Arizona to at least Kingman?
That's not a universal method of operation. Out west, or at least in Nevada, US routes tend to be moved to the new facility and the old route gets the Business designation. That's what NDOT did with US 395 in Carson City when I-580 was completed (US 395 moved onto the freeway, old alignment on Carson Street became US 395 Business), and that's what they did here too. If there was a desire to have US 93 on the original surface street alignment through Boulder City when the bypass opened, there wouldn't be a Business 93 designation now.
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2023, 09:45:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2023, 09:28:19 PM
The Summerlin Parkway would probably need to connect with CC-215 via a freeway-to-freeway interchange for it to become an Interstate. I would leave the roadway NV 613.
I think I remember reading somewhere that there are long-term plans to make that interchange freeway-freeway.
Yes there are, although I'm not sure how far out that actually is. Maybe now that NDOT has control of Summerlin Pkwy instead of the city, and that every other interchange of two freeways in the Vegas area has either been reconstructed to a system interchange or is planned for some kind of improvement, this one might actually come to fruition in planning.
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor.
That's not the usual practice in Nevada or California or a lot of other states. US 40 disappeared when I-80 was built. When I-580 was built in Nevada, US 395 was moved to the new freeway route and old US 395 became Business US 395. This makes sense to me: US routes or Interstate routes should be the fastest or best through routes now, not the slower, older routes. Route numbers are aids to travelers unfamiliar with the area. Leave the road history for others.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 17, 2023, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: The GhostbusterI doubt there will be any 3dis of Interstate 11 designated. I don't think any are really needed.
There is a couple or so possibilities in the Vegas metro. They could cheat and sign the short freeway spur of Business US-93 going into Boulder City as an I-x11 spur. Lake Mead Parkway (NV-564) going thru Henderson could be upgraded into a freeway. It would be a tight squeeze and involve some elevated structures, but I think it is do-able. As the Vegas metro continues to grow and sprawl farther outward more super highways will be needed.
The Reno-Carson City region is less clear on the need of additional super highways. They're finally doing some work to 4-lane the US-50 corridor between Carson City and Fallon. If big warehouses and factories keep getting built in the Clark area NV-439 will need to be upgraded into a freeway.
You're veering into fantasy territory. There is no reason to put a redundant designation on 93B for part of its length. Lake Mead Blvd has no right of way for a freeway expansion. There have been proposals to send a freeway up the east side of the valley, but Nellis AFB would add complexity.
There are zero plans at this time to upgrade SR 439 to a full freeway, just like there are zero plans to upgrade US 50 to a freeway. The 4-lane expansion of 50 in Lyon County and 50A between Fernley and Fallon is relatively recent and both are doing just fine. At it is, 439 doesn't currently need 4 lanes along much of its length. If (and this is a massive if) I-11 ever gets to I-80, it will likely hit near Fernley. US 395 south of Carson and part of SR 445 are slated for freeway upgrades, with a freeway connection between 395 and 445 as part of the second upgrade.
Re: Summerlin, that's the
only freeway-freeway interchange in the region that isn't a full system interchange, unless you want to count the old 93 stub to Boulder City. The Centennial Bowl finally has all movements open.
Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2023, 11:38:10 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor.
That's not the usual practice in Nevada or California or a lot of other states. US 40 disappeared when I-80 was built. When I-580 was built in Nevada, US 395 was moved to the new freeway route and old US 395 became Business US 395. This makes sense to me: US routes or Interstate routes should be the fastest or best through routes now, not the slower, older routes. Route numbers are aids to travelers unfamiliar with the area. Leave the road history for others.
Yeah, that's a very east-centric mindset - a lot of eastern states operated that way, but pretty much the only western state that systematically kept US highways on the old routes was Oregon. There are examples in other states, like US 40 in Denver, US 6 in western Colorado, or US 89 through the Wasatch Front - but they are a rarity overall compared to cases where the US highways got moved outright to the interstates that replaced them.
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2023, 01:40:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2023, 11:38:10 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor.
That's not the usual practice in Nevada or California or a lot of other states. US 40 disappeared when I-80 was built. When I-580 was built in Nevada, US 395 was moved to the new freeway route and old US 395 became Business US 395. This makes sense to me: US routes or Interstate routes should be the fastest or best through routes now, not the slower, older routes. Route numbers are aids to travelers unfamiliar with the area. Leave the road history for others.
Yeah, that's a very east-centric mindset - a lot of eastern states operated that way, but pretty much the only western state that systematically kept US highways on the old routes was Oregon. There are examples in other states, like US 40 in Denver, US 6 in western Colorado, or US 89 through the Wasatch Front - but they are a rarity overall compared to cases where the US highways got moved outright to the interstates that replaced them.
A lot of it comes down to how lean various states run their systems. States that run lean systems or won't sign a route along a locally-maintained road moved the US highways to the interstates that replaced them in order to dump surface mileage. States that are less picky about this didn't. Western states generally run leaner systems than you see out east. In the east, Michigan and Minnesota generally did the "move to freeway and download the old road" thing. Then you have states like NY and OH which do this in some locations but not others. You also have the fact that, out west, Interstates were often built directly on top of the old road, while out east they used entirely new alignments except in limited circumstances (parts of I-78 PA and I-88 NY, for example).
Sort of like how the north end of I-39 is at its interchange with WI 29.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2023, 01:40:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2023, 11:38:10 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor.
That's not the usual practice in Nevada or California or a lot of other states. US 40 disappeared when I-80 was built. When I-580 was built in Nevada, US 395 was moved to the new freeway route and old US 395 became Business US 395. This makes sense to me: US routes or Interstate routes should be the fastest or best through routes now, not the slower, older routes. Route numbers are aids to travelers unfamiliar with the area. Leave the road history for others.
Yeah, that's a very east-centric mindset - a lot of eastern states operated that way, but pretty much the only western state that systematically kept US highways on the old routes was Oregon. There are examples in other states, like US 40 in Denver, US 6 in western Colorado, or US 89 through the Wasatch Front - but they are a rarity overall compared to cases where the US highways got moved outright to the interstates that replaced them.
I would ask what the point of keeping the US route system around as a system even makes sense with the interstates. If the concept of keeping them on the local route to avoid unnecessary overlaps isn't appealing, then should it even still exist as a system? It seems like it would function better as a supplement to the interstate system to designate routes of regional/national significance like US 95 across Nevada that nonetheless don't have enough traffic to warrant a full interstate.
Granted, I agree with whoever it was from NY who was advocating for a system that included only the most important routes back in 1926. IMO a large chunk of the system comprises routes that don't hold national/regional importance and should never have been designated in the first place. Getting rid of both those and the ones that have been supplanted by interstates leaves not a lot left (incidentally, this line of thought is so fascinating that I think I'll create a thread in Fictional for it).
Quote from: vdeane on November 19, 2023, 04:12:33 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2023, 01:40:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2023, 11:38:10 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2023, 09:15:36 PM
A little curious about the Business US 93 designation through Boulder City. Usually when an interstate replaces a US route, the US route can be maintained on the old corridor.
That's not the usual practice in Nevada or California or a lot of other states. US 40 disappeared when I-80 was built. When I-580 was built in Nevada, US 395 was moved to the new freeway route and old US 395 became Business US 395. This makes sense to me: US routes or Interstate routes should be the fastest or best through routes now, not the slower, older routes. Route numbers are aids to travelers unfamiliar with the area. Leave the road history for others.
Yeah, that's a very east-centric mindset - a lot of eastern states operated that way, but pretty much the only western state that systematically kept US highways on the old routes was Oregon. There are examples in other states, like US 40 in Denver, US 6 in western Colorado, or US 89 through the Wasatch Front - but they are a rarity overall compared to cases where the US highways got moved outright to the interstates that replaced them.
I would ask what the point of keeping the US route system around as a system even makes sense with the interstates. If the concept of keeping them on the local route to avoid unnecessary overlaps isn't appealing, then should it even still exist as a system? It seems like it would function better as a supplement to the interstate system to designate routes of regional/national significance like US 95 across Nevada that nonetheless don't have enough traffic to warrant a full interstate.
Granted, I agree with whoever it was from NY who was advocating for a system that included only the most important routes back in 1926. IMO a large chunk of the system comprises routes that don't hold national/regional importance and should never have been designated in the first place. Getting rid of both those and the ones that have been supplanted by interstates leaves not a lot left (incidentally, this line of thought is so fascinating that I think I'll create a thread in Fictional for it).
US highways still serve a good purpose, particularly out west and in the south. a lot still only serve the corridors the go on.
Yes. Without even thinking very hard about it and sticking to Washington State, we've got US 101, US 2, US 12, US 97, US 395 - all important routes serving multiple states with no interstate closely parallel to them and yet not enough traffic to justify an interstate.
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2023, 11:03:42 PM
Yes. Without even thinking very hard about it and sticking to Washington State, we've got US 101, US 2, US 12, US 97, US 395 - all important routes serving multiple states with no interstate closely parallel to them and yet not enough traffic to justify an interstate.
Most of the remaining western US routes fall under this. You could make an argument that US 6 has no purpose west of Denver at this point (nor did it ever have one west of US 91, as evidenced by how late it was improved), but other than that, the others are all important corridors. Few even warrant freeway upgrades along substantial lengths, let alone an Interstste designation.
Something like US 395 is a route that doesn't look like much to a distant observer, but it may be the most important N-S corridor between I-5 and I-15. I'd argue that it's decidedly more important than its parent south of extreme northern Nevada.
Quote from: cl94 on November 19, 2023, 11:14:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2023, 11:03:42 PM
Yes. Without even thinking very hard about it and sticking to Washington State, we've got US 101, US 2, US 12, US 97, US 395 - all important routes serving multiple states with no interstate closely parallel to them and yet not enough traffic to justify an interstate.
Most of the remaining western US routes fall under this. You could make an argument that US 6 has no purpose west of Denver at this point (nor did it ever have one west of US 91, as evidenced by how late it was improved), but other than that, the others are all important corridors. Few even warrant freeway upgrades along substantial lengths, let alone an Interstste designation.
Something like US 395 is a route that doesn't look like much to a distant observer, but it may be the most important N-S corridor between I-5 and I-15. I'd argue that it's decidedly more important than its parent south of extreme northern Nevada.
I'll argue for US-6 west of Denver to Spanish Fork, Utah. It does serve as a main connection from Denver to Salt Lake (in fact it was one of the routes that was planned for I-70 in Utah, the feds just wanted otherwise).
Some others are 95 (low traffic but connection from Reno to Boise and eventually Spokane via 195/Coeur d'Alene and Canada.), 93, etc. Since there just aren't really that many interstates in the west, it makes US highways more important, but ultimately most retain low traffic counts despite the fast growing population of the Western US since the system was constructed.
Quote from: Taters on November 20, 2023, 12:28:38 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 19, 2023, 11:14:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2023, 11:03:42 PM
Yes. Without even thinking very hard about it and sticking to Washington State, we've got US 101, US 2, US 12, US 97, US 395 - all important routes serving multiple states with no interstate closely parallel to them and yet not enough traffic to justify an interstate.
Most of the remaining western US routes fall under this. You could make an argument that US 6 has no purpose west of Denver at this point (nor did it ever have one west of US 91, as evidenced by how late it was improved), but other than that, the others are all important corridors. Few even warrant freeway upgrades along substantial lengths, let alone an Interstste designation.
Something like US 395 is a route that doesn't look like much to a distant observer, but it may be the most important N-S corridor between I-5 and I-15. I'd argue that it's decidedly more important than its parent south of extreme northern Nevada.
I'll argue for US-6 west of Denver to Spanish Fork, Utah. It does serve as a main connection from Denver to Salt Lake (in fact it was one of the routes that was planned for I-70 in Utah, the feds just wanted otherwise).
US 6 between Green River and Spanish Fork is a big deal and absolutely belongs on the US system in some capacity - but not so much for the Denver-Salt Lake connection, which is usually faster via I-25/US 287/I-80 depending on exactly where in each metro you start and finish.
The real value in that road is for the NW-SE connection, which is significant on an international scale. When you combine that bit of 6 with US 191, 491, and 550 further to the southeast, the resulting route is the fastest way from the Pacific Northwest to most of the Texas Gulf ports or most places in Mexico.
The only piece of that section of US-6 that isn't multiplexed with or adjacent to another US or I route is from US-191 to US-89, which isn't very long.
However, it still makes sense across Nevada, as it has a higher AADT than US-50, and it connects to US-395 at the largest city in California east of the mountains.
Besides, we should show it some respect. It used to be the longest numbered route in America, by far.
Quote from: pderocco on November 20, 2023, 02:14:40 AM
However, it still makes sense across Nevada, as it has a higher AADT than US-50, and it connects to US-395 at the largest city in California east of the mountains.
Nope. Lowest traffic count along US 6 is less than half of US 50's lowest per the latest internal NDOT data (250 vs 570). US 50's lowest is along the 6/50 concurrency, 6's lowest is east of NV 375. Highest traffic count along 6 is in downtown Tonopah, which is about 1/7 the highest along 50. Tonopah is the only place AADT along US 6 in Nevada is higher than 4,000
US 6 should be known as the "loneliest highway" in the US, not US 50. Having it numbered NV 120 might make as much sense as its retaining its US Highway designation.
Quote from: pderocco on November 20, 2023, 02:14:40 AM
The only piece of that section of US-6 that isn't multiplexed with or adjacent to another US or I route is from US-191 to US-89, which isn't very long.
But the majority of traffic on the overlaps with US 89 and US 191 isn't following those routes. So that doesn't quite seem like a fair comparison. The common name for that whole section from Spanish Fork to Green River is "Highway 6" regardless of any other overlaps.
I suppose one idea that might not be horrible is to designate a single US number over the entire corridor from Bernalillo to Spanish Fork. That way, you have one consistent main SLC to Albuquerque highway, probably numbered something x85 or x89. You'd be able to decommission 550 south of Bloomfield (or reroute it to Farmington like it historically went), decommission 491 north of Shiprock, and get rid of US 6 everywhere west of Sterling CO. Existing 6 west of I-15 could either become a new route (US 450, perhaps) or be deleted entirely.
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2023, 09:45:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2023, 09:28:19 PM
The Summerlin Parkway would probably need to connect with CC-215 via a freeway-to-freeway interchange for it to become an Interstate. I would leave the roadway NV 613.
I think I remember reading somewhere that there are long-term plans to make that interchange freeway-freeway.
Fun fact: on the west side of the current interchange there is a buried bridge. Presumably it will be uncovered and used for a future ramp for the s/b to e/b movement when the interchange is reconfigured to eliminate intersections.
I'm not sure how they're going to route the e/b to n/b and n/b to w/b movements once the intersections are eliminated, though.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 21, 2023, 02:08:59 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2023, 09:45:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 18, 2023, 09:28:19 PM
The Summerlin Parkway would probably need to connect with CC-215 via a freeway-to-freeway interchange for it to become an Interstate. I would leave the roadway NV 613.
I think I remember reading somewhere that there are long-term plans to make that interchange freeway-freeway.
Fun fact: on the west side of the current interchange there is a buried bridge. Presumably it will be uncovered and used for a future ramp for the s/b to e/b movement when the interchange is reconfigured to eliminate intersections.
I'm not sure how they're going to route the e/b to n/b and n/b to w/b movements once the intersections are eliminated, though.
I wouldn't say the bridge is "buried" since traffic flows atop it, but the undercrossing has not been excavated. Thus, it's not immediately obvious there's a bridge there unless you happen to notice it from the SB off ramp (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BHZcdtRuNUYs3npQ9).
It's quite possible that the EB>NB and NB>WB (and maybe EB>SB) ramp movements will remain signalized at their current locations. Summerlin Pkwy is planned to be an arterial roadway, not a freeway, west of the 215 such that free-flow movements wouldn't necessarily be warranted.
Quote from: splashflash on November 20, 2023, 04:56:25 PM
US 6 should be known as the "loneliest highway" in the US, not US 50. Having it numbered NV 120 might make as much sense as its retaining its US Highway designation.
Back in 1996, I saw a sign in Eureka, UT that read "America's loveliest town, on America's loneliest road." Of course, that could have been put up when US 50 followed US 6 through there.
Maybe a Spring Mountain Road-type situation where they leave the stoplight on the east side of the bridge in place and just make the movements off of CC-215 e/b free-flowing. Don't know why'd you need to keep the stoplight on the west side of the bridge, unless there's a downstream spacing concern about moving the eb to sb ramp from the north to the south side of the bridge.
Speaking of CC-215, how soon will it be until it becomes part of Interstate 215?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 24, 2023, 05:44:41 PM
Speaking of CC-215, how soon will it be until it becomes part of Interstate 215?
There still is cross street interchange work to complete on 215 before that is on the table, correct?
Mike
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 24, 2023, 05:44:41 PM
Speaking of CC-215, how soon will it be until it becomes part of Interstate 215?
Probably just as soon as NDOT and CCPW agree to the jurisdictional swap and NDOT petitions AASHTO to approve the I-215 designation around the rest of the loop (I believe they still only have the original approval from I-515/I-11 westward to Tropicana Ave).
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2023, 12:14:47 PM
There still is cross street interchange work to complete on 215 before that is on the table, correct?
The last at-grade section of the 215, which is the immediate vicinity around the US 95 Centennial Bowl interchange, has been under construction for the last year or two—the scope of work including conversion of the beltway to full freeway and completing the remaining system interchange ramps with US 95 (among other things). If a recent edit to the Las Vegas Beltway article on Wikipedia is to be believed, the mainline beltway improvements may already be complete.
As of 2 weeks ago, CC 215 was full freeway. Just a few minor things left to finish at the Centennial Bowl.
And...is CC215 the nation's longest full freeway county road?
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2023, 06:35:24 PM
And...is CC215 the nation's longest full freeway county road?
I don't see anything that could compete with that many miles.
Quote from: Alps on November 25, 2023, 08:57:03 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on November 25, 2023, 06:35:24 PM
And...is CC215 the nation's longest full freeway county road?
I don't see anything that could compete with that many miles.
Depends how you want to count E-470, which is maintained by what is basically a county toll authority. But for something pure county, CC 215 is the longest county road freeway.
Of course, to become I-215, Clark County would have to transfer the road to NDOT. I'm not sure how long all of the bureaucracy for such a thing would take.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2023, 04:09:37 PM
Of course, to become I-215, Clark County would have to transfer the road to NDOT. I'm not sure how long all of the bureaucracy for such a thing would take.
Maintenance swaps happen all the time in Nevada, especially in Clark County. I wouldn't be shocked if they time it all to happen with the new route log coming in January. The transfer has been in the works for a while, so it is possible that they have something ready to go as soon as the Centennial Bowl work is complete.
I will also note that a lot of the internal systems such as cameras, sensors, etc. on the NDOT side already refer to CC 215 as "I-215". And the I-11 transition is certainly underway even if it won't be official for a couple of months.
Quote from: cl94 on November 27, 2023, 01:09:10 AM
Maintenance swaps happen all the time in Nevada, especially in Clark County. I wouldn't be shocked if they time it all to happen with the new route log coming in January. The transfer has been in the works for a while, so it is possible that they have something ready to go as soon as the Centennial Bowl work is complete.
Maintenance swaps seem to be happening more and more, but even about 10-15 years ago it was a relatively uncommon occurrence. NDOT adopting a policy within the last decade or so about jurisdictional transfers and what types of roads they should maintain has led to more of this—especially in Clark County.
Quote
I will also note that a lot of the internal systems such as cameras, sensors, etc. on the NDOT side already refer to CC 215 as "I-215". And the I-11 transition is certainly underway even if it won't be official for a couple of months.
A lot of those ITS devices are operated by RTC's FAST center though...
On I-515, many light stanchions have arrived in the median for install on the new median barrier. Still several miles of median work to be completed. I'm guessing no I-11 signage until all this construction is complete.
Quote from: cl94 on November 27, 2023, 01:09:10 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2023, 04:09:37 PM
Of course, to become I-215, Clark County would have to transfer the road to NDOT. I'm not sure how long all of the bureaucracy for such a thing would take.
Maintenance swaps happen all the time in Nevada, especially in Clark County. I wouldn't be shocked if they time it all to happen with the new route log coming in January. The transfer has been in the works for a while, so it is possible that they have something ready to go as soon as the Centennial Bowl work is complete.
I will also note that a lot of the internal systems such as cameras, sensors, etc. on the NDOT side already refer to CC 215 as "I-215". And the I-11 transition is certainly underway even if it won't be official for a couple of months.
I keep forgetting the speed at which Nevada government operates—it's blazing fast compared to what I'm used to. Planning ahead for a known occurrence in the future? Who
does that? :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2023, 04:09:37 PM
Of course, to become I-215, Clark County would have to transfer the road to NDOT. I'm not sure how long all of the bureaucracy for such a thing would take.
This is technically not an "of course" - for years, most of the existing segment of I-215 between 15 and 515 by the airport was county maintained despite being fully signed and authorized as an interstate.
Quote from: US 89 on November 27, 2023, 11:33:09 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2023, 04:09:37 PM
Of course, to become I-215, Clark County would have to transfer the road to NDOT. I'm not sure how long all of the bureaucracy for such a thing would take.
This is technically not an "of course" - for years, most of the existing segment of I-215 between 15 and 515 by the airport was county maintained despite being fully signed and authorized as an interstate.
Yes. For a while, I-215 was the sole county-maintained Interstate. This is no longer the case due to maintenance swaps in the 2010s.
Quote from: cl94 on November 27, 2023, 11:44:05 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 27, 2023, 11:33:09 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2023, 04:09:37 PM
Of course, to become I-215, Clark County would have to transfer the road to NDOT. I'm not sure how long all of the bureaucracy for such a thing would take.
This is technically not an "of course" - for years, most of the existing segment of I-215 between 15 and 515 by the airport was county maintained despite being fully signed and authorized as an interstate.
Yes. For a while, I-215 was the sole county-maintained Interstate. This is no longer the case due to maintenance swaps in the 2010s.
The section of I-215 between Warm Springs and Stephanie St didn't appear in NDOT's state-maintained highways book until the 2020 version, so that maintenance swap appears to have happened sometime in 2019.
I drove CC-215 from Summerlin to the airport this morning. The freeway has lots of lanes and has potential to be an Interstate beltway (and the heavy traffic for it too!), but the shoulders seem too narrow to make the transition to Interstate as is.
Quote from: RZF on November 28, 2023, 09:35:39 PM
I drove CC-215 from Summerlin to the airport this morning. The freeway has lots of lanes and has potential to be an Interstate beltway (and the heavy traffic for it too!), but the shoulders seem too narrow to make the transition to Interstate as is.
Weird. I've never noticed an issue. In some cases there may be an 8-foot paved/black shoulder on the right, but it's immediately backed up by 6-8 feet of hardpack. So a car can get off the road pretty easily. Given what the feds allow in some urban areas, I'd see no obstacles at all to CC215 being signed as I-215.
CC 215 generally has 10-foot shoulders, which meet standards.
Back on the topic of I-11, NDOT posted on Facebook today that the Centennial Bowl will reach substantial completion next week. This is the last item along US 95 between I-15 and Exit 96 that required upgrades, as well as the last project required to bring CC 215 to Interstate standards. They teased that more information will be coming, but unknown what this will entail.
Quote from: cl94 on November 16, 2023, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2023, 09:45:47 PM
As much fun as an I-711 would be, I would imagine any odd interstate spur in Nevada would be I-511, since NDOT uses 5xx numbers for its urban routes. (This probably explains how I-515 and I-580 got their numbers.)
It could just be coincidence. Both 515 and 580 are out of sequence. 51x routes were Carson City, 58x is Las Vegas. Furthermore, the 5xx/6xx routes are urban secondary. Weirdly, every x15 and x80 below 700 apart from 215, 515, and 580 is unassigned.
Also, since Nevada generally doesn't reuse numbers, 511 is likely out. Former SR 511 was in Carson City, but no x11s are currently in use.
I will also note that there is evidence of 515 and 580 that predates the renumbering. Both received final approval around when the renumbering began. Not to say that the numbers weren't chosen with that in mind (they may have been), but it's possible NDOT was just trying to avoid reusing an x15 from another state or preserve numbers below 499. 215 is a more recent development than both 515 and 580.
Would've been nice if Nevada got a different number than 215 for the beltway. I know that 3di numbers can be repeated in other states and CA and UT also have an I-215 but a bit of variety never hurt anyone...
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Yeah. I read up about that. Two numbers would've been fine if they touched 15 in different areas. But then it wouldn't be the loop that it is today.
Since I-15 doesn't really go anywhere major past SLC, different numbers for Vegas and SLC loops wouldn't have been bad choices.
Interstate 215 in Nevada and Interstate 215 in Utah are like twin routes. They provide a bypass route for the northwest, southwest, and southeast sides of both Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. Sure, the trajectory of Interstate 15 in Las Vegas causes its Interstate 215 to cover more of the north side and less of the southeast side than Salt Lake City's, but they are the most-similar of any two 3-digit Interstate Highways of the same number in the entire country.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Minneapolis would like a word.
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2023, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Minneapolis would like a word.
So would Saint Louis (tho it is easier to argue 255 and 270 are actually separate routes that meet twice than form a single beltway)
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2023, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Minneapolis would like a word.
MSP is different because the physical belt route incorporates some of I-94 - it's not a clear "this is solely a beltway only" type road, the way 215 in Salt Lake is. I-15 doesn't junction 215 twice on the same side of the city center the way I-94 does with 494 and 694. A different situation in my opinion unless you want to sign a 94/494 concurrency, which evidently MnDOT did not want to do.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 11:24:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2023, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Minneapolis would like a word.
MSP is different because the physical belt route incorporates some of I-94 - it's not a clear "this is solely a beltway only" type road, the way 215 in Salt Lake is. I-15 doesn't junction 215 twice on the same side of the city center the way I-94 does with 494 and 694. A different situation in my opinion unless you want to sign a 94/494 concurrency, which evidently MnDOT did not want to do.
When CC-215 becomes I-215, then you'll have a double junction with I-15. Probably in the next several months.
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 11:24:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2023, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Minneapolis would like a word.
MSP is different because the physical belt route incorporates some of I-94 - it's not a clear "this is solely a beltway only" type road, the way 215 in Salt Lake is. I-15 doesn't junction 215 twice on the same side of the city center the way I-94 does with 494 and 694. A different situation in my opinion unless you want to sign a 94/494 concurrency, which evidently MnDOT did not want to do.
I-95 around Washington along I-495, I-69 and I-74 around Indianapolis along I-465, I-29 briefly outside Kansas City along I-435, I-35 briefly outside San Antonio along I-410, etc.
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 05, 2023, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 11:24:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2023, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 04, 2023, 12:56:17 AM
Utah used to have an I-415, which was the southeast quadrant of what is now the I-215 beltway. It was signed for two years on the short segments that were open at the time before they realized it was dumb to have two numbers for what would effectively be one route.
Minneapolis would like a word.
MSP is different because the physical belt route incorporates some of I-94 - it's not a clear "this is solely a beltway only" type road, the way 215 in Salt Lake is. I-15 doesn't junction 215 twice on the same side of the city center the way I-94 does with 494 and 694. A different situation in my opinion unless you want to sign a 94/494 concurrency, which evidently MnDOT did not want to do.
When CC-215 becomes I-215, then you'll have a double junction with I-15. Probably in the next several months.
But it won't junction I-215 twice on the same side of the city center. 215 is a clear beltway.
Does any city with a 360 beltway call the directions CW and CCW on signage?
I doubt it. I think full 360-degree beltways should be solely signed as Inner and Outer.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 03:59:34 PM
I doubt it. I think full 360-degree beltways should be solely signed as Inner and Outer.
I think they should be kept with just plain old cardinal directions that change depending on where you are. It works fine for 285 in Atlanta. Inner/Outer requires an extra level of mental gymnastics in my experience with 485 in Charlotte and Loop 10 in Athens GA.
I prefer signing one half of the beltway as the through route, such as a 2di, while the other half of the beltway gets a 3di. Makes it less ambiguous where you are if you need to direct someone to your location.
That's the way the Capital Beltway was signposted after Interstate 95 was moved to its present alignment following its cancelation through Washington DC in 1977. I would have kept the 95/495 duplex from the get-go, due to driver confusion that resulted from having two numbers on the beltway. Fortunately, they reversed course and readded the 495 designation to the eastern half of the beltway in 1989.
I don't like the idea of signing the two directions of a beltway highway as "inner" and "outer." Aside from the mental gymnastics motorists have to do regarding those directions it can create other levels of confusion. Some metro areas are big enough to have more than one beltway.
When someone says "outer loop" they might be referring to a second beltway. Houston has two full beltways and a third that is more than halfway complete. Plus there are additional corridors in the Houston region that will have to be upgraded in various ways to function as partial loops and/or relief routes.
I had to mentally convert "inner" to clockwise and "outer" to counterclockwise when I was driving GA 10 LOOP in Athens.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 05:29:12 PM
I don't like the idea of signing the two directions of a beltway highway as "inner" and "outer." Aside from the mental gymnastics motorists have to do regarding those directions it can create other levels of confusion. Some metro areas are big enough to have more than one beltway.
When someone says "outer loop" they might be referring to a second beltway. Houston has two full beltways and a third that is more than halfway complete. Plus there are additional corridors in the Houston region that will have to be upgraded in various ways to function as partial loops and/or relief routes.
I think it's probably a lot clearer to simply split the loop hemispherically into 2 routes, and sign each route along whichever the predominant cardinal direction of the axis is.
The Ultimate I-11....Pt. Barrow AK to Tierra Del Fuego...LOL!
Quote from: nexus73 on December 12, 2023, 08:54:52 AM
The Ultimate I-11....Pt. Barrow AK to Tierra Del Fuego...LOL!
The Pan-American Freedomway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12994.0)?
Now that's just batshit crazy! How do you plan to bridge the Darién Gap?
With a bridge.
Quote from: jdbxI think it's probably a lot clearer to simply split the loop hemispherically into 2 routes, and sign each route along whichever the predominant cardinal direction of the axis is.
That sounds a little like what I wish could happen with the Kilpatrick Turnpike in Oklahoma City. Re-number the portion of the loop North of I-40 as I-440 and apply I-240 to the portion South of I-40. We're going to get this stupid I-344 stuff instead.
Quote from: jdbx on December 11, 2023, 07:17:32 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 05:29:12 PM
I don't like the idea of signing the two directions of a beltway highway as "inner" and "outer." Aside from the mental gymnastics motorists have to do regarding those directions it can create other levels of confusion. Some metro areas are big enough to have more than one beltway.
When someone says "outer loop" they might be referring to a second beltway. Houston has two full beltways and a third that is more than halfway complete. Plus there are additional corridors in the Houston region that will have to be upgraded in various ways to function as partial loops and/or relief routes.
I think it's probably a lot clearer to simply split the loop hemispherically into 2 routes, and sign each route along whichever the predominant cardinal direction of the axis is.
You run into I-295 in Florida (I think), where it's NORTH both ways from I-95! So I do not like that idea. I personally prefer the direction changes in each quadrant to match the way the loop generally runs, but Inner/Outer is fine as well.
Quote from: Alps on December 12, 2023, 05:52:27 PM
Quote from: jdbx on December 11, 2023, 07:17:32 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 05:29:12 PM
I don't like the idea of signing the two directions of a beltway highway as "inner" and "outer." Aside from the mental gymnastics motorists have to do regarding those directions it can create other levels of confusion. Some metro areas are big enough to have more than one beltway.
When someone says "outer loop" they might be referring to a second beltway. Houston has two full beltways and a third that is more than halfway complete. Plus there are additional corridors in the Houston region that will have to be upgraded in various ways to function as partial loops and/or relief routes.
I think it's probably a lot clearer to simply split the loop hemispherically into 2 routes, and sign each route along whichever the predominant cardinal direction of the axis is.
You run into I-295 in Florida (I think), where it's NORTH both ways from I-95! So I do not like that idea. I personally prefer the direction changes in each quadrant to match the way the loop generally runs, but Inner/Outer is fine as well.
That's why I would split it into two distinct routes. Right now, I-295 is a loop around Jacksonville. Instead, sign the half that is to the east of I-95 as I-695. So if you are traveling from the south along I-95, at the junction you'd see "I-295 North - Orange Pk" and "I-695 North - Jax Bchs" Maybe even add a "TO I-10" to the I-295 option to make it clear which is the preferred route if you are headed towards that way.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 12, 2023, 03:42:01 PM
Now that's just batshit crazy! How do you plan to bridge the Darién Gap?
You should see the Immigration Freedomway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6122.0) that partially inspired it...
Quote from: jdbx on December 12, 2023, 06:04:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 12, 2023, 05:52:27 PM
Quote from: jdbx on December 11, 2023, 07:17:32 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 05:29:12 PM
I don't like the idea of signing the two directions of a beltway highway as "inner" and "outer." Aside from the mental gymnastics motorists have to do regarding those directions it can create other levels of confusion. Some metro areas are big enough to have more than one beltway.
When someone says "outer loop" they might be referring to a second beltway. Houston has two full beltways and a third that is more than halfway complete. Plus there are additional corridors in the Houston region that will have to be upgraded in various ways to function as partial loops and/or relief routes.
I think it's probably a lot clearer to simply split the loop hemispherically into 2 routes, and sign each route along whichever the predominant cardinal direction of the axis is.
You run into I-295 in Florida (I think), where it's NORTH both ways from I-95! So I do not like that idea. I personally prefer the direction changes in each quadrant to match the way the loop generally runs, but Inner/Outer is fine as well.
That's why I would split it into two distinct routes. Right now, I-295 is a loop around Jacksonville. Instead, sign the half that is to the east of I-95 as I-695. So if you are traveling from the south along I-95, at the junction you'd see "I-295 North - Orange Pk" and "I-695 North - Jax Bchs" Maybe even add a "TO I-10" to the I-295 option to make it clear which is the preferred route if you are headed towards that way.
They kinda do, just with names instead of numbers. It's fairly prominently signed as "East Beltway" and "West Beltway".
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/i-11-footprint-to-grow-in-southern-nevada-2967497
QuoteInterstate 11's official footprint is about to get larger in the Las Vegas Valley.
Originally designated as 15 miles of freeway when a $318 million project was completed in 2018, which runs between the Nevada-Arizona border to near the Henderson Interchange, I-11 signage soon will be added to the stretch of U.S. Highway 95 running from the Henderson Interchange to Kyle Canyon Road northwest of Las Vegas.
That equals to roughly 30½ miles of highway from the Nevada-Arizona border to Kyle Canyon, according to NDOT director Tracy Larkin Thomason.
Signage installation is expected to occur sometime next year.
So what's the procedure here? I don't see anything on the autumn AASHTO agenda for extending I-11 to Kyle Canyon Road, so does this mean NDOT plans on applying for it in the spring simultaneous to the signage contract? Or was it already approved? Or are they going rogue?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 18, 2023, 06:37:24 PM
So what's the procedure here? I don't see anything on the autumn AASHTO agenda for extending I-11 to Kyle Canyon Road, so does this mean NDOT plans on applying for it in the spring simultaneous to the signage contract? Or was it already approved? Or are they going rogue?
I-11 was already approved pending completion of the Centennial Bowl.
Quote from: cl94 on December 18, 2023, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 18, 2023, 06:37:24 PM
So what's the procedure here? I don't see anything on the autumn AASHTO agenda for extending I-11 to Kyle Canyon Road, so does this mean NDOT plans on applying for it in the spring simultaneous to the signage contract? Or was it already approved? Or are they going rogue?
I-11 was already approved pending completion of the Centennial Bowl.
The extension of I-11 to SR 157 was on the meeting agenda and approved at the AASHTO route numbering committee meeting in Fall 2022.
To my knowledge, there was no condition that the Centennial Bowl needed to be finished first. However, it seems NDOT tends to like to finish adjacent major construction projects before updating Interstate highway designations.
I recall seeing some construction signing plans for the current phase of Centennial Bowl construction that had BGSs along the 215 manufactured with I-11 shields in mind—specifically this eastbound exit sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BtS9op1Qcbc3PfHy9) (where space was left for the I-11 shield and the "S" is a patch to be removed later) and the sign downstream at the future split (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zv8qXFDkroKuDWwU8). At the time these plans were available and I had seen them online, I don't think NDOT had formally announced the final I-11 route through Vegas (so it was likely NDOT knew they'd choose the US 95 alignment all along).
So, then, is US 95 north of I-15 now part of unsigned I-11? Getting into some semantics here but curious from the experts' perspective.
Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2023, 12:16:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 18, 2023, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 18, 2023, 06:37:24 PM
So what's the procedure here? I don't see anything on the autumn AASHTO agenda for extending I-11 to Kyle Canyon Road, so does this mean NDOT plans on applying for it in the spring simultaneous to the signage contract? Or was it already approved? Or are they going rogue?
I-11 was already approved pending completion of the Centennial Bowl.
The extension of I-11 to SR 157 was on the meeting agenda and approved at the AASHTO route numbering committee meeting in Fall 2022.
To my knowledge, there was no condition that the Centennial Bowl needed to be finished first. However, it seems NDOT tends to like to finish adjacent major construction projects before updating Interstate highway designations.
I recall seeing some construction signing plans for the current phase of Centennial Bowl construction that had BGSs along the 215 manufactured with I-11 shields in mind—specifically this eastbound exit sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BtS9op1Qcbc3PfHy9) (where space was left for the I-11 shield and the "S" is a patch to be removed later) and the sign downstream at the future split (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zv8qXFDkroKuDWwU8). At the time these plans were available and I had seen them online, I don't think NDOT had formally announced the final I-11 route through Vegas (so it was likely NDOT knew they'd choose the US 95 alignment all along).
I hope Interstate 11 is fully signed along Interstate 515 and the rest of US 95 between Interstate 15 and NV 157 within the next year. However, that hope may be premature.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 19, 2023, 05:40:43 PM
So, then, is US 95 north of I-15 now part of unsigned I-11? Getting into some semantics here but curious from the experts' perspective.
Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2023, 12:16:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 18, 2023, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 18, 2023, 06:37:24 PM
So what's the procedure here? I don't see anything on the autumn AASHTO agenda for extending I-11 to Kyle Canyon Road, so does this mean NDOT plans on applying for it in the spring simultaneous to the signage contract? Or was it already approved? Or are they going rogue?
I-11 was already approved pending completion of the Centennial Bowl.
The extension of I-11 to SR 157 was on the meeting agenda and approved at the AASHTO route numbering committee meeting in Fall 2022.
To my knowledge, there was no condition that the Centennial Bowl needed to be finished first. However, it seems NDOT tends to like to finish adjacent major construction projects before updating Interstate highway designations.
I recall seeing some construction signing plans for the current phase of Centennial Bowl construction that had BGSs along the 215 manufactured with I-11 shields in mind—specifically this eastbound exit sign (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BtS9op1Qcbc3PfHy9) (where space was left for the I-11 shield and the "S" is a patch to be removed later) and the sign downstream at the future split (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zv8qXFDkroKuDWwU8). At the time these plans were available and I had seen them online, I don't think NDOT had formally announced the final I-11 route through Vegas (so it was likely NDOT knew they'd choose the US 95 alignment all along).
Yes, on the Federal level of definitions.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 19, 2023, 05:52:08 PM
I hope Interstate 11 is fully signed along Interstate 515 and the rest of US 95 between Interstate 15 and NV 157 within the next year. However, that hope may be premature.
See Kniwt's message in the thread on 12/18...
This YouTuber drove from Utah to Las Vegas. Near the end of the video, you can see I-11 being signed along US 95 and 93 on the overhead signage and at the interchange itself has blank space reserved for I-11 (no I-515 shields). That is seemingly the evidence that I-11 is being signed and the replacement for I-515 is now ongoing. Go to around 1:52:15 time mark on this website below (so you don't have to watch the entire video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgdLQBnYimc
In looking at the video, it appears that there was a recent repaving along I-15 (which wasn't fully finished at the time of the video). It also looks like they replaced a lot of the overhead signs along that stretch—which is common NDOT SOP during repaving projects. I think several were probably around 15-ish years old dating to the widening of this stretch of I-15 (and I think some signs in this stretch were peeling kinda bad). So if they were doing a wholesale sign replacement as part of the repaving, then it makes sense to do the I-11/515 changeout simultaneously on the overhead signage, even if the signage on I-11 itself hasn't been changed yet.
The signage at the actual interchange is of a different vintage. I'm pretty sure the northbound US 95 signs were designed to have an I-11 shield added later, and it's possible that the southbound US 93-95 signs were designed to remove an I-515 sign and replace with an I-11 (and maybe they took the 515 shield down when this video was taken).
As far as I'm aware, nothing has changed out on future I-11 itself yet. I'm hoping to do some scouting about here in the next week.
Fascinating. Regardless of any official timetable, it's quite apparent from that video that several wayfinding signs on I-15 southbound now show I-11 headed south and north at the junction with I-15.
A southbound I-11 reassurance shield has been installed on the mainline between the Eastern Ave. and Charleston Blvd. exits. As far as I can tell, this is the only mainline I-11 signage southbound between I-15 and I-215; it's still otherwise signed as I-515. I wasn't able to check northbound because of a pretty nasty wreck near Las Vegas Blvd. that had the freeway jammed up for miles.
(https://i.imgur.com/gT9ptw8.jpeg)
I wish NDOT would just go ahead and re-sign everything all at once. This slow-drip approach has to be confusing as shit for tourists and people that don't follow the news.
Are they expected to sign the US-95 freeway as I-11 at the same time they do the I-515/US-93/US-95 freeway? Is it even up to current Interstate standards?
Quote from: pderocco on March 18, 2024, 01:20:42 AM
Are they expected to sign the US-95 freeway as I-11 at the same time they do the I-515/US-93/US-95 freeway? Is it even up to current Interstate standards?
Up to Exit 96 (last interchange before at-grade) was approved a while back and it will be signed as I-11. While NDOT is starting a study to look at feasibility of converting the 4-lane north of there to full freeway, nothing more is on the docket in the near future. That is, however long I-11 is in Nevada at the end of this year is probably how it'll be for the next several years (if not decades).
Edit: fixed exit number
I-11 to Reno will be completed long after I-69 between Texas and Mississippi. Of course we won't live to see that either.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 18, 2024, 12:35:51 AM
A southbound I-11 reassurance shield has been installed on the mainline between the Eastern Ave. and Charleston Blvd. exits. As far as I can tell, this is the only mainline I-11 signage southbound between I-15 and I-215; it's still otherwise signed as I-515. I wasn't able to check northbound because of a pretty nasty wreck near Las Vegas Blvd. that had the freeway jammed up for miles.
(https://i.imgur.com/gT9ptw8.jpeg)
I wish NDOT would just go ahead and re-sign everything all at once. This slow-drip approach has to be confusing as shit for tourists and people that don't follow the news.
Noted back in October in reply #798. And there is no corresponding northbound sign. Currently, that lone I-11 sign before Charleston Blvd. is a one-off; it would be interesting to hear the story of who and how that sign made it to that spot.
Quote from: DenverBrian on March 18, 2024, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 18, 2024, 12:35:51 AM
A southbound I-11 reassurance shield has been installed on the mainline between the Eastern Ave. and Charleston Blvd. exits. As far as I can tell, this is the only mainline I-11 signage southbound between I-15 and I-215; it's still otherwise signed as I-515. I wasn't able to check northbound because of a pretty nasty wreck near Las Vegas Blvd. that had the freeway jammed up for miles.
(https://i.imgur.com/gT9ptw8.jpeg)
I wish NDOT would just go ahead and re-sign everything all at once. This slow-drip approach has to be confusing as shit for tourists and people that don't follow the news.
Noted back in October in reply #798. And there is no corresponding northbound sign. Currently, that lone I-11 sign before Charleston Blvd. is a one-off; it would be interesting to hear the story of who and how that sign made it to that spot.
Was it a redux of the famous 'I-5 sign fix' in Los Angeles, CA ? ? ?
:hmmm:
Mike
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 18, 2024, 12:35:51 AM
I wasn't able to check northbound because of a pretty nasty wreck near Las Vegas Blvd. that had the freeway jammed up for miles.
There are also I-11 shields on the Charleston Blvd. ramps at the 11/
515/93/95 interchange, and the traffic signal signs have been changed to "I-11 NORTH."
How long after the Interstate 11 signs go up between Interstate 215 and NV 157 might the exits be renumbered? How long after the initial posting of the Interstate 11 signs were the old 515 Exits 56A-61 renumbered?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2024, 06:27:40 PM
How long after the Interstate 11 signs go up between Interstate 215 and NV 157 might the exits be renumbered? How long after the initial posting of the Interstate 11 signs were the old 515 Exits 56A-61 renumbered?
I'd guess it's all part of the same project. The ones on this segment might be easier to do because they're part of an existing construction project (see: change order) vs. other signs that need to be part of a comprehensive bid for system-wide sign replacement.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 18, 2024, 06:26:59 PM
There are also I-11 shields on the Charleston Blvd. ramps at the 11/515/93/95 interchange, and the traffic signal signs have been changed to "I-11 NORTH."
These were likely installed because NDOT has a project working to improve operations at the Charleston interchange. So it likely made sense to get that signage done as part of this project as opposed to ordering new 515 shields to change out after potentially less than a year. (Note that a map on the Charleston project website (https://i515charleston.com/) notes that I-515 is "soon to be renamed I-11".)
The Charleston interchange is part of several I-515 projects NDOT has going on now or planned for the future (see NDOT I-515 projects (https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/transportation-projects/i-515-projects)). Project #5 is repaving from the Henderson Bowl to north to Wyoming Ave. This is where I think the answer to seeing widespread I-11 shields lies. NDOT lately has tended to do a lot of sign replacement work during repaving projects, so I would anticipate much of the I-11 signage to go up as part of that project—the project page (https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/transportation-projects/i-515-from-sunset-road-to-wyoming-avenue)for that specific project does mention signage improvements. The page mentions that this project should be completed by August 2024, so I expect to see I-11 shields to start appearing along a good chunk of the existing I-515 segment over the summer.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 18, 2024, 06:27:40 PM
How long after the Interstate 11 signs go up between Interstate 215 and NV 157 might the exits be renumbered? How long after the initial posting of the Interstate 11 signs were the old 515 Exits 56A-61 renumbered?
No idea on exit renumbering. But I'm expecting it simultaneously with the resigning.
The Boulder City Bypass opened in August 2018 with I-11 signage, but I-515 signage remained at that time. NDOT did a major sign replacement project along I-515 between Railroad Pass and the I-215/SR 564 interchange in early 2019 (an article in the local paper mentioning this was published on Pi Day 2019), which included changing the I-515 signage to I-11 and changing the exit numbers.
I'm still not 100% convinced that NDOT will sign I-11 north/west of I-15 along the US 95 stretch right away...
It is worth noting that nothing internal has changed the designation yet, though the 2024 route log indicates a redesignation is coming this year.
I-515 at Galleria now has several North and South I-11 directional signs replacing previous I-515 shields, although they appear to be replacements - there is no case of both I-11 and I-515 being signed concurrently.
Interestingly, it's not a 100% replacement. Some signage still has the I-515 shields.
I was in Las Vegas this weekend and noticed that the signage on southbound I-15 at the 11/95 interchange shows I-11 North and I-11 South.
It looks like slowly, but surely, Interstate 515 is being designed. Soon we will be saying R.I.P. Interstate 515. Is there any Interstate 11 signage west of Interstate 15 yet? I imagine they are doing the Interstate 515-to-Interstate 11 conversion before adding Interstate 11 signs to the US 95 "solo" corridor.
Quote from: DenverBrian on April 27, 2024, 09:11:55 PMInterestingly, it's not a 100% replacement. Some signage still has the I-515 shields.
What a mess.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 29, 2024, 03:29:03 PMIt looks like slowly, but surely, Interstate 515 is being designed. Soon we will be saying R.I.P. Interstate 515. Is there any Interstate 11 signage west of Interstate 15 yet? I imagine they are doing the Interstate 515-to-Interstate 11 conversion before adding Interstate 11 signs to the US 95 "solo" corridor.
I haven't seen any, but I live right by US 95 so I'll let everyone know the moment I see anything.
When they do, I wonder if they'll replace the ancient-looking sign on Lake Mead Blvd. for US-95 north with a control city of Tonopah with one that says Reno instead.
Quote from: rlb2024 on April 29, 2024, 03:17:37 PMI was in Las Vegas this weekend and noticed that the signage on southbound I-15 at the 11/95 interchange shows I-11 North and I-11 South.
It was mentioned upthread that this was likely the result of a major sign replacement project on I-15, and that they used I-11 shields instead of I-515 shields to avoid needing to make alterations to newly-fabricated BGSs less than a year later.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 29, 2024, 08:40:44 PMWhen they do, I wonder if they'll replace the ancient-looking sign on Lake Mead Blvd. for US-95 north with a control city of Tonopah with one that says Reno instead.
District 2 has been going to more localized control cities as of late, so who knows. See the new signs on I-580 NB that show I-80 EB with a control city of Sparks (instead of Elko, which itself is pushing it). Never mind that the city limit is visible from 580 and downtown is only a couple of miles away.
(personal opinion emphasized)
As of this evening, NDOT has made the internal change to redesignate I-515 and US 95 up to Kyle Canyon Road as I-11. This change was previously approved by the feds, so nothing unheard of there.
I wonder if there will be any End Interstate 11 signs posted around the NV 157/Kyle Canyon Rd. interchange? Since there aren't any End Interstate 11 signs posted at the Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge (although there is a Mile 0 Interstate 11 Milepost at this location), I'm not sure if any will be erected on the northern end.
I mean, does any other Interstate in Nevada get END assemblies? 580 doesn't have them, don't remember if 215 does.
Quote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 12:59:28 AMAs of this evening, NDOT has made the internal change to redesignate I-515 and US 95 up to Kyle Canyon Road as I-11. This change was previously approved by the feds, so nothing unheard of there.
Is there any publicly-available documentation of this change?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2024, 04:48:34 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 12:59:28 AMAs of this evening, NDOT has made the internal change to redesignate I-515 and US 95 up to Kyle Canyon Road as I-11. This change was previously approved by the feds, so nothing unheard of there.
Is there any publicly-available documentation of this change?
NDOT GIS, specifically the road ownership layer. I can provide a link later.
Quote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 04:51:30 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2024, 04:48:34 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 12:59:28 AMAs of this evening, NDOT has made the internal change to redesignate I-515 and US 95 up to Kyle Canyon Road as I-11. This change was previously approved by the feds, so nothing unheard of there.
Is there any publicly-available documentation of this change?
NDOT GIS, specifically the road ownership layer. I can provide a link later.
I think I found it: https://geohub-ndot.hub.arcgis.com/maps/5d6860dcff3e4c1ba7bc455d80aedc24/explore?location=36.142393%2C-115.117507%2C11.83
Quote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 12:03:24 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 29, 2024, 08:40:44 PMWhen they do, I wonder if they'll replace the ancient-looking sign on Lake Mead Blvd. for US-95 north with a control city of Tonopah with one that says Reno instead.
District 2 has been going to more localized control cities as of late, so who knows. See the new signs on I-580 NB that show I-80 EB with a control city of Sparks (instead of Elko, which itself is pushing it). Never mind that the city limit is visible from 580 and downtown is only a couple of miles away.
(personal opinion emphasized)
On my travels up and down US 95, I have noticed that the northbound mileage signs have been replaced to show Fallon instead of Reno. There is still one that has mileage to Reno and that one is just north of Goldfield.
So I saw another I-11 sign assembly on current 515. It is between Russell Road (65) and Galleria (64B) going southbound. I pointed it out to my wife and she said the shield can be changed to 11 but Vegas people will call it 95 regardless (she's from Vegas).
is 215 being signed too on the CC 215 portion? :hmmm:
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2024, 05:16:07 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 04:51:30 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2024, 04:48:34 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 12:59:28 AMAs of this evening, NDOT has made the internal change to redesignate I-515 and US 95 up to Kyle Canyon Road as I-11. This change was previously approved by the feds, so nothing unheard of there.
Is there any publicly-available documentation of this change?
NDOT GIS, specifically the road ownership layer. I can provide a link later.
I think I found it: https://geohub-ndot.hub.arcgis.com/maps/5d6860dcff3e4c1ba7bc455d80aedc24/explore?location=36.142393%2C-115.117507%2C11.83
That is it, and it is authoritative.
Quote from: US 395 on May 01, 2024, 07:46:18 PMSo I saw another I-11 sign assembly on current 515. It is between Russell Road (65) and Galleria (64B) going southbound. I pointed it out to my wife and she said the shield can be changed to 11 but Vegas people will call it 95 regardless (she's from Vegas).
Nice! That one wasn't there on March 17 when I was last in the area.
Quote from: cl94 on May 01, 2024, 01:23:58 PMI mean, does any other Interstate in Nevada get END assemblies? 580 doesn't have them, don't remember if 215 does.
515 did: http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/95/u1/#img_66
It even had a corresponding BEGIN.
Quote from: US 395 on May 01, 2024, 07:46:18 PMSo I saw another I-11 sign assembly on current 515. It is between Russell Road (65) and Galleria (64B) going southbound. I pointed it out to my wife and she said the shield can be changed to 11 but Vegas people will call it 95 regardless (she's from Vegas).
Having grown up in Vegas and still visiting regularly, your wife is 100% correct.
I think it took well into the 2000's before people really began using the I-515 designation, despite the 515 shields going up circa 1994-1995. Even still, many people (including most long-time locals) call it "the 95" given how it acts as the through/continuous route through the Spaghetti Bowl.
Maybe adoption and reference to I-11 will catch on quicker if NDOT signs it north of I-15... :hmmm:
I forget, was I-515 chargeable or non-chargeable? If it was the latter then the designation overlaid onto two US Routes didn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 02, 2024, 01:08:26 PMI forget, was I-515 chargeable or non-chargeable? If it was the latter then the designation overlaid onto two US Routes didn't make a lot of sense.
Then again, putting up fancy signs purely for aesthetic reasons is a pretty Vegas thing to do.
Quote from: US 395 on May 01, 2024, 07:46:18 PMSo I saw another I-11 sign assembly on current 515. It is between Russell Road (65) and Galleria (64B) going southbound. I pointed it out to my wife and she said the shield can be changed to 11 but Vegas people will call it 95 regardless (she's from Vegas).
Going across Russell Road, all directional/entrance ramp signs have had I-515 replaced with I-11. However, the lighted (and expensive, no doubt) green street signs still say I-515. I'd imagine that may last a while.
I'm 98% certain that 515 is chargeable. 215 is not. 580's northern end may be given when it was approved.
Quote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 04:59:38 PMI'm 98% certain that 515 is chargeable. 215 is not. 580's northern end may be given when it was approved.
chargeable? :hmmm: what does that mean?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:10:36 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 04:59:38 PMI'm 98% certain that 515 is chargeable. 215 is not. 580's northern end may be given when it was approved.
chargeable? :hmmm: what does that mean?
Used federal Interstate funds to build. 515 was part of the list of corridors approved by the feds in the mid-70s. Think 580 (part) was as well, but less certain.
any reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
Quote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
interesting, must be a dirt road because I can't see it on maps.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:22:17 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
interesting, must be a dirt road because I can't see it on maps.
Basically the crossover in line with Moccasin Road. Moccasin Road definitely is accessible from US 95 at-grade heading westbound.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:10:36 PMchargeable? :hmmm: what does that mean?
I have a good explanation at https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html for California.
Quote from: cahwyguy on May 02, 2024, 08:35:44 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:10:36 PMchargeable? :hmmm: what does that mean?
I have a good explanation at https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html for California.
At least in NY, what is eligible for a 90% federal share of NHPP is only an issue in the NYC metro area.
Quote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
I don't see any at-grade intersection in Google Earth. But past Kyle Canyon Rd it's certainly not up to Interstate standards. The inner shoulders are unpaved.
But it makes sense to end the I-11 designation at an interchange with a state highway, rather than a golf course driveway.
Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2024, 12:36:08 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
I don't see any at-grade intersection in Google Earth. But past Kyle Canyon Rd it's certainly not up to Interstate standards. The inner shoulders are unpaved.
But it makes sense to end the I-11 designation at an interchange with a state highway, rather than a golf course driveway.
That "golf course driveway" at exit 99 is actually the access road to the Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation. The point still stands though.
are there any immediate plans to extend 11 any further north of here? or will it sit like this for the foreseeable future? (sorry I am not on this part of the forum much)
I-11 will probably not extend north of NV 157 in many of our lifetimes.
I doubt it will get down to I-10 in my lifetime. But when it does, it will certainly be a perfectly respectable 2di, at almost 300 miles.
Quote from: pderocco on May 04, 2024, 12:29:34 AMI doubt it will get down to I-10 in my lifetime. But when it does, it will certainly be a perfectly respectable 2di, at almost 300 miles.
I'll be shocked if it ever gets fully built south of I-40, other than as a 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections as most of it is now. Arizona politics and the clout of the many ranch owners along that stretch could very easily prevent it from becoming a full freeway. If and when the 2-lane Joshua Forest Hwy (the most dangerous rural highway in the state) upgrade ever gets done (it should have happened 20 years ago, and is still unfunded AFAIK), I really think that ADOT will be told to consider it finished. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 03, 2024, 01:53:58 PMI-11 will probably not extend north of NV 157 in many of our lifetimes.
The only possibility is if it gets extended to the Nevada Test Site. This is already 4 lanes and there is a study underway to consider potential upgrades. Most of the at-grades with paved roads have high crash rates, so a few interchanges may be justified on safety grounds. Once the few paved roads get interchanges, you'd only need to build gravel frontage roads and block the median crossovers (of which the first legal one is just north of NV 157) to get a designation. While the NTS interchange isn't at a numbered road, major military installations are approved endpoints.
North of NTS? Fat chance anything happens soon apart from spot upgrades. A few locations could use passing lanes and I could see some improvements around Yerington, but a 4-lane expressway would be excessive given the volumes that road sees, let alone a freeway. Not the quietest US route in the state, but it would easily be among the quietest segments of the Interstate system, beating out I-70 in Utah, I-95 in northern Maine, and I-80 in Nevada even if traffic volumes increase by 50%. It's one of those roads that may look necessary on a map, but there's zero demand and enough redundancy.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2024, 12:36:08 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
I don't see any at-grade intersection in Google Earth. But past Kyle Canyon Rd it's certainly not up to Interstate standards. The inner shoulders are unpaved.
But it makes sense to end the I-11 designation at an interchange with a state highway, rather than a golf course driveway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/d6jkdkqMsYmrXQhA8?g_st=ic
Found it in GSV. Coordinates 36.3359889, -115.3209178 just north of Kyle Canyon Rd interchange
Even is signed with a "one way" sign after the crossover on 95NB
Thru Moccasin Rd traffic can use this crossover, even tho it is gravel for the "gap" between paved Moccasin Rd on either side of 95, tho a "Do Not Enter" sign is posted on the east side of the 95NB lanes at the crossover. No such signage on the west side of the 95SB lanes. And the typical "Yield" and "One Way" signage at the median crossover
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 04, 2024, 11:53:11 AMQuote from: pderocco on May 03, 2024, 12:36:08 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
I don't see any at-grade intersection in Google Earth. But past Kyle Canyon Rd it's certainly not up to Interstate standards. The inner shoulders are unpaved.
But it makes sense to end the I-11 designation at an interchange with a state highway, rather than a golf course driveway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/d6jkdkqMsYmrXQhA8?g_st=ic
Found it in GSV. Coordinates 36.3359889, -115.3209178 just north of Kyle Canyon Rd interchange
Even is signed with a "one way" sign after the crossover on 95NB
Thru Moccasin Rd traffic can use this crossover, even tho it is gravel for the "gap" between paved Moccasin Rd on either side of 95, tho a "Do Not Enter" sign is posted on the east side of the 95NB lanes at the crossover. No such signage on the west side of the 95SB lanes. And the typical "Yield" and "One Way" signage at the median crossover
Despite all the times I've passed this spot, I've never taken notice of this aspect.
Moccasin forms the northern boundary of the City of Las Vegas and the southern boundary of the Las Vegas Paiute Reservation, so the crossover is likely there to allow authorized vehicles (e.g. tribal police) to turn around at the jurisdictional boundary. However, it is not marked as a typical authorized vehicle only crossover (e.g. no U-turn signs, black and blue markers, etc.) and has the standard signage meant for a local access point. It's also worth noting there doesn't appear to be a similar turnaround at the northern boundary of the reservation. But that gravel really just makes it seem like this is an official access to Moccasin.
It does look like there was, at one time, more official access to the west from the southbound lanes, because you can clearly see a paved apron area that is no longer maintained (Street View (https://maps.app.goo.gl/p8vDkEMGQ6dWJhr27)). I'm guessing this may have been meant as access to western Moccasin (or the power line corridor that runs along it) a long time ago, but frontage road construction may have made that need for access moot. NDOT seems to at least tolerate the existing unofficial access off the frontage roads at Moccasin, because they didn't maintain right-of-way fencing into the reservation land on either side of US 95. But they've done nothing to facilitate that access either, cause otherwise there would likely be signage and more formal access and/or turning lanes.
How exactly do you remove a gravel road when the unimproved ground surface in an area is basically gravel? It seems like, short of running a barrier of some kind over it, it would be pretty difficult to avoid people making their own RIRO access point if they really wanted one there.
In that particular spot, it doesn't look like the gravel connection to Moccasin is official any more, because there is no break in the white line along the freeway edge. But if people do that sort of thing here and there, I doubt it's common enough to cause any problems, although they might get a ticket if a cop sees them.
Quote from: pderocco on May 03, 2024, 12:36:08 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 02, 2024, 05:19:13 PMQuote from: silverback1065 on May 02, 2024, 05:17:48 PMany reason why 11 doesn't end at exit 99 on us 95?
At-grade just north of Kyle Canyon Road. Ends at the last interchange before the at-grade.
I don't see any at-grade intersection in Google Earth. But past Kyle Canyon Rd it's certainly not up to Interstate standards. The inner shoulders are unpaved.
The inner shoulders don't have to be paved beyond 4 ft when you only have 2 lanes in each direction. Look at the I-11 Boulder City bypass, it's a similar cross section.
Those "at grade" access points mentioned appear to be gravel roadways that don't intend to be publicly accessible... but if it was truly an issue, they could simply gate them off.
QuoteBut it makes sense to end the I-11 designation at an interchange with a state highway, rather than a golf course driveway.
That's likely it. FHWA requires a "logical terminus" for interstate designations (state / US highway, other interstate, etc.) SH-157 would be that, a golf course access road wouldn't be of any meaning.
No point sign posting I-11 outside the Las Vegas metro until it's significantly extended north.
I-11 new signage is appearing almost like they can only produce five shields a week and they throw darts at a dartboard in the NDOT conference room to decide where they'll go.
It is possible that NV 157/Kyle Canyon Rd. may be Interstate 11's permanent northern terminus. If not, I don't see it going beyond Mercury Hwy. or NV 160. Extending it to Interstate 80 or all the way to Canada (as proposed a decade or so ago) was always a Fictional Highways pipe dream.
There's nothing worth extending an Interstate to, south of Carson City. Beatty? Tonopah? Hawthorne? They won't need an Interstate, even if they discover a new mother lode of gold. (As they kinda sorta did in Goldfield.)
The mentality seems to be "build it and they will come." That didn't work in the 1960s and 1970s with all the I-70 extension proposals through Nevada. I'm not sure why anyone would think this would be different with I-11.
Don't discount the political value of connecting Nevada's two metro areas, whether or not that has any actual value in reality.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2024, 03:12:36 AMDon't discount the political value of connecting Nevada's two metro areas, whether or not that has any actual value in reality.
No, I will discount it. If people were complaining that a better connection was needed, then there would be one already after all these decades of the Interstate Highway System. There would already be a seriously considered proposal on the shelf.
I doubt the public work on any sort of connection doesn't even reach to NY's Rooftop's constant failure.
Quote from: Rothman on May 06, 2024, 06:54:06 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 06, 2024, 03:12:36 AMDon't discount the political value of connecting Nevada's two metro areas, whether or not that has any actual value in reality.
No, I will discount it.
Is this like a buy one get one free sort of deal, or is it some piddly 10% off?
I have never heard anybody locally argue that we need a freeway connection down to Vegas. If a politician proposed that the political value would be to their opponent who would deride it as a colossal waste of money.
When the legislature is in session the Vegas legislators themselves pile up the frequent flier miles on Southwest Airlines, which runs up to about 10 round trips a day between Reno and Las Vegas.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2024, 02:48:54 PMHow exactly do you remove a gravel road when the unimproved ground surface in an area is basically gravel? It seems like, short of running a barrier of some kind over it, it would be pretty difficult to avoid people making their own RIRO access point if they really wanted one there.
That's what r/w fencing is for.
" For [ I-11 ] / FOLLOW [ US 95 ] to Carson City /(and/or) Reno "
Mike
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2024, 09:33:07 PMQuote from: US 395 on May 01, 2024, 07:46:18 PMSo I saw another I-11 sign assembly on current 515. It is between Russell Road (65) and Galleria (64B) going southbound. I pointed it out to my wife and she said the shield can be changed to 11 but Vegas people will call it 95 regardless (she's from Vegas).
Nice! That one wasn't there on March 17 when I was last in the area.
I would say it was installed within the past month or so. There have been some overhead sign replacements so I think they went ahead and changed out the shield on that assembly.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 06, 2024, 07:59:31 AMWhen the legislature is in session the Vegas legislators themselves pile up the frequent flier miles on Southwest Airlines, which runs up to about 10 round trips a day between Reno and Las Vegas.
And that's a stupidly cheap route. 1 hour flight vs 7 hour drive isn't a big decision for most people, especially when that flight is $100 round trip.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 06, 2024, 12:38:35 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2024, 02:48:54 PMHow exactly do you remove a gravel road when the unimproved ground surface in an area is basically gravel? It seems like, short of running a barrier of some kind over it, it would be pretty difficult to avoid people making their own RIRO access point if they really wanted one there.
That's what r/w fencing is for.
I thought it was mostly to keep animals out.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 06, 2024, 07:59:31 AMI have never heard anybody locally argue that we need a freeway connection down to Vegas. If a politician proposed that the political value would be to their opponent who would deride it as a colossal waste of money.
If it was in California, they'd be proposing a bullet train.
Quote from: pderocco on May 06, 2024, 08:59:49 PMQuote from: gonealookin on May 06, 2024, 07:59:31 AMI have never heard anybody locally argue that we need a freeway connection down to Vegas. If a politician proposed that the political value would be to their opponent who would deride it as a colossal waste of money.
If it was in California, they'd be proposing a bullet train.
I mean, high-speed rail has been proposed as a better way to link the two than a freeway...but via the Central Valley. The Nevada State Rail Plan included such a possibility last I checked.
Quote from: pderocco on May 06, 2024, 08:57:48 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on May 06, 2024, 12:38:35 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2024, 02:48:54 PMHow exactly do you remove a gravel road when the unimproved ground surface in an area is basically gravel? It seems like, short of running a barrier of some kind over it, it would be pretty difficult to avoid people making their own RIRO access point if they really wanted one there.
That's what r/w fencing is for.
I thought it was mostly to keep animals out.
In most cases, it's to keep people out. After all, deer can easily leap the standard r/w fencing you see in most places.
Now there are exceptions. Some western states put taller fences along interstates in areas where they're trying to funnel migrating elk thru undercrossings. But for the most part, the r/w fence is intended as a barrier for humans and their vehicles, be they road-legal or of the off-road variety.
Quote from: pderocco on May 06, 2024, 08:57:48 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on May 06, 2024, 12:38:35 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2024, 02:48:54 PMHow exactly do you remove a gravel road when the unimproved ground surface in an area is basically gravel? It seems like, short of running a barrier of some kind over it, it would be pretty difficult to avoid people making their own RIRO access point if they really wanted one there.
That's what r/w fencing is for.
I thought it was mostly to keep animals out.
A driver is a type of animal.
Quote from: DenverBrian on May 05, 2024, 12:20:15 PMI-11 new signage is appearing almost like they can only produce five shields a week and they throw darts at a dartboard in the NDOT conference room to decide where they'll go.
I kinda agree with this. It doesn't really seem like they're being very comprehensive with their replacements.
I was in Vegas a few days ago for a work event which took me out southeast along I-515, so I took a bit of time after the event to do some I-11 shield hunting. Folks have already reported in this thread some of the one-off installations along the mainline. But what I found interesting was side street treatments.
At every interchange from Galleria Drive north through Flamingo Road, they have replaced the entire Freeway Entrance sign packages with new sign packages that include I-11 shields instead of I-515 shields. However, they have
only replaced the freeway entrance sign packages at ramp entrances—any other shield assemblies at the interchanges, BGSs on the side street approaches, or traffic signal street name signs at the ramp terminals still show I-515. So that resulted in oddities like at the Tropicana interchange (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bMr6PYbUv2Ztk3ACA) where the sign package on the left had an I-11 shield but the one in the median still has an I-515 shield.
Nothing had been replaced at Boulder Highway. Some signs had been replaced at Charleston, due to the interchange reconstruction project there. The Eastern exit was closed when I went through, so didn't get to check that one. Las Vegas Blvd had no changes when I went through a few days prior. I also didn't see anything changed at Sunset.
Semi-related:
- Several overhead signs on the freeway mainline have been replaced, especially along the stretch between Charleston & Russell. The BGSs approaching Tropicana Ave making reference to McCarran Airport have been updated to Harry Reid Airport instead.
- Found some I-515-related signage on northbound Stephanie St approaching Russell Road (that could get forgotten about during the changeover, since it's a bit away from the freeway). This includes a rare instance (for Nevada, at least) of an incorrect shield—in this case, a green sign directing traffic to "US 515" (https://maps.app.goo.gl/RSw9r2n6iQ17Jjfr9).
Was also in Vegas late last week as part of a larger roadtrip, and noticed the same scattered replacements that have been discussed the past few pages. All signage on I-15 southbound approaching exit 42 has been updated to I-11, but none northbound. Meanwhile along I-515, I was noticing the same thing with some shield assemblies randomly updated to I-11 here & there but others still remaining as I-515 (for now).
A few quick pics approaching exit 42 southbound (I missed getting this ramp signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1778039,-115.1503859,3a,18.1y,258.58h,94.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s55B9bMMG7ZS9l_I1I_PHug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the mainline, but the replacements have I-11 shields for both directions which might be the first signed reference to I-11 continuing across I-15?):
(https://i.imgur.com/ahBJtLs.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/k5H14gy.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZThGEjY.jpeg)
NDOT posted the contract for the I-11 signing. A few notes:
1. There appears to be no "End 11" shield northbound past Kyle Canyon Road. There's a North 11/95 shield past the SR 157 onramp.
2. CONTROL CITIES GONE WILD. NDOT's ongoing cacophony of control cities for I-11 continues. Southbound, you'll find Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Phoenix and Needles all listed on overhead signs. (Get a little further south, past this project, and Kingman is also a control city – 6 cities in a 40 mile stretch.) Northbound, Las Vegas, Tonopah and Reno all make appearances, sometimes in combination, sometimes on their own. (Ely also appears on some NB 93 signs.)
I don't necessarily blame NDOT, but the FHWA guidance to go to only one control city per sign when possible really screws things up, when clearly there is a need for 2 for most of southbound I-11 past downtown Las Vegas.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 18, 2024, 12:02:32 PM2. CONTROL CITIES GONE WILD. NDOT's ongoing cacophony of control cities for I-11 continues. Southbound, you'll find Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Phoenix and Needles all listed on overhead signs. (Get a little further south, past this project, and Kingman is also a control city – 6 cities in a 40 mile stretch.) Northbound, Las Vegas, Tonopah and Reno all make appearances, sometimes in combination, sometimes on their own. (Ely also appears on some NB 93 signs.)
I don't necessarily blame NDOT, but the FHWA guidance to go to only one control city per sign when possible really screws things up, when clearly there is a need for 2 for most of southbound I-11 past downtown Las Vegas.
Do they really need all those control cities? Henderson probably shouldn't be there, given how local it is. Boulder City is questionable as well, but has some value for tourists heading to the Hoover Dam. Of two minds about Kingman; it's minor, but it's also the I-40 junction. Las Vegas and Phoenix are obvious. Needles should definitely NOT be there as I-11 is the primary route, not US 95. If they want to put in Henderson and Needles, that's what supplemental signage and mileage signs are for.
At Exit 42, they managed a single control city. Phoenix southbound; Reno northbound. Makes the most logical sense.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 18, 2024, 12:02:32 PMNDOT posted the contract for the I-11 signing. A few notes:
1. There appears to be no "End 11" shield northbound past Kyle Canyon Road. There's a North 11/95 shield past the SR 157 onramp.
2. CONTROL CITIES GONE WILD. NDOT's ongoing cacophony of control cities for I-11 continues. Southbound, you'll find Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Phoenix and Needles all listed on overhead signs. (Get a little further south, past this project, and Kingman is also a control city – 6 cities in a 40 mile stretch.) Northbound, Las Vegas, Tonopah and Reno all make appearances, sometimes in combination, sometimes on their own. (Ely also appears on some NB 93 signs.)
I don't necessarily blame NDOT, but the FHWA guidance to go to only one control city per sign when possible really screws things up, when clearly there is a need for 2 for most of southbound I-11 past downtown Las Vegas.
NDOT Contract 4511 if anyone is curious. I just spent the last hour looking at the signing plans.
They're basically replacing a lot of the signage in kind. It seems like for the most part they may be working off of as-built drawings, with minor alterations to existing designs only to accommodate the shield changes and other minor updates in standards (e.g. using full size diagonal up arrows in an exit only panel instead of the shorter arrows NDOT has used in the past, which appears to be NDOT SOP now) or fixes to decrease ambiguity (e.g. change to arrow type or placement). So with that, they are perpetuating all the wackiness with control cities that has come over the years. That's too bad, as this is really a good opportunity to unify some of that.
A few surprising things as I looked at the plans:
- Agreed on the lack of "End I-11" shields on northbound I-11 at Kyle Canyon interchange. But to be fair, I don't think NDOT has ever signed an interstate end except the old southbound end of I-515 at Railroad Pass...there's never been an end sign for I-515 north, and there's never been any end signage posted for I-580 in Reno or Carson City either.
- I-11 North being signed at the Kyle Canyon Rd interchange. The interstate ends there, so it makes no sense to sign I-11 north here at this time.
- There are several locations in the signing plans where an existing I-515/US-93/US-95 or US-95 side street sign assembly is being left undisturbed. I also noticed that several of the new assemblies that I mentioned in my last post are not shown in the plans at all. So I can only assume that the assemblies marked as "do not disturb" are going to be addressed by other projects.
- It seems like they are replacing some overhead BGSs that are not that old. (For example, these signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/KQfXu8enR7cAVzpy8) at the Kyle Canyon Interchange which I don't think are more than 5 years old and were clearly fabricated with I-11 shields covered up, are being completely replaced.) In some cases, these may be signs that are already peeling kinda badly.
- There's a few BGSs where the design shows the I-11 shield with cardinal direction to the right, and then the US 95 shield below. (e.g. I-11 North on one line then a 95 shield on the next line directly below the 11 shield—this is intended to direct to both I-11 and US 95 north.) This is a very odd design choice, especially when there is space to lay out the shields in a less ambiguous manner.
One other interesting observation: They are replacing a few BGSs on the freeway mainline that are not related to the I-11 changeover, primarily US 95 signs for the Rancho Dr and I-15 exits—a few of these are peeling badly so the replacement is needed. But it's interesting to note that there isn't any update to exit numbers on these signs. So that is indicating to me that NDOT has no immediate plans to update exit numbers or mileposts for I-11. It was a few years after completing I-580 before NDOT changed out the exit numbers on I-580 in Reno to reflect 580 mileage instead of US 395, so I'm guessing they'll do something like that here—but it seems like they really should have planned to do this all at once.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 18, 2024, 12:02:32 PM2. CONTROL CITIES GONE WILD. NDOT's ongoing cacophony of control cities for I-11 continues. Southbound, you'll find Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Phoenix and Needles all listed on overhead signs. (Get a little further south, past this project, and Kingman is also a control city – 6 cities in a 40 mile stretch.) Northbound, Las Vegas, Tonopah and Reno all make appearances, sometimes in combination, sometimes on their own. (Ely also appears on some NB 93 signs.)
I don't necessarily blame NDOT, but the FHWA guidance to go to only one control city per sign when possible really screws things up, when clearly there is a need for 2 for most of southbound I-11 past downtown Las Vegas.
I don't think "Las Vegas" is used southbound, but you do see "Downtown LV" from US 95 and I-15 north.
Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2024, 05:47:47 PMDo they really need all those control cities? Henderson probably shouldn't be there, given how local it is. Boulder City is questionable as well, but has some value for tourists heading to the Hoover Dam. Of two minds about Kingman; it's minor, but it's also the I-40 junction. Las Vegas and Phoenix are obvious. Needles should definitely NOT be there as I-11 is the primary route, not US 95. If they want to put in Henderson and Needles, that's what supplemental signage and mileage signs are for.
Note that there is exactly one southbound pull-through sign on existing I-515, which is just south of the I-15 interchange (and it uses Phoenix). The next one you'll see is outside the Las Vegas Valley on the outskirts of Boulder City, erected as part of the I-11 Boulder City Bypass project at the split of US 93 BUS (this one uses Kingman). All the others you see are on side streets, or on the I-215/SR 546 (the only place Boulder City is used).
Similarly, northbound you'll only see one pull-through sign on I-515, and it's right in the I-15 interchange (Tonopah and Reno appear here).
With that said, I agree that all these different city uses are a bit much, and they're just perpetuating the issue with this sign replacement. Reno and Phoenix would be my suggestions. You could use "Downtown LV" and "Henderson" or "Boulder City" as supplementals depending on location.
Hoover Dam, I-40, and Phoenix would be better control cities lol. How much of that traffic is going elsewhere?
Quote from: roadfro on May 18, 2024, 06:58:27 PMBut it's interesting to note that there isn't any update to exit numbers on these signs. So that is indicating to me that NDOT has no immediate plans to update exit numbers or mileposts for I-11. It was a few years after completing I-580 before NDOT changed out the exit numbers on I-580 in Reno to reflect 580 mileage instead of US 395, so I'm guessing they'll do something like that here—but it seems like they really should have planned to do this all at once.
Yuck. I can understand with I-580 since the exit numbers there were consistent even if they didn't start at I-580's mile 0, and changing them resulted in US 395 having two sets of numbers, but that doesn't apply here. The physical roadway
already has multiple sets of exit numbers, changing them for I-11 would make things more sane, and they already changed the numbers on former I-515 for I-11, so why wait?
I live-posted my reactions on the wiki Discord as I delved into this contract. (Sorry, NDOT, this is just what happens when your state gains roadgeeks.) Here's a summary of what I noticed (some observations have already been made in this thread):
(https://i.imgur.com/kapUrtG.png)
Hey, it's that US-515 error. Nice of them to basically acknowledge the screw up as they're fixing it. Sign numbers suffixed with R are keyed to "sign removal" in the legend.
(https://i.imgur.com/AEnjG6L.png)
What's the point of having a state route designation if you're not gonna show it off? This omission, as well as some other signs further on, led Jonathan Winkler to theorize that NDOT was being careful to avoid exceeding the footprint of the existing signage, either to save costs or avoid pushing the old Caltrans-style trusses past their tolerances or both. (More wind loading stuff with these trusses. I gotta say, the Oklahoma standard truss is butt-ugly, but I've seen the damn things make it through EF-5 tornadoes unscathed. Maybe the other DOTs should ask them to share the spec around.) In any case, that would explain some of the weirdness with a few of these layouts, so I'm inclined to agree.
(https://i.imgur.com/wtCwnFx.png)
Lime green is keyed to "do not disturb" in the legend. Signing both I-11 and US-95 overhead on Rainbow, but only US-95 at ground level, is a choice. (Why the heck would you want to park in the middle of a SPUI?)
(https://i.imgur.com/vM1L3TA.png)
Redundant shields are redundant. (And what's up with retaining Boulder City as a control, rather than using Phoenix like the signs at I-15 do?) "Really needs cardinal directions," Jonathan said.
(https://i.imgur.com/4nbz9nF.png)
Found out where the missing cardinal directions went.
(https://i.imgur.com/PCQz2Wd.png)
Oh, you know, just your average everyday 70-foot-wide sign. "I've never been to Martin L King, Nevada, but I hear it's lovely this time of year," remarked wiki regular (and occasional forum poster) Moabdave.
(https://i.imgur.com/1GAr9cq.png)
The list of sins one can enjoy in Sin City is very long, but somewhere on there is "reducing character spacing to cheap out on a sign panel."
(https://i.imgur.com/sE2Iw2r.png)
???
(https://i.imgur.com/GdxRhdm.png)
Why is "View" in E and everything else in E-Modified?
Other observations:
- There are a few 515 reassurance shields on the mainline which are marked 'do not disturb' for no reason I can fathom. I guess they paid extra for a late checkout or something.
- "Tonopah" vs. "Reno" for I-11 northbound from the Spaghetti Bowl could become 2024's hottest control city debate.
Quote from: cl94 on March 18, 2024, 02:53:37 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 18, 2024, 01:20:42 AMAre they expected to sign the US-95 freeway as I-11 at the same time they do the I-515/US-93/US-95 freeway? Is it even up to current Interstate standards?
Up to Exit 96 (last interchange before at-grade) was approved a while back and it will be signed as I-11. While NDOT is starting a study to look at feasibility of converting the 4-lane north of there to full freeway, nothing more is on the docket in the near future. That is, however long I-11 is in Nevada at the end of this year is probably how it'll be for the next several years (if not decades).
Edit: fixed exit number
Looking on Google Earth, it looks like US-95 is freeway up to Paiute Drive (Exit 99). On the 4-lane section from Paiute Drive to Mercury Highway (Exit 136), I counted 16 "official" at-grade intersections or driveways, most of which were in the vicinity of Indian Springs and Creech AFB.
From a cost and technical perspective, I don't think it would be too difficult to upgrade US-95 to interstate standards from Paiute Drive to Mercury Highway. The stretch through Indian Springs already has frontage roads. To minimize disruption to Indian Springs, I would place two interchanges, one at the main gate for Creech AFB, and a second interchange at the west gate. Perhaps a third interchange at the west end of Indian Springs, connecting to extended frontage roads. Here's where I think interchanges would need to be built between Paiute Drive and Mercury Highway:
Exit 99: Paiute Drive (Start - Existing)
Corn Creek Road
NV-156
Cold Creek Road
Frontage Roads/Creech AFB West Gate
Sky Road/Creech AFB Main Gate
(Possible third interchange at west end of town)
Coyote Road, Cactus Springs
Local Road (unnamed, called MCR 928601 E on Google Maps)
Local Road (unnamed, called MCR 928601 W on Google Maps)
Exit 136: Mercury Highway (End - Existing)
And herein lies the challenge of the whole system.
Let's conservatively say each of those interchanges costs $20 million. ("There's no way a rural interchange would cost $20 million," you say, to which I respond "OK, but then the Indian Springs bypass is still going to cost quite a bit because you're not going to build the freeway through the middle of town.")
So you're looking at $320 million ... to build interchanges for roads that have a combined AADT of roughly 4000.
Do I think Interstate 11 should be built between Las Vegas and Reno? Absolutely. But as long as we have this scarcity mindset with a federal gas tax that hasn't been raised in 30 years (it would be 40 cents per gallon if adjusted for inflation), is that *really* where NDOT wants to dump $300 million?
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 20, 2024, 09:32:21 AMQuote from: cl94 on March 18, 2024, 02:53:37 AMQuote from: pderocco on March 18, 2024, 01:20:42 AMAre they expected to sign the US-95 freeway as I-11 at the same time they do the I-515/US-93/US-95 freeway? Is it even up to current Interstate standards?
Up to Exit 96 (last interchange before at-grade) was approved a while back and it will be signed as I-11. While NDOT is starting a study to look at feasibility of converting the 4-lane north of there to full freeway, nothing more is on the docket in the near future. That is, however long I-11 is in Nevada at the end of this year is probably how it'll be for the next several years (if not decades).
Edit: fixed exit number
Looking on Google Earth, it looks like US-95 is freeway up to Paiute Drive (Exit 99). On the 4-lane section from Paiute Drive to Mercury Highway (Exit 136), I counted 16 "official" at-grade intersections or driveways, most of which were in the vicinity of Indian Springs and Creech AFB.
From a cost and technical perspective, I don't think it would be too difficult to upgrade US-95 to interstate standards from Paiute Drive to Mercury Highway. The stretch through Indian Springs already has frontage roads. To minimize disruption to Indian Springs, I would place two interchanges, one at the main gate for Creech AFB, and a second interchange at the west gate. Perhaps a third interchange at the west end of Indian Springs, connecting to extended frontage roads. Here's where I think interchanges would need to be built between Paiute Drive and Mercury Highway:
Exit 99: Paiute Drive (Start - Existing)
Corn Creek Road
NV-156
Cold Creek Road
Frontage Roads/Creech AFB West Gate
Sky Road/Creech AFB Main Gate
(Possible third interchange at west end of town)
Coyote Road, Cactus Springs
Local Road (unnamed, called MCR 928601 E on Google Maps)
Local Road (unnamed, called MCR 928601 W on Google Maps)
Exit 136: Mercury Highway (End - Existing)
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 20, 2024, 11:33:01 AMLet's conservatively say each of those interchanges costs $20 million. ("There's no way a rural interchange would cost $20 million," you say, to which I respond "OK, but then the Indian Springs bypass is still going to cost quite a bit because you're not going to build the freeway through the middle of town.")
How hard would be be to do something similar like what NYSDOT did with I-86 in Horseheads (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1566991,-76.8199648,913m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu)? Especially as that's not really the middle of town, the town is on the south side, the north is just the base.
Those are awfully small traffic volumes to be worth doing anything at all. I-11 at all is mostly for suburban Phoenix real estate development, I-11 north of Las Vegas is a complete waste. There are plenty of highway projects that really need doing - bridges and viaducts that will fall down in the next big earthquake, fracture critical bridges that also have lower overhead clearance than current interstate standards, urban area freeways that could really use an HOV lane. Yes, higher gas taxes would be justified, but whether the gas tax is raised or not spending money on I-11 north of Las Vegas is absurd.
IMHO the earthquake reason is the biggest reason to complete it - to provide a backup connection from the 10 and 40 corridors in the event I-5 fails.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2024, 12:56:37 PMThose are awfully small traffic volumes to be worth doing anything at all. I-11 at all is mostly for suburban Phoenix real estate development, I-11 north of Las Vegas is a complete waste. There are plenty of highway projects that really need doing - bridges and viaducts that will fall down in the next big earthquake, fracture critical bridges that also have lower overhead clearance than current interstate standards, urban area freeways that could really use an HOV lane. Yes, higher gas taxes would be justified, but whether the gas tax is raised or not spending money on I-11 north of Las Vegas is absurd.
There is plenty of high capacity roads between CA 58/I-40 and I-10. US 101, CA 14 and I-15 all immediately spring to mind. US 95 and CA 138 get a fair bit of freight traffic whereas stuff like CA 62 is mostly under utilized.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 20, 2024, 05:49:54 PMIMHO the earthquake reason is the biggest reason to complete it - to provide a backup connection from the 10 and 40 corridors in the event I-5 fails.
Not, say, reinforcing overpasses on I-5?
Which was largely done in areas affected by the Northridge Earthquake. Besides, a little two lane action on San Francisquito Canyon Road and Angeles Forest Highway never hurt anyone (except those who wrecked, especially on the latter).
America is too cheap to truly harden I-5 for a large earthquake. It's going to be out for weeks to months after a large Cascadia or San Joaquin event.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2024, 06:45:19 PMQuote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 20, 2024, 05:49:54 PMIMHO the earthquake reason is the biggest reason to complete it - to provide a backup connection from the 10 and 40 corridors in the event I-5 fails.
Not, say, reinforcing overpasses on I-5?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2024, 05:10:07 AMI live-posted my reactions on the wiki Discord as I delved into this contract. (Sorry, NDOT, this is just what happens when your state gains roadgeeks.) Here's a summary of what I noticed (some observations have already been made in this thread):
<snip>
(https://i.imgur.com/AEnjG6L.png)
What's the point of having a state route designation if you're not gonna show it off? This omission, as well as some other signs further on, led Jonathan Winkler to theorize that NDOT was being careful to avoid exceeding the footprint of the existing signage, either to save costs or avoid pushing the old Caltrans-style trusses past their tolerances or both. (More wind loading stuff with these trusses. I gotta say, the Oklahoma standard truss is butt-ugly, but I've seen the damn things make it through EF-5 tornadoes unscathed. Maybe the other DOTs should ask them to share the spec around.) In any case, that would explain some of the weirdness with a few of these layouts, so I'm inclined to agree.
When I first saw this sign when the US 95/Summerlin HOV connector was finished, that it was the most Caltrans sign NDOT ever had installed. Spacing looks even slightly worse on the new panel due to the larger arrow. I do think in most cases they were trying to keep the replacement signage within the existing panel area, which led to wonkiness or poor design decisions.
With these Summerlin Pkwy signs though, there really isn't an excuse. The first sign with the down arrow is installed on a bridge (https://maps.app.goo.gl/8hzE67aKbf4pRjbZA) (not a sign truss), and looks like they originally envisioned a wider sign here. The second is on a very wide sign truss (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zFmK9jrf7ecK7j1dA), and could accommodate some extra width. So they could have easily have widened the signs to accommodate a SR 613 shield. I can maybe give them a pass on that, since the main exit signs for Summerlin Pkwy don't have SR 613 shields either...but they could've done that replacement in this project too...
The sign truss for the second sign seems to have a slightly shorter depth than normal. But I don't think wind loading is a factor here. Heck, the massive APL sign on I-15 north is installed on a standard truss...
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2024, 05:10:07 AM(https://i.imgur.com/PCQz2Wd.png)
Oh, you know, just your average everyday 70-foot-wide sign. "I've never been to Martin L King, Nevada, but I hear it's lovely this time of year," remarked wiki regular (and occasional forum poster) Moabdave.
Another oddity that is just perpetuated with the new signage. "M L King Blvd" would've been better, or reduce the text size to fit "Blvd" in.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2024, 05:10:07 AM(https://i.imgur.com/1GAr9cq.png)
The list of sins one can enjoy in Sin City is very long, but somewhere on there is "reducing character spacing to cheap out on a sign panel."
This is an almost direct copy of the existing sign, sinful character spacing and all. Only difference I see is that they put in the half space between "76" and "A" on the exit tab.
The way they designed the adjacent sign for I-15 south/MLK, it looks like they could have reduced the sign panel width for exit 76 B/C to allow a slightly wider panel width and better character spacing for this 76A sign.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2024, 05:10:07 AM(https://i.imgur.com/sE2Iw2r.png)
???
All the surface street signing for the Rancho Drive SPUI leaves a lot to be desired...and it's only worse with the new signage.
Part of me wants to email NDOT and suggest fixes...
Las Vegas' Fox5 News reports on the I-11 signage changeover.
Interstate 11 signs going up in Las Vegas; Mexico-to-Canada interstate plans move forward (https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/05/22/interstate-11-signs-going-up-las-vegas-mexico-to-canada-interstate-plans-move-forward/) - 5/21/2024
I don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico, and it definitely won't come anywhere near the Canadian border. While NV 157 may or may not be 11's permanent northern terminus, the furthest I see it potentially going is Armargosa Valley, and even that may be optimistic (I'm sure the aliens may have something to say about it as well).
Quote from: roadfro on May 22, 2024, 11:19:20 AMAnother oddity that is just perpetuated with the new signage. "M L King Blvd" would've been better, or reduce the text size to fit "Blvd" in.
I think the most common way of writing that, around the country, is "M.L.K. Blvd".
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2024, 07:26:34 PMI don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico, and it definitely won't come anywhere near the Canadian border. While NV 157 may or may not be 11's permanent northern terminus, the furthest I see it potentially going is Armargosa Valley, and even that may be optimistic (I'm sure the aliens may have something to say about it as well).
Agreed. Nevada DOT ought to train their spokesman to think before he speaks.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2024, 07:26:34 PMI don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico...
Neither do I. In fact, I believe it has only a slim chance of being built south of I-40, and almost no chance of being built south of I-8, or even I-10.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: US 93 between I-40 and Wickenburg will be upgraded to 4 lanes the entire way, but as far as upgrading to full Interstate standards... there are too many ranch turnoffs, not enough traffic, and only a few potential interchanges (existing intersections at AZ 89, 71, and 97, plus a new one at Wickieup) to make it worthwhile.
Re: the new signs, Nevada has made some...interesting decisions with signs lately. Many of the replace in kind items along 80 and 580 are disgusting (apart from the new signs along 80 that reference Old US 40 and SR 425, those can stay). Plenty of option lanes that were signed on the old sign, but no longer are despite partial APLs now being allowed. Many of the new signs look quite cramped, as if Caltrans designed them.
And as far as numbers go, do not expect them to be posted along a freeway in developed areas unless the road leads well outside of a developed area, even on new signs. There are plenty of decently-signed routes that lack signs along freeways. See: SRs 427 and 443. Heck, US 395A doesn't get acknowledged from I-580 apart from a few standalone shields, even on signs that went up within the past year. District 1 is a little better than District 2 with posting numbers, but not a ton better.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: cl94 on May 23, 2024, 01:11:04 AMRe: the new signs, Nevada has made some...interesting decisions with signs lately. Many of the replace in kind items along 80 and 580 are disgusting (apart from the new signs along 80 that reference Old US 40 and SR 425, those can stay). Plenty of option lanes that were signed on the old sign, but no longer are despite partial APLs now being allowed. Many of the new signs look quite cramped, as if Caltrans designed them.
And as far as numbers go, do not expect them to be posted along a freeway in developed areas unless the road leads well outside of a developed area, even on new signs. There are plenty of decently-signed routes that lack signs along freeways. See: SRs 427 and 443. Heck, US 395A doesn't get acknowledged from I-580 apart from a few standalone shields, even on signs that went up within the past year. District 1 is a little better than District 2 with posting numbers, but not a ton better.
(personal opinion emphasized)
And all this right as CalTrans is starting to learn how to make better signs... it's as if they stole NDOT's mojo!
I find the comparison to Oklahoma earlier interesting too. Right now my impressions is that they're different flavors of bad. Oklahoma includes the information they need, but can't get the text size/case/positions right, so the signs look bad, while NDOT signs aesthetically look great, but are missing information, have inconsistent control cities, or exit numbers that used to make sense but no longer do.
I think NDOT is more "quirky" than "bad". Most of the stuff that seems weird tends to reflect local usage more closely than the formal completeness most DOTs design toward. I mean, it's kind of silly that NV 613 isn't signed, but on the other hand, it's not like anyone actually calls it NV 613. Going the other direction, it's kinda weird that the combined ramp to Rainbow Blvd. and Summerlin Parkway is just signed as "Rainbow–Summerlin", but people all over the country drop street name suffixes in casual speech, and Summerlin Parkway does go to Summerlin, so...would the line break and two extra words actually help anyone if they were there?
That. NDOT generally sees little use in signing redundant designations if there is a local name already in use because that a) costs more money and b) creates the potential for confusion. In the case of urban arterials, nobody uses the number, so why create more sign clutter along congested urban freeways? The best you'll get is a few standalone shields, which are generally present apart from the shortest routes.
And again, this differs significantly by NDOT district. 1 and 2 are much less likely to post numbers than 3, though all have at least 1 route that isn't acknowledged along a freeway despite being signed on the surface. But since 3 is mostly (all, if you don't count Elko) rural, people will use numbers because there is no name.
Well, they're certainly not going to use NV 613 if it's not signed. If things are signed, local parlance will shift eventually. When I was growing up, nobody used exit numbers around Rochester (it turns out the exit numbers were only assigned ~5-10 years before I was born). These days, they're much more commonly used. And what if someone is from out of town and is looking for a number?
And then there's the issues with using different control cities on different signs for the same stretch of road and retaining the US 95 exit numbers on I-11 for no reason. If they really don't want exit 99 out there on its own, just take the number down. Don't turn I-11 into the I-87 of Nevada just so that number can be part of a sequence.
Problem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century. Hell, even in more rural areas, there are numbered roads few locals know the number of. NV 207 comes to mind: nobody local apart from NDOT or stuff I write for my employer will ever use the number, and it makes sense to prominently use the name (Kingsbury Grade).
NY will primarily sign number, which confuses the heck out of people who get directions from locals. See western NY 24, which normal people from Nassau County never refer to by number, but signs have only shown the number for decades. A local will say "get off at Hempstead Turnpike", not "get off at NY 24".
Quote from: cl94 on May 25, 2024, 12:55:46 AMPutting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item.
That guidance uses "should" and not "shall", so I wouldn't say that one
needs to be dropped, especially as the support statement is clearly oriented around rural areas and small towns, not major metro areas. That could be a justification for listing both anyways. That said, does destination really need to be included when within a metro area? The locals already know where they're going, and travelers aren't going to know every random community name, just the major city. They could also use supplemental signage for the destinations.
This may be the reason why NYSDOT Regions 4-5 avoid destination legends for the most part outside of rural areas and freeways.
Quote from: 2023 MUTCD Chapter 2ESection 2E.15 Amount of Legend on Guide Signs
Guidance:
01 No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Interchange Advance Guide
sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. Where two or three
signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or street names should be limited to one per sign, or to a total
of three in the display. Sign legends should not exceed three lines of copy, exclusive of the exit number and action
or distance information.
Support:
02 Where only one interchange serves a community, the intersecting street name is generally superfluous to the
city name on the Interchange Advance guide and Exit Direction signs. Where a community is served by multiple
interchanges, the city name is typically displayed on either a Community Interchanges Identification sign (see
Section 2E.52) or a Next Exits sign (see Section 2E.53) . Each interchange is then identified by its intersecting
roadway name on the Interchange Advance guide and Exit Direction signs rather than by the city name.
QuoteAnd all this right as CalTrans is starting to learn how to make better signs...
Clearly you and I are not seeing the same sets of signs, he says glumly (*ahem*district 8*ahem*).
Quote from: vdeane on May 25, 2024, 11:17:46 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 25, 2024, 12:55:46 AMProblem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century.
That guidance uses "should" and not "shall", so I wouldn't say that one needs to be dropped, especially as the support statement is clearly oriented around rural areas and small towns, not major metro areas. That could be a justification for listing both anyways. That said, does destination really need to be included when within a metro area? The locals already know where they're going, and travelers aren't going to know every random community name, just the major city. They could also use supplemental signage for the destinations.
For Summerlin Pkwy, there is no point along the mainline or intersecting roads/freeways where signage for Summerlin Pkwy includes a destination city—and that makes sense, given how distinctly urban the freeway is (it's entirely in Las Vegas throughout). However, since NDOT took over maintenance of Summerlin Pkwy from City of Las Vegas a few years ago, the state highway number now appears on maps, and recent projects have installed SR 613 reassurance shields on the freeway itself as well as SR 613 references on intersecting side streets (via "freeway entrance" sign packages that did not exist before, as well as on a few recently-replaced side street BGSs).
From that perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable that NDOT could have replaced the main "Summerlin Pkwy" signs on US 95 with signs reading "[SR 613] Summerlin Pkwy"—similar to how SR 146/St Rose Pkwy and SR 564/Lake Mead Pkwy are signed along freeways elsewhere in the Vegas area—as part of the I-11 signing project. This would've achieved an apparent NDOT goal of signing SR 613 in the field at its east end, and would retain the Summerlin Pkwy common name on signing. For the northbound US 95 & I-11 direction, the revised sign legend can easily fit within the existing panel's dimensions—the southbound signs probably would need to be wider, but there's plenty of space for that on the existing sign structures.
Quote from: cl94 on May 25, 2024, 12:55:46 AMProblem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century. Hell, even in more rural areas, there are numbered roads few locals know the number of. NV 207 comes to mind: nobody local apart from NDOT or stuff I write for my employer will ever use the number, and it makes sense to prominently use the name (Kingsbury Grade).
NY will primarily sign number, which confuses the heck out of people who get directions from locals. See western NY 24, which normal people from Nassau County never refer to by number, but signs have only shown the number for decades. A local will say "get off at Hempstead Turnpike", not "get off at NY 24".
A local can say "get off at the puppies and unicorns" if they want. NO ONE is asking a local for directions anymore. It's all in one of several map apps on your phone.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 25, 2024, 12:51:56 PMQuoteAnd all this right as CalTrans is starting to learn how to make better signs...
Clearly you and I are not seeing the same sets of signs, he says glumly (*ahem*district 8*ahem*).
I was thinking of the newer style signs with external exit tabs. Then again, those aren't universal yet even on new installs.
Quote from: DenverBrian on May 25, 2024, 03:16:37 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 25, 2024, 12:55:46 AMProblem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century. Hell, even in more rural areas, there are numbered roads few locals know the number of. NV 207 comes to mind: nobody local apart from NDOT or stuff I write for my employer will ever use the number, and it makes sense to prominently use the name (Kingsbury Grade).
NY will primarily sign number, which confuses the heck out of people who get directions from locals. See western NY 24, which normal people from Nassau County never refer to by number, but signs have only shown the number for decades. A local will say "get off at Hempstead Turnpike", not "get off at NY 24".
A local can say "get off at the puppies and unicorns" if they want. NO ONE is asking a local for directions anymore. It's all in one of several map apps on your phone.
If they said "turn right at the cow in the road" and the farmer sold his land, are they obligated to install a cow statue so the directions would still make sense?
Quote from: roadfro on May 25, 2024, 01:02:33 PMQuote from: vdeane on May 25, 2024, 11:17:46 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 25, 2024, 12:55:46 AMProblem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century.
That guidance uses "should" and not "shall", so I wouldn't say that one needs to be dropped, especially as the support statement is clearly oriented around rural areas and small towns, not major metro areas. That could be a justification for listing both anyways. That said, does destination really need to be included when within a metro area? The locals already know where they're going, and travelers aren't going to know every random community name, just the major city. They could also use supplemental signage for the destinations.
For Summerlin Pkwy, there is no point along the mainline or intersecting roads/freeways where signage for Summerlin Pkwy includes a destination city—and that makes sense, given how distinctly urban the freeway is (it's entirely in Las Vegas throughout). However, since NDOT took over maintenance of Summerlin Pkwy from City of Las Vegas a few years ago, the state highway number now appears on maps, and recent projects have installed SR 613 reassurance shields on the freeway itself as well as SR 613 references on intersecting side streets (via "freeway entrance" sign packages that did not exist before, as well as on a few recently-replaced side street BGSs).
From that perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable that NDOT could have replaced the main "Summerlin Pkwy" signs on US 95 with signs reading "[SR 613] Summerlin Pkwy"—similar to how SR 146/St Rose Pkwy and SR 564/Lake Mead Pkwy are signed along freeways elsewhere in the Vegas area—as part of the I-11 signing project. This would've achieved an apparent NDOT goal of signing SR 613 in the field at its east end, and would retain the Summerlin Pkwy common name on signing. For the northbound US 95 & I-11 direction, the revised sign legend can easily fit within the existing panel's dimensions—the southbound signs probably would need to be wider, but there's plenty of space for that on the existing sign structures.
Just the other day, I did see a freeway entrance sign package for Summerlin Parkway. Saw it on Buffalo. I'm like, about time.
I don't see exit numbers ever going up though.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on May 23, 2024, 01:00:13 AMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2024, 07:26:34 PMI don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico...
Neither do I. In fact, I believe it has only a slim chance of being built south of I-40, and almost no chance of being built south of I-8, or even I-10.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: US 93 between I-40 and Wickenburg will be upgraded to 4 lanes the entire way, but as far as upgrading to full Interstate standards... there are too many ranch turnoffs, not enough traffic, and only a few potential interchanges (existing intersections at AZ 89, 71, and 97, plus a new one at Wickieup) to make it worthwhile.
In my personal opinion, I find I-11 pointless. I agree on US 93 being built out as a four lane (divided and/or undivided) highway. Should be more than enough. I'd rather 11 be intrastate and go between Reno and Vegas and even that is essentially impossible to justify. I honestly don't ever see it reaching Mexico, let alone Canada.
Local news article on I-11: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/05/22/interstate-11-signs-going-up-las-vegas-mexico-to-canada-interstate-plans-move-forward/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 28, 2024, 06:04:43 PMLocal news article on I-11: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/05/22/interstate-11-signs-going-up-las-vegas-mexico-to-canada-interstate-plans-move-forward/
Same press release, different day.
Does NDOT really say that it "will" go all the way to Mexico and Canada? That attitude reminds me of those extravagant developments that daft dreamers launch out in the desert that remain giant webs of little paths scratched in the dirt fifty years later. No, I think I-11 will end up being a respectable road, at best comparable to I-8.
Quote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 03:34:36 AMDoes NDOT really say that it "will" go all the way to Mexico and Canada? That attitude reminds me of those extravagant developments that daft dreamers launch out in the desert that remain giant webs of little paths scratched in the dirt fifty years later. No, I think I-11 will end up being a respectable road, at best comparable to I-8.
I don't think so. I don't think I've ever read any proposal to extend I-11 north of I-80 outside of users here pontificating. In fact, doesn't the Canada-Mexico corridor often citied with I-11 join I-15 in Vegas and take that to Canada?
The Interstate 11 and Interstate 515 pages on Wikipedia have been updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_11; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515. 515 is now considered decommissioned and Interstate 11 has been extended to NV 157. Now all they have to do is renumber the exits north of Interstate 215 to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage.
Quote from: vdeane on May 29, 2024, 12:55:59 PMQuote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 03:34:36 AMDoes NDOT really say that it "will" go all the way to Mexico and Canada? That attitude reminds me of those extravagant developments that daft dreamers launch out in the desert that remain giant webs of little paths scratched in the dirt fifty years later. No, I think I-11 will end up being a respectable road, at best comparable to I-8.
I don't think so. I don't think I've ever read any proposal to extend I-11 north of I-80 outside of users here pontificating. In fact, doesn't the Canada-Mexico corridor often citied with I-11 join I-15 in Vegas and take that to Canada?
That would make sense. There really isn't anywhere that high-volume long-haul truckers need to go in Canada between Vancouver and Calgary.
There have been some very general and aspirational proposals to send I-11 to the Willamette Valley, Spokane, or Boise, using either US 95 or US 395 north of I-80. None of these warrant it and all would have some serious terrain issues to deal with. 95 north of Winnemucca warrants some improvements in the form of passing lanes, but a full freeway is overkill. These are 65-70 MPH surface roads and you'd get little time reduction with freeway limits.
Quote from: cl94 on May 29, 2024, 11:49:13 PMThere have been some very general and aspirational proposals to send I-11 to the Willamette Valley, Spokane, or Boise, using either US 95 or US 395 north of I-80. None of these warrant it and all would have some serious terrain issues to deal with. 95 north of Winnemucca warrants some improvements in the form of passing lanes, but a full freeway is overkill. These are 65-70 MPH surface roads and you'd get little time reduction with freeway limits.
Yes. Most of the benefit will come from upgrading from two lanes to four-lane divided. Full limited access will add almost nothing. I drive 395 from Reno down to SoCal two or three times a year and outside the cities and towns, the road flies. Any section of that that is already four-lane divided will not benefit from making it limited access.
Quote from: US 395 on May 28, 2024, 05:14:19 PMJust the other day, I did see a freeway entrance sign package for Summerlin Parkway. Saw it on Buffalo. I'm like, about time.
I don't see exit numbers ever going up though.
I mentioned in another thread that there are now exit numbers on the west half of Summerlin Pkwy (including Nevada's first instance of "Exit 0").
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2024, 03:51:26 PMThe Interstate 11 and Interstate 515 pages on Wikipedia have been updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_11; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515. 515 is now considered decommissioned and Interstate 11 has been extended to NV 157. Now all they have to do is renumber the exits north of Interstate 215 to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage.
Those edits were a bit premature, given that the signing project mentioned on the last page hasn't even been awarded to a contractor yet...
Wikipedia may have jumped the gun in updating their Interstate 11 and 515 pages, but it's only a matter of time before the updates become current. As for those suggestions about sending Interstate 11 to Oregon or Washington state, while there was a study published a decade ago (http://i11study.com/IWC-Study/PDF/2014/I-11CCR_Report_2014-12_sm.pdf;), making it an Interstate 11 extension is a pipe dream worthy of Fictional Highways.
Quote from: vdeane on May 29, 2024, 12:55:59 PMQuote from: pderocco on May 29, 2024, 03:34:36 AMDoes NDOT really say that it "will" go all the way to Mexico and Canada? That attitude reminds me of those extravagant developments that daft dreamers launch out in the desert that remain giant webs of little paths scratched in the dirt fifty years later. No, I think I-11 will end up being a respectable road, at best comparable to I-8.
I don't think so. I don't think I've ever read any proposal to extend I-11 north of I-80 outside of users here pontificating. In fact, doesn't the Canada-Mexico corridor often citied with I-11 join I-15 in Vegas and take that to Canada?
Well, I-15 does point towards Calgary and Edmonton. :spin:
Mike
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2024, 12:05:13 PMWikipedia may have jumped the gun in updating their Interstate 11 and 515 pages, but it's only a matter of time before the updates become current. As for those suggestions about sending Interstate 11 to Oregon or Washington state, while there was a study published a decade ago (http://i11study.com/IWC-Study/PDF/2014/I-11CCR_Report_2014-12_sm.pdf;), making it an Interstate 11 extension is a pipe dream worthy of Fictional Highways.
Nah, as far as NDOT is concerned, I-515 is an ex-Interstate. It's pining for the fjords. Internal data has removed most references.
Quote from: The GhostbusterAs for those suggestions about sending Interstate 11 to Oregon or Washington state, while there was a study published a decade ago (http://i11study.com/IWC-Study/PDF/2014/I-11CCR_Report_2014-12_sm.pdf;), making it an Interstate 11 extension is a pipe dream worthy of Fictional Highways.
IMHO, I don't see any value extending I-11 up through Oregon to Washington, or another suggestion of routing up to Boise via Winnemucca. North of the Reno area I think it would be more beneficial to connect I-11 into the I-5 corridor somehow. Seattle, Portland and Vancouver BC are along that corridor. I've mentioned Klamath Falls and Medford as a possible merge point before.
It would be difficult (and costly) enough just building an Interstate quality link between Las Vegas and the Reno-Carson City area. They can tackle the "easy" stuff, such as extending the Interstate from the NV-156 intersection up to Indian Springs and the outskirts of Beatty. Even getting as far as Tonopah isn't all that bad. The tough thing is figuring out where to spur I-11 off of I-80
and where/how to connect it into the US-95 corridor.
Some can call it an extravagance, but I think it would be good if portions of US-95 along the way can be at least
double-barreled. The risk of head-on collisions is far lower on divided highways.
Las Vegas to Phoenix is probably going to be the more important focus for I-11 rather than Las Vegas to Reno.
I'd prefer I-21 is focused from Vegas to Phoenix. At this point ADOT seems to have studied pushing I-11 south to Mexico more than they have north from phoenix to the NV state line.
Quote from: cl94 on May 30, 2024, 06:29:45 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2024, 12:05:13 PMWikipedia may have jumped the gun in updating their Interstate 11 and 515 pages, but it's only a matter of time before the updates become current. As for those suggestions about sending Interstate 11 to Oregon or Washington state, while there was a study published a decade ago (http://i11study.com/IWC-Study/PDF/2014/I-11CCR_Report_2014-12_sm.pdf;), making it an Interstate 11 extension is a pipe dream worthy of Fictional Highways.
Nah, as far as NDOT is concerned, I-515 is an ex-Interstate. It's pining for the fjords. Internal data has removed most references.
Now if they can just handle their EXTERNAL references, as in, the references known and seen by the public. I predict there will be zombie I-515 signage on this route for at least another year.
Quote from: DenverBrian on May 30, 2024, 11:20:33 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 30, 2024, 06:29:45 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2024, 12:05:13 PMWikipedia may have jumped the gun in updating their Interstate 11 and 515 pages, but it's only a matter of time before the updates become current. As for those suggestions about sending Interstate 11 to Oregon or Washington state, while there was a study published a decade ago (http://i11study.com/IWC-Study/PDF/2014/I-11CCR_Report_2014-12_sm.pdf;), making it an Interstate 11 extension is a pipe dream worthy of Fictional Highways.
Nah, as far as NDOT is concerned, I-515 is an ex-Interstate. It's pining for the fjords. Internal data has removed most references.
Now if they can just handle their EXTERNAL references, as in, the references known and seen by the public. I predict there will be zombie I-515 signage on this route for at least another year.
Please, there are cases of routes in this state being signed 20+ years after they were truncated or decommissioned. NDOT has made little effort to remove NV 121 shields, and that was downgraded to tertiary in 2021. NV 430, NV 653, and NV 667 have shields on segments that were downloaded 20+ years ago. There are multiple US 395 shields remaining on a segment that was downgraded to SR (now US 395A) in the 80s/90s (depending on where), at least one having been replaced in kind within the past 4 months. Similarly, there are multiple signs in Reno pointing to I-580 that only reference US 395. I would not be shocked if 515 shields survive another 10-20+ years, especially on roads NDOT doesn't maintain, because the larger cities generally don't care.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Since when has zombie signage been bad? A good Easter Egg hunt never hurt anyone.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2024, 08:25:42 AMSince when has zombie signage been bad? A good Easter Egg hunt never hurt anyone.
Great for roadgeeks, more of an issue for people unfamiliar with an area trying to navigate (especially in the case of a route changing number rather than being removed completely).
Quote from: vdeane on May 31, 2024, 12:08:43 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2024, 08:25:42 AMSince when has zombie signage been bad? A good Easter Egg hunt never hurt anyone.
Great for roadgeeks, more of an issue for people unfamiliar with an area trying to navigate (especially in the case of a route changing number rather than being removed completely).
Normal people pay attention to signage?
Even more, I'd bet that people keep calling it "515" for another decade or two. See how old-timers in Northern Nevada still refer to "highway 40".
Has anyone ever called it 515?
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2024, 05:47:19 PMEven more, I'd bet that people keep calling it "515" for another decade or two. See how old-timers in Northern Nevada still refer to "highway 40".
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 31, 2024, 07:08:07 PMHas anyone ever called it 515?
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2024, 05:47:19 PMEven more, I'd bet that people keep calling it "515" for another decade or two. See how old-timers in Northern Nevada still refer to "highway 40".
My wife and my best friends are from Vegas and as far as they (and other Vegas folk) are concerned, it's the 95. 515/11 and 93 doesn't exist to them.
Quote from: lstone19 on May 30, 2024, 09:39:55 AMQuote from: cl94 on May 29, 2024, 11:49:13 PMThere have been some very general and aspirational proposals to send I-11 to the Willamette Valley, Spokane, or Boise, using either US 95 or US 395 north of I-80. None of these warrant it and all would have some serious terrain issues to deal with. 95 north of Winnemucca warrants some improvements in the form of passing lanes, but a full freeway is overkill. These are 65-70 MPH surface roads and you'd get little time reduction with freeway limits.
Yes. Most of the benefit will come from upgrading from two lanes to four-lane divided. Full limited access will add almost nothing. I drive 395 from Reno down to SoCal two or three times a year and outside the cities and towns, the road flies. Any section of that that is already four-lane divided will not benefit from making it limited access.
I've driven 395 and 14 between Reno and Los Angeles and yes, it's a breeze. The vast majority of the route is four lanes divided and undivided. I feel much better driving that road at night compared to 95. It's a shame that 95 couldn't get a similar treatment. Would definitely help cut down on the fatal accidents that happen on that road.
QuoteI've driven 395 and 14 between Reno and Los Angeles and yes, it's a breeze.
It will get even better when the 4-laning is done around Olancha, though the two-lane sections in northern Mono county will probably not ever change (no current justification and lots of environmental issues).
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 01, 2024, 11:39:43 AMQuoteI've driven 395 and 14 between Reno and Los Angeles and yes, it's a breeze.
It will get even better when the 4-laning is done around Olancha, though the two-lane sections in northern Mono county will probably not ever change (no current justification and lots of environmental issues).
Not really needed. There are enough passing lanes or straight sections where you can pass that it's fairly easy to get around slow traffic. And even when you're stuck behind someone for a few minutes, it sure beats the continuous driving frustration on I-5.
A lot of the trucks dip into Nevada anyways on CA 167.
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2024, 01:12:40 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on May 30, 2024, 11:20:33 PMNow if they can just handle their EXTERNAL references, as in, the references known and seen by the public. I predict there will be zombie I-515 signage on this route for at least another year.
Please, there are cases of routes in this state being signed 20+ years after they were truncated or decommissioned. NDOT has made little effort to remove NV 121 shields, and that was downgraded to tertiary in 2021. NV 430, NV 653, and NV 667 have shields on segments that were downloaded 20+ years ago. There are multiple US 395 shields remaining on a segment that was downgraded to SR (now US 395A) in the 80s/90s (depending on where), at least one having been replaced in kind within the past 4 months. Similarly, there are multiple signs in Reno pointing to I-580 that only reference US 395. I would not be shocked if 515 shields survive another 10-20+ years, especially on roads NDOT doesn't maintain, because the larger cities generally don't care.
(personal opinion emphasized)
You don't even really need to predict the zombie 515 shields—the signing plans for this major sign replacement contract have multiple instances of existing 515 shields that are not being replaced
on purpose. I thought that it might just be sign replacement work that would be carried out by other projects, but it seems like an awful lot of outdated shields to leave in the field. I gotta think some of those are going to be forgotten about and will be around for a while.
Quote from: US 395 on May 31, 2024, 08:57:52 PMQuote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 31, 2024, 07:08:07 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 31, 2024, 05:47:19 PMEven more, I'd bet that people keep calling it "515" for another decade or two. See how old-timers in Northern Nevada still refer to "highway 40".
Has anyone ever called it 515?
My wife and my best friends are from Vegas and as far as they (and other Vegas folk) are concerned, it's the 95. 515/11 and 93 doesn't exist to them.
I grew up in Vegas as well, and still refer to it at 95 in any and all non-roadgeeking contexts. I'd say it took about 10 years for references to I-515 to catch on locally, but even still I think it was used more by non-natives and in advertising & traffic reports—most locals I know call it "the 95".
I've always maintained that US 95 was more commonly referenced because it's the one route number that carries through on that freeway at the Spaghetti Bowl. With I-11 being cosigned with US 95 through the Spaghetti Bowl up to the edge of town, I'm willing to bet that references to I-11 will catch on much more quickly (but also that reference to US 95 will never really go away).
Quote from: US 395 on May 28, 2024, 05:14:19 PMJust the other day, I did see a freeway entrance sign package for Summerlin Parkway. Saw it on Buffalo. I'm like, about time.
I don't see exit numbers ever going up though.
But there's
only freeway entrance packages on Buffalo. No junctions, no advance signage. If you were expecting it to be signed as 613 you'd be out of luck until you're right on top of the ramps.
Rampart actually has a couple of BGSes now that acknowledge the 613 designation in the way you'd expect.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2024, 03:51:26 PMThe Interstate 11 and Interstate 515 pages on Wikipedia have been updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_11; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_515. 515 is now considered decommissioned and Interstate 11 has been extended to NV 157. Now all they have to do is renumber the exits north of Interstate 215 to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage.
They're only behind AARoads Wiki by about six months then. (The AARW I-11 article (https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Interstate_11) is quite a bit more logically organized as well.)
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 01, 2024, 11:39:43 AMQuoteI've driven 395 and 14 between Reno and Los Angeles and yes, it's a breeze.
It will get even better when the 4-laning is done around Olancha, though the two-lane sections in northern Mono county will probably not ever change (no current justification and lots of environmental issues).
That will definitely be a help. Should've been four-laned a long time ago.
I don't see that part of 395 from outside Gardnerville to Bridgeport being four-laned either. But it's not that big of a deal on that stretch. And it's pretty. Lol
Quote from: roadfro on June 01, 2024, 03:44:18 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 31, 2024, 01:12:40 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on May 30, 2024, 11:20:33 PMNow if they can just handle their EXTERNAL references, as in, the references known and seen by the public. I predict there will be zombie I-515 signage on this route for at least another year.
Please, there are cases of routes in this state being signed 20+ years after they were truncated or decommissioned. NDOT has made little effort to remove NV 121 shields, and that was downgraded to tertiary in 2021. NV 430, NV 653, and NV 667 have shields on segments that were downloaded 20+ years ago. There are multiple US 395 shields remaining on a segment that was downgraded to SR (now US 395A) in the 80s/90s (depending on where), at least one having been replaced in kind within the past 4 months. Similarly, there are multiple signs in Reno pointing to I-580 that only reference US 395. I would not be shocked if 515 shields survive another 10-20+ years, especially on roads NDOT doesn't maintain, because the larger cities generally don't care.
(personal opinion emphasized)
You don't even really need to predict the zombie 515 shields—the signing plans for this major sign replacement contract have multiple instances of existing 515 shields that are not being replaced on purpose. I thought that it might just be sign replacement work that would be carried out by other projects, but it seems like an awful lot of outdated shields to leave in the field. I gotta think some of those are going to be forgotten about and will be around for a while.
Quote from: US 395 on May 31, 2024, 08:57:52 PMQuote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 31, 2024, 07:08:07 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 31, 2024, 05:47:19 PMEven more, I'd bet that people keep calling it "515" for another decade or two. See how old-timers in Northern Nevada still refer to "highway 40".
Has anyone ever called it 515?
My wife and my best friends are from Vegas and as far as they (and other Vegas folk) are concerned, it's the 95. 515/11 and 93 doesn't exist to them.
I grew up in Vegas as well, and still refer to it at 95 in any and all non-roadgeeking contexts. I'd say it took about 10 years for references to I-515 to catch on locally, but even still I think it was used more by non-natives and in advertising & traffic reports—most locals I know call it "the 95".
I've always maintained that US 95 was more commonly referenced because it's the one route number that carries through on that freeway at the Spaghetti Bowl. With I-11 being cosigned with US 95 through the Spaghetti Bowl up to the edge of town, I'm willing to bet that references to I-11 will catch on much more quickly (but also that reference to US 95 will never really go away).
I asked my wife if she thinks that 11 will catch on. She says not a chance. She says Vegas folk are stubborn. Lol.
Quote from: US 395 on June 01, 2024, 07:15:37 PMI asked my wife if she thinks that 11 will catch on. She says not a chance. She says Vegas folk are stubborn. Lol.
We'll see. But it's easier to ignore a new road designation on part of a road when another part still only has the old designation. When the whole road ends up with a single new designation, it might catch on.
Quote from: pderocco on June 02, 2024, 05:36:45 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 01, 2024, 07:15:37 PMI asked my wife if she thinks that 11 will catch on. She says not a chance. She says Vegas folk are stubborn. Lol.
We'll see. But it's easier to ignore a new road designation on part of a road when another part still only has the old designation. When the whole road ends up with a single new designation, it might catch on.
Examples where the new designation or co-designation continues to be ignored by locals:
Highway 40 in St. Louis (has been part of I-64 since 1988)
Route 128 near Boston (3/4ths of it has been part of I-95 since the mid-1970s after the through-town sections got canceled, and in the threads on here about that, commenters often mention that the current signage deemphasizes 128 through the concurrency)
Google Maps has been updated to show the northern extension of the Interstate 11 designation to NV 157/Kyle Canyon Rd.: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2013029,-115.1457245,40548m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.
I separated the discussion on clinched highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28574.msg2926236#msg2926236) and merged it into the What do you Count/Not Count When Clinching? thread, one of the more "recent" threads covering the subject of clinching. The moved posts start with DenverBrian's:
QuoteI wonder how many on here who have "clinched" I-11 will need to re-clinch? :-D
Also debating merging them with the Classes of "Clinching" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32039.0) thread, which is a year newer. But the premise seems to fall more in line with the What do you Count/Not Count When Clinching? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28574.0) thread.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 30, 2024, 07:35:59 PMI'd prefer I-21 is focused from Vegas to Phoenix. At this point ADOT seems to have studied pushing I-11 south to Mexico more than they have north from phoenix to the NV state line.
Unless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico. At most, I-11 could take over AZ 85 to I-8.
I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMUnless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico. At most, I-11 could take over AZ 85 to I-8.
I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
That would be the most obvious option. Connect AZ 85 to a new I-11 coming south from Wickenburg, with the newer section of AZ 85 south of I-10 becoming part of I-11. Terminus would be I-8. Obviously, this would mean I-11 does not enter Phoenix directly, but does it really need to? It would work as a bypass/connector for the southwestern metro.
As for building I-11 south to the border and overlapping I-19, what's the point? The existing roads (I-8, I-10, I-19) are adequate.
And maybe I-11 could be extended north to Reno or I-80, though there are the questions of low traffic counts and terrain. Plus, does Nevada really want to encourage population growth in areas without a more stable water supply? As for I-11 extended between I-80 and the Canadian border, that's crazy. Perhaps a connection between I-80 and I-84, but beyond that is overkill.
I just find it amusing that there is such a "build and they will come" mentality really driving what is going on with I-11. History tells us (specifically with all the I-70 Nevada concepts) that sooner or later reality will settle in and things won't get built. West of the White Tank Mountains and north of Vegas both seem equally absurd to me.
I agree here, construct a continuous 'no intersection turns' surface route between the NW corner of the as Vegas metro area and I-580 south of Carson City and make any further upgrades as traffic conditions warrant and available funding allows. "FOR [I-11] to (Reno or Las Vegas) FOLLOW [US 95]".
Mike
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMUnless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico.
Honestly, given Arizona's proposals, that seems to be exactly what they are planning. As for why, who knows? I can't help but wonder if they see this as a way to overcome the local resistance to renumbering I-19's exits to mile-based.
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 06, 2024, 10:50:21 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMUnless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico. At most, I-11 could take over AZ 85 to I-8.
I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
That would be the most obvious option. Connect AZ 85 to a new I-11 coming south from Wickenburg, with the newer section of AZ 85 south of I-10 becoming part of I-11. Terminus would be I-8. Obviously, this would mean I-11 does not enter Phoenix directly, but does it really need to? It would work as a bypass/connector for the southwestern metro.
As for building I-11 south to the border and overlapping I-19, what's the point? The existing roads (I-8, I-10, I-19) are adequate.
And maybe I-11 could be extended north to Reno or I-80, though there are the questions of low traffic counts and terrain. Plus, does Nevada really want to encourage population growth in areas without a more stable water supply? As for I-11 extended between I-80 and the Canadian border, that's crazy. Perhaps a connection between I-80 and I-84, but beyond that is overkill.
I-8 & AZ 85 are already advertised as a Phoenix bypass, so bringing I-11 over it would help if the goal is to divert more thru traffic out of Phoenix.
I'm not familiar with that part of the country, but not only the poor water supply, but discouraging development in mountainous areas that are experiencing more wildfires seems like something that would be in Nevada and California's best interest.
Also, depending on the route that's being proposed, it looks like there would be hardly any services between Reno and Bend, OR. They'd have to take it towards Alturas so people don't have to drive over 300 miles without food, gas and lodging.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 06, 2024, 11:20:14 AMI agree here, construct a continuous 'no intersection turns' surface route between the NW corner of the as Vegas metro area and I-580 south of Carson City and make any further upgrades as traffic conditions warrant and available funding allows. "FOR [I-11] to (Reno or Las Vegas) FOLLOW [US 95]".
Mike
Or maybe redefine what an Interstate highway is. It's been 70 years since the original plan, which never really contemplated ultra-rural Interstates - remember, I-70 originally was going to end at Denver.
Maybe the road is upgraded to four-lane expressway or even "super 2" (already precedent for that in New Hampshire) and it gets I-11 shields that way.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on May 30, 2024, 07:35:59 PMI'd prefer I-21 is focused from Vegas to Phoenix. At this point ADOT seems to have studied pushing I-11 south to Mexico more than they have north from phoenix to the NV state line.
Unless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico. At most, I-11 could take over AZ 85 to I-8.
I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
You're thinking building I-11 to Salem or Portland or Seattle would cause an increase in truck traffic? That seems very unlikely. The roads there now move at the speed limit, or faster. There must be some uses for that money somewhere that would improve conditions. (Maybe if Oregon wanted to post interstate speed limits higher than 60 mph, maybe.)
Quote from: kkt on June 06, 2024, 01:57:11 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on May 30, 2024, 07:35:59 PMI'd prefer I-21 is focused from Vegas to Phoenix. At this point ADOT seems to have studied pushing I-11 south to Mexico more than they have north from phoenix to the NV state line.
Unless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico. At most, I-11 could take over AZ 85 to I-8.
I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
You're thinking building I-11 to Salem or Portland or Seattle would cause an increase in truck traffic? That seems very unlikely. The roads there now move at the speed limit, or faster. There must be some uses for that money somewhere that would improve conditions. (Maybe if Oregon wanted to post interstate speed limits higher than 60 mph, maybe.)
I was referring to the Phoenix-Las Vegas segment may bump truck traffic, maybe not significantly. Just doing quick measurements on Google, west of San Antonio it might be faster using a I-10-11-15-84 to get to either Portland, Seattle or Vancouver. Distance-wise, it's shorter to go up through Fort Worth-Denver-Laramie-Salt Lake to get to 84.
Quote from: kkt on June 06, 2024, 01:57:11 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on May 30, 2024, 07:35:59 PMI'd prefer I-21 is focused from Vegas to Phoenix. At this point ADOT seems to have studied pushing I-11 south to Mexico more than they have north from phoenix to the NV state line.
Unless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico. At most, I-11 could take over AZ 85 to I-8.
I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
You're thinking building I-11 to Salem or Portland or Seattle would cause an increase in truck traffic? That seems very unlikely. The roads there now move at the speed limit, or faster. There must be some uses for that money somewhere that would improve conditions. (Maybe if Oregon wanted to post interstate speed limits higher than 60 mph, maybe.)Oregon's rural interstate speed limit is 65 and in some cases 70 mph.
Quote from: vdeane on June 06, 2024, 12:46:23 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 06, 2024, 09:05:44 AMUnless Arizona is planning to replace I-19, I don't see the point in extending I-11 all the way to Mexico.
Honestly, given Arizona's proposals, that seems to be exactly what they are planning. As for why, who knows? I can't help but wonder if they see this as a way to overcome the local resistance to renumbering I-19's exits to mile-based.
Arizona is not going to spend a billion or so dollars just to have a freeway with mile markers. That's just stupid.
I doubt anyone really cares how markers are signed on I-19, just so long as the road is there.
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 06, 2024, 07:20:55 PMArizona is not going to spend a billion or so dollars just to have a freeway with mile markers. That's just stupid.
I doubt anyone really cares how markers are signed on I-19, just so long as the road is there.
ADOT did try to replace the metric signage with miles at one point. The locals were fiercely opposed. And I doubt replacing I-19 signs with I-11 signs would cost a billion dollars. If all they wanted to do was the stuff that will, then why have the line continue down I-19? Why not leave I-19 alone and have I-11 end near there? That begs the question as to
why they would want to replace I-19.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2024, 10:58:47 AMI just find it amusing that there is such a "build and they will come" mentality really driving what is going on with I-11. History tells us (specifically with all the I-70 Nevada concepts) that sooner or later reality will settle in and things won't get built. West of the White Tank Mountains and north of Vegas both seem equally absurd to me.
Something that has been overlooked here is that there is a lot of industrial growth in the Reno area, mostly driven by Tesla establishing facilities there. Could it be possible that Northern Nevada interests are leaning on NDOT to provide a better route
south to the I-40 and I-10 corridors toward Texas, and that's why they're studying it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 06, 2024, 09:43:10 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2024, 10:58:47 AMI just find it amusing that there is such a "build and they will come" mentality really driving what is going on with I-11. History tells us (specifically with all the I-70 Nevada concepts) that sooner or later reality will settle in and things won't get built. West of the White Tank Mountains and north of Vegas both seem equally absurd to me.
Something that has been overlooked here is that there is a lot of industrial growth in the Reno area, mostly driven by Tesla establishing facilities there. Could it be possible that Northern Nevada interests are leaning on NDOT to provide a better route south to the I-40 and I-10 corridors toward Texas, and that's why they're studying it?
Perhaps, all the same the presence of that Tesla plant to me never really had a noticeable effect on US 95 south of Fallon.
Another Northern Nevada development that could impact the state's transportation needs is the big lithium mine at Thacker Pass, north of Winnemucca, that's being stood up. While the obvious place for that lithium to go to is the Tesla facilities in the Reno area, there are also battery manufacturing facilities in Henderson.
I guess we'll see what NDOT says about feasibility for the Indian Springs segment and especially afterward. The results of those studies will tell us a lot about how seriously they're taking this I-11 to Reno thing and whether they see anything that we don't.
Quote from: vdeane on June 06, 2024, 08:55:33 PMQuote from: FightingIrish on June 06, 2024, 07:20:55 PMArizona is not going to spend a billion or so dollars just to have a freeway with mile markers. That's just stupid.
I doubt anyone really cares how markers are signed on I-19, just so long as the road is there.
ADOT did try to replace the metric signage with miles at one point. The locals were fiercely opposed. And I doubt replacing I-19 signs with I-11 signs would cost a billion dollars. If all they wanted to do was the stuff that will, then why have the line continue down I-19? Why not leave I-19 alone and have I-11 end near there? That begs the question as to why they would want to replace I-19.
I didn't say that it would cost a billion dollars or so to replace signs. But building a parallel highway, as has been proposed in a few cases, would definitely hit that mark.
And a duplex with 11/19 would be really pointless. I'm proposing running I-11 down the new AZ 85, south of I-10 to a terminus with I-8 in Gila Bend. Shouldn't be too tough to connect interstates between Gila Bend and Nogales.
There is a lot of National Monument lane south of I-8 which push any freeway corridor fairly close to I-10. Besides, it isn't like there is a great deal of development west of I-10 that really needs a freeway to serve it. Again, it is this build it and they will come mentality that doesn't make much sense.
Quote from: PColumbus73I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
I don't see how I-11 would provide any benefit to New Mexico or Texas
(much less Oklahoma).
I also agree I-11 to Reno might not be worth doing at all unless I-11 went farther North to tie into the I-5 corridor. That would give the Phoenix and Vegas metros direct Interstate links to the Portland, Seattle and Vancouver BC metros. I-11 would be a real "NAFTA" highway in that regard.
The Vegas to Phoenix link is the primary leg of I-11, whether any of the lawmakers involved with this thing want to admit it. This stupid crap of diverting I-11 way out West of Buckeye is just some pork-barrel string pulling to attempt helping some home developers trying to build
planned communities out in the middle of nowhere. With America's residential real estate market in an even worse price bubble than 20 years ago, and considering the long term demographic decline America is now facing, this I-11 to Buckeye idea looks even more stupid than ever.
Bare minimum: I-11 should be tying into the AZ-303 loop either directly or with a 3-digit Interstate spur. Again, Vegas to Phoenix is the main purpose of the route.
Nogales is one of the lesser commercial points of entry along the US/Mexico border. Having dueling Interstate routes going down there would be a huge waste of money. If traffic on I-19 picks up they have plenty of room in that Interstate's ROW to add more lanes. They have enough room within Nogales to widen it from 2x2 to 4x4 lanes. The same goes for the rest of the Interstate. I-11 shouldn't be seen as a back-handed way to build a partial loop around Tucson. Let the anti-freeway folks in Tucson choke on their stop and go surface street traffic. They've had numerous opportunities over the decades to build "I-210" and other routes. Instead they squandered it.
Quote from: Scott5114Something that has been overlooked here is that there is a lot of industrial growth in the Reno area, mostly driven by Tesla establishing facilities there. Could it be possible that Northern Nevada interests are leaning on NDOT to provide a better route south to the I-40 and I-10 corridors toward Texas, and that's why they're studying it?
I think the NV-439 corridor in Clark is really the spot where I-11 needs to connect into I-80. The big logistics hub is there, including Tesla's Gigafactory. Most of the existing NV-439 4-lane highway could be upgraded to Interstate standards down to Silver Springs and the US-50 corridor. From there it would be fairly easy to extend a new freeway to US-95 near Schurz. The question from there is whether to have I-11 wind its way along US-95 thru Walker Lake (on a very not-direct path) or bypass all that in favor of a far more direct path to Tonopah. Just for starters they need to get the connection with I-80 established. Then they can build on two disconnected segments of I-11 until they meet somewhere in the desert.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 07, 2024, 10:47:24 AMQuote from: PColumbus73I think there could be a bump in truck traffic from the southern states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, maybe Oklahoma specifically going northwest, but until there's a plan to take I-11 across the Cascades / Sierra Nevada, the Las Vegas-Reno section might not be worth it.
I don't see how I-11 would provide any benefit to New Mexico or Texas (much less Oklahoma).
I also agree I-11 to Reno might not be worth doing at all unless I-11 went farther North to tie into the I-5 corridor. That would give the Phoenix and Vegas metros direct Interstate links to the Portland, Seattle and Vancouver BC metros. I-11 would be a real "NAFTA" highway in that regard.
The Vegas to Phoenix link is the primary leg of I-11, whether any of the lawmakers involved with this thing want to admit it. This stupid crap of diverting I-11 way out West of Buckeye is just some pork-barrel string pulling to attempt helping some home developers trying to build planned communities out in the middle of nowhere. With America's residential real estate market in an even worse price bubble than 20 years ago, and considering the long term demographic decline America is now facing, this I-11 to Buckeye idea looks even more stupid than ever.
Bare minimum: I-11 should be tying into the AZ-303 loop either directly or with a 3-digit Interstate spur. Again, Vegas to Phoenix is the main purpose of the route.
Nogales is one of the lesser commercial points of entry along the US/Mexico border. Having dueling Interstate routes going down there would be a huge waste of money. If traffic on I-19 picks up they have plenty of room in that Interstate's ROW to add more lanes. They have enough room within Nogales to widen it from 2x2 to 4x4 lanes. The same goes for the rest of the Interstate. I-11 shouldn't be seen as a back-handed way to build a partial loop around Tucson. Let the anti-freeway folks in Tucson choke on their stop and go surface street traffic. They've had numerous opportunities over the decades to build "I-210" and other routes. Instead they squandered it.
Quote from: Scott5114Something that has been overlooked here is that there is a lot of industrial growth in the Reno area, mostly driven by Tesla establishing facilities there. Could it be possible that Northern Nevada interests are leaning on NDOT to provide a better route south to the I-40 and I-10 corridors toward Texas, and that's why they're studying it?
I think the NV-439 corridor in Clark is really the spot where I-11 needs to connect into I-80. The big logistics hub is there, including Tesla's Gigafactory. Most of the existing NV-439 4-lane highway could be upgraded to Interstate standards down to Silver Springs and the US-50 corridor. From there it would be fairly easy to extend a new freeway to US-95 near Schurz. The question from there is whether to have I-11 wind its way along US-95 thru Walker Lake (on a very not-direct path) or bypass all that in favor of a far more direct path to Tonopah. Just for starters they need to get the connection with I-80 established. Then they can build on two disconnected segments of I-11 until they meet somewhere in the desert.
I'd think they'd want it to connect into existing 580, but then that leaves a long jog that the route has to take over some mountains to connect around Walker Lake.
Quote from: FightingIrish on June 07, 2024, 09:01:04 AMI didn't say that it would cost a billion dollars or so to replace signs. But building a parallel highway, as has been proposed in a few cases, would definitely hit that mark.
And a duplex with 11/19 would be really pointless. I'm proposing running I-11 down the new AZ 85, south of I-10 to a terminus with I-8 in Gila Bend. Shouldn't be too tough to connect interstates between Gila Bend and Nogales.
I expect they would try to make I-11 parallel to I-10 and go to Tucson regardless of what they do south of there since that bit is proposed as a favor to housing developers. I don't see them building a parallel road to I-19; instead it seems that they'll route I-11 down I-19 for no reason, probably decommissioning I-19 in the process.
Quote from: VoyagerI'd think they'd want it to connect into existing 580, but then that leaves a long jog that the route has to take over some mountains to connect around Walker Lake.
If the United States didn't suck so damned badly at building tunnels an East-West route from Smith Valley thru the mountains next to Walker Lake would be possible.
Americans can build tunnels, but not without it costing billions upon billions of dollars. I look over at Japan and marvel at the number of railroad and highway tunnels they have there. Some of those tunnels are really long too. We just can't manage to do that here. We suck.
I think it's more realistic to start an I-11 route in Clark, where all those big logistics facilities are located. Even if a new freeway would have to be elevated over portions of the existing NV-439 surface street I don't think there would be any objections. There are no homes there. Just gigantic warehouses and assembly plants.
Clark is 15 miles closer to Reno & Sparks than Fernley (the site where some are proposing I-11 connect into I-80).
I really don't like the very crooked route US-95 takes from Tonopah to Schurz (due to all the mountains along that way). And I don't think it's necessary for I-11 to go through Hawthorne either. It's possible for I-11 to take a far more direct route from Tonopah to Schurz by bypassing Walker Lake to the East. Building I-11 over/along Pole Line Road would shave a bunch of miles off the route. In the towns of Hawthorne and Babbit there isn't enough room to expand US-95 into an Interstate with frontage roads. The Army Ammunition Depot there prevents any other alignments from being considered; the only option is upgrading along existing US-95. It would just be easier to bypass all of that. The military might be just fine with that too; better for security purposes.
Quote from: vdeaneI expect they would try to make I-11 parallel to I-10 and go to Tucson regardless of what they do south of there since that bit is proposed as a favor to housing developers. I don't see them building a parallel road to I-19; instead it seems that they'll route I-11 down I-19 for no reason, probably decommissioning I-19 in the process.
I think the most likely way I-11
ends is simply terminating at I-10 near the Sun Valley Parkway exit. I don't expect it to ever get extended down to the Maricopa and Casa Grande areas, much less extending farther down to Tucson. It's going to take decades for this highway to be built. 20 or so years from now, when more of I-11 is being fleshed out between Las Vegas and Phoenix, the scope of America's looming demographics disaster will become more clear. Those McMansion developments out West of the White Tank mountains will be turning into financial disaster zones. So will many other old folks communities around the Phoenix area.
If I-11 ever gets extended South of I-10 I think the most likely scenario is an upgrade of AZ-85 from Buckeye to Gila Bend.
I wouldn't mind seeing I-19 redesignated as I-11. The I-19 number could be freed up and used elsewhere in maybe Utah or Idaho. But that would require successfully building an I-11 South outer loop through the Maricopa and Casa Grande areas, places where there is a lot of tribal population and resistance to any highway building efforts.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 07, 2024, 02:09:02 PMQuote from: VoyagerI'd think they'd want it to connect into existing 580, but then that leaves a long jog that the route has to take over some mountains to connect around Walker Lake.
If the United States didn't suck so damned badly at building tunnels an East-West route from Smith Valley thru the mountains next to Walker Lake would be possible.
Americans can build tunnels, but not without it costing billions upon billions of dollars. I look over at Japan and marvel at the number of railroad and highway tunnels they have there. Some of those tunnels are really long too. We just can't manage to do that here. We suck.
The Yamate Tunnel in Tokyo that carries the C2 expressway cost approximately 118 billion USD (the article says 93 billion British pounds) -
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1884958/yamate-tunnel-japan-second-longest-worldIt is also, like most of Japan's expressways, a toll route.
To put this in perspective, the California High Speed Rail project is projected to cost around that same range or higher at full build-out.
Indian Springs (FUTURE I-11) alignment options...
Option 1: Bypass
Option 2: Split
Option 3: Lowered on existing US 95 alignment
Option 4: Raised on existing US 95 alignment
The split option seems like a loooooooong stretch of one way, one lane road.
I don't see Interstate 11 extended beyond NV 157 any time soon. It is good that they are looking at alternatives for the Indian Springs area. That will be the biggest part of getting Interstate 11 extended further up US 95.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2024, 08:47:26 PMI don't see Interstate 11 extended beyond NV 157 any time soon. It is good that they are looking at alternatives for the Indian Springs area. That will be the biggest part of getting Interstate 11 extended further up US 95.
While I-11 may not be needed for a while as a full freeway past NV 157, a single interchange serving both Indian Springs and Creech AFB would go a long way. And judging from the raised alternative, it looks like NDOT already has a preferred alternative in mind for that interchange (on the east side of both the town and the air force base).
Going back to where I-11 would hit I-80 if it ever gets that far, preferred alternatives have it hitting in Fernley. The area around Exit 32 has frequent driveway access, TRIC is only going to continue expanding, and there's a lot of rough terrain in there. NV 439 is not expressway grade and there are no plans to make it such. How it gets from Walker Lake to Fernley is up for debate, but Fernley is where NDOT has it ending.
Why Fernley, despite a routing along 95A and 439 being slightly shorter? Far smoother terrain, more that could be easily upgraded in place, and it would provide a connection to NAS Fallon. Even now, 95A-50-439 is only slightly faster than 95A-80 or 95-50-50A-80, and I routinely will choose one of the latter two routes if heading NB to take advantage of cheaper gas in Fernley. I will also note that Fernley is becoming a distribution hub in its own right, so it would make sense to have something that could serve both Fernley and TRIC.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 07, 2024, 10:47:24 AMI don't see how I-11 would provide any benefit to New Mexico or Texas (much less Oklahoma).
Guess which Interstate I took when I moved out of Oklahoma. :bigass:
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 07, 2024, 02:09:02 PMQuote from: VoyagerI'd think they'd want it to connect into existing 580, but then that leaves a long jog that the route has to take over some mountains to connect around Walker Lake.
If the United States didn't suck so damned badly at building tunnels an East-West route from Smith Valley thru the mountains next to Walker Lake would be possible.
Americans can build tunnels, but not without it costing billions upon billions of dollars. I look over at Japan and marvel at the number of railroad and highway tunnels they have there. Some of those tunnels are really long too. We just can't manage to do that here. We suck.
I think it's more realistic to start an I-11 route in Clark, where all those big logistics facilities are located. Even if a new freeway would have to be elevated over portions of the existing NV-439 surface street I don't think there would be any objections. There are no homes there. Just gigantic warehouses and assembly plants.
Clark is 15 miles closer to Reno & Sparks than Fernley (the site where some are proposing I-11 connect into I-80).
I really don't like the very crooked route US-95 takes from Tonopah to Schurz (due to all the mountains along that way). And I don't think it's necessary for I-11 to go through Hawthorne either. It's possible for I-11 to take a far more direct route from Tonopah to Schurz by bypassing Walker Lake to the East. Building I-11 over/along Pole Line Road would shave a bunch of miles off the route. In the towns of Hawthorne and Babbit there isn't enough room to expand US-95 into an Interstate with frontage roads. The Army Ammunition Depot there prevents any other alignments from being considered; the only option is upgrading along existing US-95. It would just be easier to bypass all of that. The military might be just fine with that too; better for security purposes.
Quote from: vdeaneI expect they would try to make I-11 parallel to I-10 and go to Tucson regardless of what they do south of there since that bit is proposed as a favor to housing developers. I don't see them building a parallel road to I-19; instead it seems that they'll route I-11 down I-19 for no reason, probably decommissioning I-19 in the process.
I think the most likely way I-11 ends is simply terminating at I-10 near the Sun Valley Parkway exit. I don't expect it to ever get extended down to the Maricopa and Casa Grande areas, much less extending farther down to Tucson. It's going to take decades for this highway to be built. 20 or so years from now, when more of I-11 is being fleshed out between Las Vegas and Phoenix, the scope of America's looming demographics disaster will become more clear. Those McMansion developments out West of the White Tank mountains will be turning into financial disaster zones. So will many other old folks communities around the Phoenix area.
If I-11 ever gets extended South of I-10 I think the most likely scenario is an upgrade of AZ-85 from Buckeye to Gila Bend.
I wouldn't mind seeing I-19 redesignated as I-11. The I-19 number could be freed up and used elsewhere in maybe Utah or Idaho. But that would require successfully building an I-11 South outer loop through the Maricopa and Casa Grande areas, places where there is a lot of tribal population and resistance to any highway building efforts.
I-19 is fine as-is. There is zero need for running more N-S interstate highways through Utah and Idaho. The mountains, sparse population, environmental concerns and low traffic counts negate the whole idea.
And, as I said before, running a separate interstate (I-11) south and parallel to I-8 is a foolish waste of money and a major headache. AZ 85 to I-8 will work fine. And it doesn't matter if and/or when housing developments start sprouting around Buckeye. It's referred to as the Phoenix Bypass, and for heavy truck freight traffic between Nogales, Las Vegas and I-15 north to the Canadian border, it looks like a pretty good idea, as it frees up I-10 congestion in the immediate Phoenix area. And a combo of I-10 and I-11 provides a direct interstate connection between Phoenix and Las Vegas. It seems like the smart, economical choice.
Quote from: cl94 on June 08, 2024, 12:56:36 AMGoing back to where I-11 would hit I-80 if it ever gets that far, preferred alternatives have it hitting in Fernley. The area around Exit 32 has frequent driveway access, TRIC is only going to continue expanding, and there's a lot of rough terrain in there. NV 439 is not expressway grade and there are no plans to make it such. How it gets from Walker Lake to Fernley is up for debate, but Fernley is where NDOT has it ending.
Why Fernley, despite a routing along 95A and 439 being slightly shorter? Far smoother terrain, more that could be easily upgraded in place, and it would provide a connection to NAS Fallon. Even now, 95A-50-439 is only slightly faster than 95A-80 or 95-50-50A-80, and I routinely will choose one of the latter two routes if heading NB to take advantage of cheaper gas in Fernley. I will also note that Fernley is becoming a distribution hub in its own right, so it would make sense to have something that could serve both Fernley and TRIC.
Then, when circumstances warrant it, they could build a spur to Carson City along US-50 and call it I-111.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 08, 2024, 07:03:13 AM
Interesting that they focused solely on the change from US-95 to I-11. Poor I-515, the red headed stepchild of Nevada shields, now dead. :)
Quote from: cl94 on June 08, 2024, 12:56:36 AMGoing back to where I-11 would hit I-80 if it ever gets that far, preferred alternatives have it hitting in Fernley. The area around Exit 32 has frequent driveway access, TRIC is only going to continue expanding, and there's a lot of rough terrain in there. NV 439 is not expressway grade and there are no plans to make it such. How it gets from Walker Lake to Fernley is up for debate, but Fernley is where NDOT has it ending.
Why Fernley, despite a routing along 95A and 439 being slightly shorter? Far smoother terrain, more that could be easily upgraded in place, and it would provide a connection to NAS Fallon. Even now, 95A-50-439 is only slightly faster than 95A-80 or 95-50-50A-80, and I routinely will choose one of the latter two routes if heading NB to take advantage of cheaper gas in Fernley. I will also note that Fernley is becoming a distribution hub in its own right, so it would make sense to have something that could serve both Fernley and TRIC.
Guess directly connecting the only two metro areas of our state was never high enough on the totem pole. Shame.
Engineering constraints and cost. Why spend a ton more money to shave off a few minutes? Same reason I-11 itself isn't a super high priority- thanks to terrain, you may chop half an hour off of a 7-8 hour drive with a freeway. Not worth the many billions it would cost, especially if the feds won't kick in more funding for an Interstate designation. I assume much of the route would get a 75 MPH speed limit at most given terrain, but even 80 wouldn't significantly decrease travel times.
Nevada has much higher priorities than building a freeway along a corridor that sees 3-5k vehicles/day. The segment they're looking at now is cheap to convert, a high-crash corridor, and the busiest part of 95 north of Vegas. And I'm not even convinced the next round of upgrades will make that full freeway.
(personal opinion emphasized)
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/bc52e5ebdc5b430eaa3a9742f2abaa01
Here is NDOT's virtual public meeting on the future I-11 from Las Vegas (Kyle Canyon Road interchange) to the Mercury interchange.
Proposed Interchange Improvements
A set of 10 interchanges are proposed to be built or improved along U.S. 95 within the study corridor, along with a new truck parking facility. The existing Kyle Canyon Road interchange will remain as is. Generally, the new interchange configuration will consist of a traditional diamond layout, providing access to both sides of I-11 and maximizing the distance between the ramp terminals for future operational benefit.
Sheep Mountain Road Interchange (New): This interchange is proposed to connect to the planned Sheep Mountain Parkway corridor, which will provide north-south access west of CC-215 through the City of Las Vegas and Clark County.
Snow Mountain Interchange (Existing): This interchange currently provides access to the Las Vegas Paiute tribal land and golf course. The Snow Mountain interchange would remain as is, although the geometric layout of the ramps do not meet current interstate design standards for increased speeds and would be reconstructed with larger curves. In addition, a new access road to Tule Springs National Monument will be constructed.
Corn Creek Road Interchange (New): This new interchange would provide access to the community of Corn Creek and the Corn Creek Visitor Center and Desert National Wildlife Refuge. A frontage road connection would also be constructed along the north side of existing U.S. 95 to provide connectivity to a popular public hiking trail head accessing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds.
Lee Canyon Road Interchange (Existing): A new interchange would replace the existing Lee Canyon Road and U.S. 95 intersection to provide interstate access to the Lee Canyon and Mt. Charleston recreation and residential areas south of U.S. 95 and a connection to the Creech AFB facility known as 63C to the north of U.S. 95. Upgrading the existing at-grade intersection will eliminate the crashes that commonly occur at this location.
Truck Parking Facility: A new truck parking facility will be constructed that provides a safe pull off area for long-haul trucks to rest. No additional facilities will be constructed at this location.
Cold Creek Road Interchange (New): An interchange would replace the existing at-grade intersection that provides access to the Southern Desert Correctional Center and the community of Cold Creek. A frontage road will be built on the north side of existing U.S. 95 to provide access to the Creech AFB facility known as Point Bravo.
Indian Springs Interchanges (2) (New): These interchanges will be placed on both ends of the community, as shown in the "Corridor Alternatives at Indian Springs" section.
Big Timber Spring Interchange (New): A new interchange would be constructed at this location to provide access to public lands located south of U.S. 95. This would replace the existing at grade intersection.
Rock Spring Interchange (New): A new interchange would be constructed at this location to provide access to public lands located south of U.S. 95. This would replace the existing at grade intersection.
Mercury Interchange (Existing): The existing Mercury interchange would be replaced to meet interstate standards and improve access to and from the USDOE facilities to the north of U.S. 95.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 11, 2024, 12:00:40 AMLee Canyon Road Interchange (Existing): A new interchange would replace the existing Lee Canyon Road and U.S. 95 intersection to provide interstate access to the Lee Canyon and Mt. Charleston recreation and residential areas south of U.S. 95 and a connection to the Creech AFB facility known as 63C to the north of U.S. 95. Upgrading the existing at-grade intersection will eliminate the crashes that commonly occur at this location.
I'm curious why they call this "existing". Aren't most/all of the "new" interchanges also at existing at-grade intersections? What makes this one so special that it's noted similarly to the existing full interchanges?
Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2024, 12:59:13 PMQuote from: Great Lakes Roads on June 11, 2024, 12:00:40 AMLee Canyon Road Interchange (Existing): A new interchange would replace the existing Lee Canyon Road and U.S. 95 intersection to provide interstate access to the Lee Canyon and Mt. Charleston recreation and residential areas south of U.S. 95 and a connection to the Creech AFB facility known as 63C to the north of U.S. 95. Upgrading the existing at-grade intersection will eliminate the crashes that commonly occur at this location.
I'm curious why they call this "existing". Aren't most/all of the "new" interchanges also at existing at-grade intersections? What makes this one so special that it's noted similarly to the existing full interchanges?
I was wondering this myself. The only thing I can think of is that the southbound US 95 direction does have a separate right turn ramp to Lee Canyon Rd (there's actually an unnumbered exit gore sign too) and another ramp from Lee Canyon Rd to SB US 95. (Kyle Canyon Rd was set up the same way before the DDI was constructed.) But those improvements don't rise to the level of interchange, especially since northbound movements are at grade.
I'm honestly surprised by this level of research and work by NDOT. It's encouraging to see they're developing tangible plans moving forward.
What I see here are a couple of construction packages – maybe three packages – that can be funded one batch at a time from the Legislature. NDOT can go to Carson City in 2025 and ask for $150 million for the first 20 miles to Indian Springs, come back in '27 for the Indian Springs bypass, and then see where they're at in '29 and whether there's support for the segment to Mercury.
Simultaneous to that they can start design on the Mercury-to-Beatty segment so that it's ready for funding asks in the 2030s. It's a pretty slick approach if it's what they're doing, and it shows more momentum than I expected.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 07, 2024, 08:47:26 PMI don't see Interstate 11 extended beyond NV 157 any time soon. It is good that they are looking at alternatives for the Indian Springs area. That will be the biggest part of getting Interstate 11 extended further up US 95.
Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteWhat I see here are a couple of construction packages – maybe three packages – that can be funded one batch at a time from the Legislature. NDOT can go to Carson City in 2025 and ask for $150 million for the first 20 miles to Indian Springs, come back in '27 for the Indian Springs bypass, and then see where they're at in '29 and whether there's support for the segment to Mercury.
Regarding Indian Springs, a bypass isn't necessary. There is enough space for them to upgrade the existing US-95 highway to Interstate standards. Frontage roads are flanking US-95 for a couple of blocks in the brief main part of town. The existing median, which incorporates some left turn lanes, uses a good amount of space. That can be re-used by the freeway main lanes.
A bypass of Indian Springs probably wouldn't be feasible. Creech AFB borders the North side of the highway. The town is built from the South of the highway to the edge of the mountains. A South bypass of Indian Springs would have to go well South of town behind the first cluster of mountains. It would be less expensive (and less detrimental) to relocate the couple of businesses next to the road, if that was even necessary. The situation in Indian Springs looks a lot easier to deal with than the US-281 (Future I-69C) upgrade thru Falfurrias, TX.
Towns like Beatty and Tonopah pose more difficult Interstate routing problems. Tonopah will probably need a bypass around the South and West sides of Siebert Mountain and Mount Butler to get I-11 past that point. It doesn't look feasible at all to route I-11 into Tonopah. Beatty might be easier, but the route would have to skirt the town on its East side and could involve cuts into the neighboring hillsides.
I find it interesting that while Exit 99 (Snow Mountain) has its exit number signposted, Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) does not have its exit number posted in either direction (although it is marked on Google Maps). Probably because Exit 99 is a standard interchange near Las Vegas, while Exit 136 is a podunk, substandard interchange in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 12, 2024, 02:49:52 PMI'm honestly surprised by this level of research and work by NDOT. It's encouraging to see they're developing tangible plans moving forward. ... It's a pretty slick approach if it's what they're doing, and it shows more momentum than I expected.
Nevada's government is probably the most effective one I've ever worked with. (Though that isn't a terribly high bar to clear, I suppose.) I've been quite impressed by them in my time here.
None of this makes sense unless there is actual residential development going on along that corridor. That may happen to some degree, but it takes a lot of traffic to make it necessary to upgrade a 4-lane divided expressway to freeway, let alone Interstate, standards. If there's a busy intersection, say, at Indian Springs, they could grade separate it without doing the full monty.
I wonder if over the next 20 years there won't be more of a demand for upgrading the 160 corridor to Pahrump. That's the biggest population center within commuting distance from the LV area.
Quote from: pderocco on June 13, 2024, 02:30:24 AMNone of this makes sense unless there is actual residential development going on along that corridor.
There's an Air Force base in Indian Springs (Creech AFB), and the Mercury exit is basically a gate to the whole glob of top-secret stuff Area 51 is part of. So, if nothing else, this particular part of I-11 would be serving the "defense highway" mandate of the IHS by providing an all-freeway route between Nellis and Creech air force bases and Mercury.
Quote from: pderocco on June 13, 2024, 02:30:24 AMI wonder if over the next 20 years there won't be more of a demand for upgrading the 160 corridor to Pahrump. That's the biggest population center within commuting distance from the LV area.
In addition to Pahrump, the southwest part of the Las Vegas Valley is currently the hot spot for growth, and the median income in that part of the valley recently surpassed Summerlin and Henderson, according to local news reports. A lot of that growth is along the NV 160 (Blue Diamond Road) corridor. That being said, the NV 160 corridor is getting fairly built up, and it looks like there wouldn't be enough ROW to squeeze in a freeway east of Rainbow or so. So if you wanted to have a freeway that connects to I-15, you'd have to swing south and connect somewhere near the Sloan exit. The topography that far south starts getting dicey, though, so NDOT would have some hard choices to make regarding that corridor. (Kind of reminds me of the OK-9 corridor's connection to I-35, but with more mountains and rich people in the way.)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 12, 2024, 06:37:44 PMI find it interesting that while Exit 99 (Snow Mountain) has its exit number signposted, Exit 136 (Mercury Hwy.) does not have its exit number posted in either direction (although it is marked on Google Maps). Probably because Exit 99 is a standard interchange near Las Vegas, while Exit 136 is a podunk, substandard interchange in the middle of nowhere.
The Mercury interchange predates *all* of the exits on US 95 down to Jones Boulevard. When it was built, there were a lot of contractors commuting from Vegas to Mercury daily, so much so that there was even a Park & Ride lot up by the Ann Road crossing.
Have we learned nothing in the last 50 years?
Stop. Building. Interstates. Close. To. Or. Through. Communities.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 12, 2024, 03:39:21 PMQuote from: Sub-UrbaniteWhat I see here are a couple of construction packages – maybe three packages – that can be funded one batch at a time from the Legislature. NDOT can go to Carson City in 2025 and ask for $150 million for the first 20 miles to Indian Springs, come back in '27 for the Indian Springs bypass, and then see where they're at in '29 and whether there's support for the segment to Mercury.
Regarding Indian Springs, a bypass isn't necessary. There is enough space for them to upgrade the existing US-95 highway to Interstate standards. Frontage roads are flanking US-95 for a couple of blocks in the brief main part of town. The existing median, which incorporates some left turn lanes, uses a good amount of space. That can be re-used by the freeway main lanes.
Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteStop. Building. Interstates. Close. To. Or. Through. Communities.
Nothing in Indian Springs is going to get hurt by upgrading the existing US-95 highway into a freeway. As I said before, there is enough existing ROW to fit a freeway flanked by frontage roads and slip ramps.
A Family Dollar Store, a Big Boy convenience store and a post office building are the only properties that could potentially be affected. The Air Force Base is on the North side of the highway. The rest of the town is South of the highway, built up to the edge of the mountains. There is zero place for a freeway to squeeze in there. The existing highway and military base fences are already a barrier. It's not like an Interstate version of the highway would make it any worse.
As for not building Interstates in or near communities, as long as we continue to depend on motor vehicles to commute, run errands and do other things in highly populated environments super highways are going to be a necessary thing. We need them to move traffic in urbanized metros and we need them to move traffic to/from other metros.
Freeways shouldn't be 500 feet from homes, period.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/proximity-major-roadways#:~:text=Living%20near%20a%20major%20road,et%20al.%2C%202010).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2024, 12:39:19 PMQuote from: Sub-UrbaniteStop. Building. Interstates. Close. To. Or. Through. Communities.
Nothing in Indian Springs is going to get hurt by upgrading the existing US-95 highway into a freeway. As I said before, there is enough existing ROW to fit a freeway flanked by frontage roads and slip ramps.
A Family Dollar Store, a Big Boy convenience store and a post office building are the only properties that could potentially be affected. The Air Force Base is on the North side of the highway. The rest of the town is South of the highway, built up to the edge of the mountains. There is zero place for a freeway to squeeze in there. The existing highway and military base fences are already a barrier. It's not like an Interstate version of the highway would make it any worse.
As for not building Interstates in or near communities, as long as we continue to depend on motor vehicles to commute, run errands and do other things in highly populated environments super highways are going to be a necessary thing. We need them to move traffic in urbanized metros and we need them to move traffic to/from other metros.
But less than 500 feet from an at-grade expressway, possibly with a traffic light, that involves more braking and accelerating; that's okay? Got it.
Indian Springs isn't exactly Shreveport. ;)
Indeed, the original Interstate model needed wide dual lanes for their entire length, so tanks and military equipment could move freely.
In 2024, why not change the Interstate standard to allow for an Interstate to reduce to surface street through a city and then resume 4+ lanes outside the city limits?
No real need for bypasses in the current era. And it would save all the businesses in the city centers.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 05:26:58 PMIndeed, the original Interstate model needed wide dual lanes for their entire length, so tanks and military equipment could move freely.
In 2024, why not change the Interstate standard to allow for an Interstate to reduce to surface street through a city and then resume 4+ lanes outside the city limits?
No real need for bypasses in the current era. And it would save all the businesses in the city centers.
hell no, we already have that, it's called the US Highway System.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 05:26:58 PMIndeed, the original Interstate model needed wide dual lanes for their entire length, so tanks and military equipment could move freely.
In 2024, why not change the Interstate standard to allow for an Interstate to reduce to surface street through a city and then resume 4+ lanes outside the city limits?
No real need for bypasses in the current era. And it would save all the businesses in the city centers.
Why do you think this is something that's gonna go well with people on a roads forum?
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 13, 2024, 07:40:12 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 05:26:58 PMIndeed, the original Interstate model needed wide dual lanes for their entire length, so tanks and military equipment could move freely.
In 2024, why not change the Interstate standard to allow for an Interstate to reduce to surface street through a city and then resume 4+ lanes outside the city limits?
No real need for bypasses in the current era. And it would save all the businesses in the city centers.
Why do you think this is something that's gonna go well with people on a roads forum?
Um, because it might mean the difference between a road being built or not?
Since when did Interstates become some kind of sacred object?
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 05:26:58 PMIndeed, the original Interstate model needed wide dual lanes for their entire length, so tanks and military equipment could move freely.
In 2024, why not change the Interstate standard to allow for an Interstate to reduce to surface street through a city and then resume 4+ lanes outside the city limits?
No real need for bypasses in the current era. And it would save all the businesses in the city centers.
well, this goes back to the point that not all freeways needs to be an Interstate, and US highway system has no minimum standards. For this corridor, I think the US-95/US-93 designation is adequate, but politicians think they're doing things if they manage to snag an interstate designation for a freeway. Maybe if the US highway system is tightened up a bit, then politicians won't feel like missing out if a freeway didn't get an interstate designation.
But "Interstate" is the name brand thing. Nobody wants generic state highway and US Route designations on freeways... :-/
I also wonder why the four-lane highway is fine near the homes (which are only about 100-150' away from the 500' threshold mentioned), but it would suddenly be a problem if it were grade separated. It's not like it would divide anything. Traffic already moves at free-flow. It's basically the status quo but safer. They could even put in a sound wall if the residents want it.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 08:16:28 PMSince when did Interstates become some kind of sacred object?
Since the beginning of the hobby?
I can see why someone living off an expressway style highway wouldn't be too happy suddenly having to detour to an interchange. I would imagine that is what really drove why certain segments of US 101 in California (especially Prunedale) never got fully closed off. Safety is a less of a priority versus convenience to a lot of landowners.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 08:16:28 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on June 13, 2024, 07:40:12 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 05:26:58 PMIndeed, the original Interstate model needed wide dual lanes for their entire length, so tanks and military equipment could move freely.
In 2024, why not change the Interstate standard to allow for an Interstate to reduce to surface street through a city and then resume 4+ lanes outside the city limits?
No real need for bypasses in the current era. And it would save all the businesses in the city centers.
Why do you think this is something that's gonna go well with people on a roads forum?
Um, because it might mean the difference between a road being built or not?
Since when did Interstates become some kind of sacred object?
Music to my ears, I'm probably one of the loudest advocates for not every major highway needing to conform to Interstate standards or even being a full freeway. I feel as though I'm one of the few voices of reason regarding CA 58 east of Bakersfield never needing to become a full freeway, much less Interstate.
I do not agree with the idea of watering down Interstate highway standards so red and blue colored shields can be installed just anywhere. It's bad enough we have sub-standard exceptions of Interstate highway in places such as the at grade intersections along I-10 in West Texas.
Ordinary people drive with their heads halfway up their asses most of the time. When someone drives onto an Interstate highway the general understanding is the highway is always limited access. They're not expecting some Cooter-Brown guy hauling a trailer of junk pulling out onto the main lanes from some dirt side road. They might anticipate that on a not-Interstate 4-lane divided highway with a bunch of other at-grade turns and intersections. They don't anticipate that with a so-called "freeway."
It's funny seeing people get heartburn over an Interstate route being extended thru Indian Springs, despite there being enough room for such a thing. If people in Nevada have an ultimate goal of building an Interstate highway link from Las Vegas to Reno then the upgrades from the NW side of Las Vegas out to points like Indian Springs and Amargosa Valley would be EASY. The hard parts start in the Beatty area going Northward.
I'll repeat my opinion I-11 between Las Vegas and Reno isn't worth building unless its something bigger like a Seattle-Portland-Las Vegas-Phoenix corridor. A "NAFTA" route that can bypass much of California would be quite a popular commercial route.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2024, 09:06:04 PMI'll repeat my opinion I-11 between Las Vegas and Reno isn't worth building unless its something bigger like a Seattle-Portland-Las Vegas-Phoenix corridor. A "NAFTA" route that can bypass much of California would be quite a popular commercial route.
On the other hand, it might be that a Seattle to Reno Interstate would make more sense than a Las Vegas to Reno Interstate. At least there are Bend, Klamath Falls, and Susanville between Seattle and Reno. Yerington, Hawthorne, Tonopah, and Beatty are mere specks of dust by comparison.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 13, 2024, 06:35:02 AMQuote from: pderocco on June 13, 2024, 02:30:24 AMNone of this makes sense unless there is actual residential development going on along that corridor.
There's an Air Force base in Indian Springs (Creech AFB), and the Mercury exit is basically a gate to the whole glob of top-secret stuff Area 51 is part of. So, if nothing else, this particular part of I-11 would be serving the "defense highway" mandate of the IHS by providing an all-freeway route between Nellis and Creech air force bases and Mercury.
I don't know why that should suddenly become a priority, given that it hasn't been since the IHS was invented.
Quote from: pderoccoOn the other hand, it might be that a Seattle to Reno Interstate would make more sense than a Las Vegas to Reno Interstate. At least there are Bend, Klamath Falls, and Susanville between Seattle and Reno. Yerington, Hawthorne, Tonopah, and Beatty are mere specks of dust by comparison.
It's not about the
specks of dust between Reno and Las Vegas. It would be more about creating a high quality road link between cities like Vancouver, Seattle and Portland in the Pacific Northwest and big metros like Las Vegas and Phoenix farther South.
Plus the traffic would be able to bypass California and all the ridiculous crap that comes with it, such as the highest fuel prices in the nation, not to mention soul-crushing traffic levels.
I'm confused why you seem to think that freight vehicles don't US 395 and US 95 already for that purpose? I've never encountered soul crushing traffic on either highway. Perhaps maybe visiting these extremely rural corridors for yourself rather than making assumptions is in order?
Soul-crushing levels of traffic on 395... yes, once. Immediately after the end of the total eclipse of the sun in 2017 as people who'd come to Oregon to be in the path of totality scadaddled back home all trying to beat the traffic. A lot better by the next day, though.
Oregon...Eclipse...mmmkay.
Personally, I would be in favor of giving the Las Vegas-Reno-Portland corridor the US 36/I-72 treatment. Have a single highway connecting the 3 metros with it being upgraded as needs come. Build the interchanges only when needed. Otherwise, just have it as a regular route with 4 lane segments, passing lanes in the mountains and "Super 2 interchanges".
As some have said, there are smaller cities in the corridor that could get freeway bypasses (like Bend and Klamath Falls) while most of the corridor would be fine with a 2 lane road with some controlled access. Don't allow any direct access on the highway for businesses and homes. Make a frontage road or have access from a crossroad with an at grade intersection.
I know this is venturing towards the fictional area but this topic is already there.
The current routing OR 39 and US 97 take more or less functions as a bypass of the original alignment through downtown. The amount of traffic doesn't really justify doing much to either. OR 39 towards CA 139 is boasted as the preferred route to Reno from the area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 09:37:24 AMThe current routing OR 39 and US 97 take more or less functions as a bypass of the original alignment through downtown. The amount of traffic doesn't really justify doing much to either. OR 39 towards CA 139 is boasted as the preferred route to Reno from the area.
OR 39/CA 139 is the way to go. It's the road I go on between Susanville and Klamath Falls whenever I go to Salem from Reno.
Quote from: US 395 on June 14, 2024, 01:27:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 09:37:24 AMThe current routing OR 39 and US 97 take more or less functions as a bypass of the original alignment through downtown. The amount of traffic doesn't really justify doing much to either. OR 39 towards CA 139 is boasted as the preferred route to Reno from the area.
OR 39/CA 139 is the way to go. It's the road I go on between Susanville and Klamath Falls whenever I go to Salem from Reno.
Yes, and it is a total cake walk at that. Freight tends to cut over to US 395 via CA 299 near Canby. OR 39/CA 139 were more or less improved around the same time to permit a handy cutoff route for all traffic.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/oregon-route-39-and-california-state.html?m=1
Quote from: cl94 on June 10, 2024, 11:06:57 PMEngineering constraints and cost. Why spend a ton more money to shave off a few minutes? Same reason I-11 itself isn't a super high priority- thanks to terrain, you may chop half an hour off of a 7-8 hour drive with a freeway. Not worth the many billions it would cost, especially if the feds won't kick in more funding for an Interstate designation. I assume much of the route would get a 75 MPH speed limit at most given terrain, but even 80 wouldn't significantly decrease travel times.
Nevada has much higher priorities than building a freeway along a corridor that sees 3-5k vehicles/day. The segment they're looking at now is cheap to convert, a high-crash corridor, and the busiest part of 95 north of Vegas. And I'm not even convinced the next round of upgrades will make that full freeway.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Yeah. You're probably right.
I will say this though. I do feel that traffic is increasing somewhat on 95. I swear every time I travel on it I see more cars and trucks. I did see there is some road improvement going on from the Millers rest area to the Love's truck stop.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 01:31:07 PMQuote from: US 395 on June 14, 2024, 01:27:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 09:37:24 AMThe current routing OR 39 and US 97 take more or less functions as a bypass of the original alignment through downtown. The amount of traffic doesn't really justify doing much to either. OR 39 towards CA 139 is boasted as the preferred route to Reno from the area.
OR 39/CA 139 is the way to go. It's the road I go on between Susanville and Klamath Falls whenever I go to Salem from Reno.
Yes, and it is a total cake walk at that. Freight tends to cut over to US 395 via CA 299 near Canby. OR 39/CA 139 were more or less improved around the same time to permit a handy cutoff route for all traffic.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/oregon-route-39-and-california-state.html?m=1
I remember around three years ago there was some improvements being done on 139 by Adin and I believe by Eagle Lake. The one thing that definitely needs improvement is the cell service.
Quote from: US 395 on June 14, 2024, 01:51:30 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 01:31:07 PMQuote from: US 395 on June 14, 2024, 01:27:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 09:37:24 AMThe current routing OR 39 and US 97 take more or less functions as a bypass of the original alignment through downtown. The amount of traffic doesn't really justify doing much to either. OR 39 towards CA 139 is boasted as the preferred route to Reno from the area.
OR 39/CA 139 is the way to go. It's the road I go on between Susanville and Klamath Falls whenever I go to Salem from Reno.
Yes, and it is a total cake walk at that. Freight tends to cut over to US 395 via CA 299 near Canby. OR 39/CA 139 were more or less improved around the same time to permit a handy cutoff route for all traffic.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/oregon-route-39-and-california-state.html?m=1
I remember around three years ago there was some improvements being done on 139 by Adin and I believe by Eagle Lake. The one thing that definitely needs improvement is the cell service.
That used to be a major problem on US 95 for a long time between Las Vegas and Fallon. Since about 2016 it hasn't been too bad in most of those valleys.
Quote from: vdeane on June 13, 2024, 08:51:58 PMI also wonder why the four-lane highway is fine near the homes (which are only about 100-150' away from the 500' threshold mentioned), but it would suddenly be a problem if it were grade separated. It's not like it would divide anything. Traffic already moves at free-flow. It's basically the status quo but safer. They could even put in a sound wall if the residents want it.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 08:16:28 PMSince when did Interstates become some kind of sacred object?
Since the beginning of the hobby?
What hobby? The hobby of posting on a forum?
I do agree, Interstates should be built to a higher standard than US routes. But that "standard" has already been broken so many times, it's laughable. A "standard" of allowing an interstate to reduce to an arterial road through an existing city simply creates a set of Breezewoods on the way to Reno. There's definitely precedent. And in this day and age of high costs, it might mean the difference between I-11 getting past Mercury or forever ending there.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 14, 2024, 02:20:52 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 13, 2024, 08:51:58 PMI also wonder why the four-lane highway is fine near the homes (which are only about 100-150' away from the 500' threshold mentioned), but it would suddenly be a problem if it were grade separated. It's not like it would divide anything. Traffic already moves at free-flow. It's basically the status quo but safer. They could even put in a sound wall if the residents want it.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 13, 2024, 08:16:28 PMSince when did Interstates become some kind of sacred object?
Since the beginning of the hobby?
What hobby? The hobby of posting on a forum?
I do agree, Interstates should be built to a higher standard than US routes. But that "standard" has already been broken so many times, it's laughable.
Other than I-180 in Wyoming, I-78 east of NJ 139 in Jersey City, and Breezewood, are there any other examples of a non-freeway Interstate out of the many thousands of miles in the system?
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 14, 2024, 02:20:52 PMA "standard" of allowing an interstate to reduce to an arterial road through an existing city simply creates a set of Breezewoods on the way to Reno. There's definitely precedent. And in this day and age of high costs, it might mean the difference between I-11 getting past Mercury or forever ending there.
If I-11 doesn't get past Mercury and ends in the Las Vegas area permanently, it's not the end of the world, especially for a road that is already sparsely used from there to Tonopah to begin with.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm confused why you seem to think that freight vehicles don't US 395 and US 95 already for that purpose?
The existing 2-lane routes in Oregon, Northern California and Northern Nevada aren't great for long-haul trucking at all.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI've never encountered soul crushing traffic on either highway.
When I mentioned "soul crushing traffic" I meant the traffic on highways in Middle and Southern California.
People driving commercial vehicles and personal vehicles still tend to stick to the Interstates anyway. Long distance is arguably easier on Interstates due to the more consistent travel speeds. 2-lane roads are more littered with speed traps and stops. Interstates offer a perception of better levels of safety; there is far less chance of getting in a head-on collision when driving on a divided Interstate versus a not-divided 2-lane road. Interstates tend to have far greater amounts of services along the exits.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 14, 2024, 05:07:47 PMQuote from: Max RockatanskyI'm confused why you seem to think that freight vehicles don't US 395 and US 95 already for that purpose?
The existing 2-lane routes in Oregon, Northern California and Northern Nevada aren't great for long-haul trucking at all.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI've never encountered soul crushing traffic on either highway.
When I mentioned "soul crushing traffic" I meant the traffic on highways in Middle and Southern California.
People driving commercial vehicles and personal vehicles still tend to stick to the Interstates anyway. Long distance is arguably easier on Interstates due to the more consistent travel speeds. 2-lane roads are more littered with speed traps and stops. Interstates offer a perception of better levels of safety; there is far less chance of getting in a head-on collision when driving on a divided Interstate versus a not-divided 2-lane road. Interstates tend to have far greater amounts of services along the exits.
I find more speed traps along Interstates and four-lane "expressways" rather than two-laners.
If the two-laners were flooded with freight traffic, they'd be expanded. But they're not because the existing routes are fine.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 14, 2024, 05:07:47 PMQuote from: Max RockatanskyI'm confused why you seem to think that freight vehicles don't US 395 and US 95 already for that purpose?
The existing 2-lane routes in Oregon, Northern California and Northern Nevada aren't great for long-haul trucking at all.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI've never encountered soul crushing traffic on either highway.
When I mentioned "soul crushing traffic" I meant the traffic on highways in Middle and Southern California.
People driving commercial vehicles and personal vehicles still tend to stick to the Interstates anyway. Long distance is arguably easier on Interstates due to the more consistent travel speeds. 2-lane roads are more littered with speed traps and stops. Interstates offer a perception of better levels of safety; there is far less chance of getting in a head-on collision when driving on a divided Interstate versus a not-divided 2-lane road. Interstates tend to have far greater amounts of services along the exits.
A lot of those two lane roads you don't like are built to high standards. A significant percentage of CA 139 and northern US 395 in California is classified as two lane expressway. We've already talked about the ease of passing people on US 95 between Fallon and Las Vegas.
All this goes back to maybe you try the roads you are talking about first before formulating opinions on them. You keep saying the same things to a bunch of people who actually have driven these corridors on a regular basis. You're arguments definitely aren't helped by the fact that you are talking about highways passing through the likes of places like Modoc County.
And what is exactly "soul crushing" in the middle of the state? I-5 in the Central is annoyingly bland, but not exactly full of soul crushing traffic. 99 between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge rarely ever has significant slow down. Even CA 58 east of Bakersfield is no big deal now that Kramer Junction has been bypassed.
So the current recommended by Google route from Las Vegas to Portland is US 93 to Twin Falls and then I-84 West at 1,049 mi and 15:47.
The next recommended route is US 95 via Battle Mountain and Winnemucca to OR 78. OR 78 to Burns. US 20 to George Millican Rd east of Bend. GM Rd north to OR 126. OR 126 to US 26. US 26 to Powell Valley Rd & Burnside Rd. Then local streets in Portland to I-84 and I-84 to I-5. That one is 968 mi and 15:51.
The way via Alt US 95, NV 439, I-80, US 395, CA 36, CA 139, OR 39, US 97, OR 58, I-5 at Eugene is 971 mi, but 16:40.
So let's say that you "Super 2" limited access bypasses of:
Beatty NV (EAST of town)
Goldfield NV (WEST of town)
Tonapah NV (4 lanes, SOUTHWEST of town, WEST of Siebert Mountain)
Hawthorne NV (which has Bypass 95 already NORTHEAST of Bus District)
Yerington NV (NORTHEAST of town)
Silver Springs NV (WEST of town, with interchange at US 50)
Susanville CA (4 lanes, EAST of town along Skyline Rd East)
Merrill OR (NORTH of town)
Klamath Falls (4 lanes, SOUTH & WEST of town via OR 140 and US 97, 7 interchanges at OR 39, Homemade Rd, Washburn Way (existing), OR 66/OR 140 WEST/US 97 SOUTH, Bus US 97 Main St/Klamath Ave (existing), Oregon Ave/Lakeshore Dr (existing), and Bus US 97/OR 39 Crater Lake Pkwy (existing))
Add in "Super 2" rural interchanges at:
NV 160 Pahrump
Silverpeak Rd
US 6 WEST Bishop
US 95 NORTH Schurz, Fallon
NV 339 TO NV 208 Yerington, Mason
Red Rock Rd Reno
Standish - Buntingtonville Rd
US 395 NORTH Johnsonville, Alturas
CA 299 WEST Bieber, Redding
CA 299 EAST Canby, Alturas
OR 62 Crater Lake Hwy Crater Lake National Park
OR 138 Roseburg
US 97 NORTH Bend
OR 222 Parkway Rd
That's all I would do at this point for the corridor north of Las Vegas. By doing this, you may cut off about 30-45 minutes to make it a reasonable route compared to the other 2 ways listed above.
Just having a true modern cutoff for US 395 to bypass Susanville would be super helpful. County Route A3 does that for passenger traffic, not so much freight.
Honestly, if anywhere on the Vegas-Oregon corridor needs to be 4-laned, it's US 395 between Hallelujah Junction and Susanville. I'm not saying it's needed, but it has higher traffic counts than any of the 2-lane segments in Nevada by a decent margin and is more important in terms of need for redundancy given that it's an alternate for I-80 during winter.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I-10 in West Texas has at-grade intersections, as others have noted. I-93 in New Hampshire is only one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch. There are numerous examples where median width is not at "standard." So what's so wrong with allowing a new Interstate to merge down to regular road through a town and then back up outside the city limits? Other than it violates some pedantry protocol here on this forum LOL.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 14, 2024, 10:29:11 PMI-10 in West Texas has at-grade intersections, as others have noted. I-93 in New Hampshire is only one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch. There are numerous examples where median width is not at "standard." So what's so wrong with allowing a new Interstate to merge down to regular road through a town and then back up outside the city limits? Other than it violates some pedantry protocol here on this forum LOL.
Honestly, your concept sounds like the most annoying thing ever to drive. I'm also sure that the towns, while initially relishing all the thru traffic that would be forced to go by their businesses, would quickly tire of high volumes of traffic trying to race their way through town and making it difficult to walk around. It could also easily become congested (probably not on I-11, but elsewhere; US 15 and PA 147 essentially do this around Shamokin Dam, and it's wall to wall cars in stop and go conditions on major travel days).
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2024, 10:40:41 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 14, 2024, 10:29:11 PMI-10 in West Texas has at-grade intersections, as others have noted. I-93 in New Hampshire is only one lane in each direction through Franconia Notch. There are numerous examples where median width is not at "standard." So what's so wrong with allowing a new Interstate to merge down to regular road through a town and then back up outside the city limits? Other than it violates some pedantry protocol here on this forum LOL.
Honestly, your concept sounds like the most annoying thing ever to drive. I'm also sure that the towns, while initially relishing all the thru traffic that would be forced to go by their businesses, would quickly tire of high volumes of traffic trying to race their way through town and making it difficult to walk around. It could also easily become congested (probably not on I-11, but elsewhere; US 15 and PA 147 essentially do this around Shamokin Dam, and it's wall to wall cars in stop and go conditions on major travel days).
But that's the entire point. This stretch of road is in rural Nevada. There. is. no. high. volume.
The situations with other interstates not following standards is that the terrain/surroundings were an issue (I-78, I-93, I-75, I-70/76, etc, or that the cost was too high proportional to what they could've done, such as with the cattle ranch entrances on 10, 20, and 40. It likely would've been and still is too much to build an exit every 5 or so miles for one person to use it a day, including service roads, which is mainly* why those highways don't conform to full limited-access standards. I-180 WY doesn't count because it shouldn't even exist at all.
Why not have the Reno-Pacific NW and Las Vegas-Phoenix segments as separate highways? Meaning that they both get built with the understanding that traffic volumes might not warrant the effort to connect them for several decades, if ever.
Remoteness and geography aside, I think the military installations around Hawthorne would be difficult to built and interstate through. It looks like it would have to be built on top of US 95 / US 95 Bypass around town, involving a sharp 90 degree bend east, and avoiding the airstrip on the northwest side.
Quote from: vdeaneHonestly, your concept sounds like the most annoying thing ever to drive. I'm also sure that the towns, while initially relishing all the thru traffic that would be forced to go by their businesses, would quickly tire of high volumes of traffic trying to race their way through town and making it difficult to walk around.
Here is another ingredient to add to that situation. The non-Interstate zones leading into and out of the town would be obvious speed traps. Oklahoma has a lot of those "speed zones" on standard 2-lane and 4-lane highways. The same goes for Texas. When I drive from here to Colorado I can't really "relax" and set the cruise control to a flat speed for a long time until I'm on I-25.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 15, 2024, 12:08:01 AMRemoteness and geography aside, I think the military installations around Hawthorne would be difficult to built and interstate through. It looks like it would have to be built on top of US 95 / US 95 Bypass around town, involving a sharp 90 degree bend east, and avoiding the airstrip on the northwest side.
Traditionally military bases have been a source of driving freeway development and general road upgrades. The reason US 95 extends as far north of Las Vegas as an expressway is to service a base.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2024, 12:25:39 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 15, 2024, 12:08:01 AMRemoteness and geography aside, I think the military installations around Hawthorne would be difficult to built and interstate through. It looks like it would have to be built on top of US 95 / US 95 Bypass around town, involving a sharp 90 degree bend east, and avoiding the airstrip on the northwest side.
Traditionally military bases have been a source of driving freeway development and general road upgrades. The reason US 95 extends as far north of Las Vegas as an expressway is to service a base.
That. NNSS and Creech AFB are the only reasons why 95 is 4+ lanes through all of Clark County. Accordingly, their existence alone is enough justification for I-upgrades, even if the at-grades along that stretch of 95 weren't among the most dangerous intersections in the state. Similarly, a lot of the work Caltrans has done along US 395 (both south and north of Reno) has gotten funds because it serves multiple military installations.
Building around Hawthorne Army Depot is doable, but Hawthorne and Mineral County won't love the way to do it (build NE of the depot and up the east side of Walker Lake). Last I saw, that was the corridor in mind. Similar to Tonopah, I could see the bypass here getting a ton of opposition for being too far from town.
(personal opinion emphasized)
The 4-lane portion of US-95 going Northwest out of Las Vegas services the main entrances into Creech AFB and Mercury. Then it drops to 2-lane configuration after that, long before reaching Hawthorne.
US-95 going through the town of Hawthorne and the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant wasn't built in an upgrade-friendly manner. The dogleg turns going around the East and North sides of Hawthorne are rated at 35mph. An Interstate going through there would need much broader curves, which would require ROW the Army might not be willing to give up. There is a cemetery on the North side of Hawthorne, right by the existing highway. Good luck squeezing a new freeway through that. The zone going out of the NW side of Hawthorne into Babbitt could fit a freeway and frontage roads if a couple or so buildings and a few parking lots get removed.
Another option is bypassing the whole Walker Lake area and sending I-11 up Pole Line Road just outside Tonopah. That would cut 20 miles of distance off the route to Schurz.
It'd absolutely hilarious how so many are getting worked up here about building a road in a road discussion forum.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2024, 07:38:18 PMGoldfield NV (WEST of town)
Goldfield has a town now? When'd that start?
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 15, 2024, 01:28:36 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2024, 07:38:18 PMGoldfield NV (WEST of town)
Goldfield has a town now? When'd that start?
Well, they did just find a bunch more gold there.
Quote from: cl94 on June 14, 2024, 08:03:58 PMHonestly, if anywhere on the Vegas-Oregon corridor needs to be 4-laned, it's US 395 between Hallelujah Junction and Susanville. I'm not saying it's needed, but it has higher traffic counts than any of the 2-lane segments in Nevada by a decent margin and is more important in terms of need for redundancy given that it's an alternate for I-80 during winter.
(personal opinion emphasized)
There was a Caltrans study, but I cannot find it, of the US 395 segment being recommended to be widened from SR 36 to Hallelujah Junction. A local news story shows some of the efforts to widen the stretch: https://www.lassennews.com/commission-investigates-highway-395-improvements
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2024, 12:55:49 AMIt'd absolutely hilarious how so many are getting worked up here about building a road in a road discussion forum.
Not everyone in this forum is gung ho about road construction for various reasons (people who are against the impacts of eminent domain/relocation, some mass transit advocates, etc.).
Others just think that this project might not be as important as others they are more interested in or want to see more funding for. But that's also the reality of having 50 states with competing interests and different approaches to their highway networks too.
I bring up California's situations a lot on this forum not because I fully like or dislike everything out here, but more to be realistic about what can and can't happen in this current age. Nevada is different (look at how they already planned for things going north of Summerlin and thereabouts), but planning is always going to be different from whether lines on a map have the funding to turn into real routes.
^^^^ understood. I just think it's interesting how much effort some people put in the post responding to those that suggest to build I-11 from Las Vegas to Reno let alone connect with I-5 and their opposition to something that wont happen for a very long time if ever. I wanna see I-11 built from Las Vegas to Reno, I've lost almost all my interest in it given the fact that it won't connect into I-580 into Carson City. Etc. etc.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 15, 2024, 01:51:01 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2024, 12:55:49 AMIt'd absolutely hilarious how so many are getting worked up here about building a road in a road discussion forum.
Not everyone in this forum is gung ho about road construction for various reasons (people who are against the impacts of eminent domain/relocation, some mass transit advocates, etc.).
Others just think that this project might not be as important as others they are more interested in or want to see more funding for. But that's also the reality of having 50 states with competing interests and different approaches to their highway networks too.
I bring up California's situations a lot on this forum not because I fully like or dislike everything out here, but more to be realistic about what can and can't happen in this current age. Nevada is different (look at how they already planned for things going north of Summerlin and thereabouts), but planning is always going to be different from whether lines on a map have the funding to turn into real routes.
The only reason I'm against I-11 north of Las Vegas is because it isn't needed nor will ever be. The idea is FritzOwlian at best.
A lot of people would do themselves a favor to dig into the three main proposals to drag I-70 across Nevada during the 1960s qnd early 1970s. All of those had that the same "build it and they will come" mindset that has taken over all talk/scoping on I-11.
Also, why do some of the posters on this forum seem to think all of us want nothing but freeways and Interstates? We are literally talking about a part of Nevada that rivals much Alaska for low population density.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2024, 02:14:31 PMQuote from: TheStranger on June 15, 2024, 01:51:01 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2024, 12:55:49 AMIt'd absolutely hilarious how so many are getting worked up here about building a road in a road discussion forum.
Not everyone in this forum is gung ho about road construction for various reasons (people who are against the impacts of eminent domain/relocation, some mass transit advocates, etc.).
Others just think that this project might not be as important as others they are more interested in or want to see more funding for. But that's also the reality of having 50 states with competing interests and different approaches to their highway networks too.
I bring up California's situations a lot on this forum not because I fully like or dislike everything out here, but more to be realistic about what can and can't happen in this current age. Nevada is different (look at how they already planned for things going north of Summerlin and thereabouts), but planning is always going to be different from whether lines on a map have the funding to turn into real routes.
The only reason I'm against I-11 north of Las Vegas is because it isn't needed nor will ever be. The idea is FritzOwlian at best.
A lot of people would do themselves a favor to dig into the three main proposals to drag I-70 across Nevada during the 1960s qnd early 1970s. All of those had that the same "build it and they will come" mindset that has taken over all talk/scoping on I-11.
Also, why do some of the posters on this forum seem to think all of us want nothing but freeways and Interstates? We are literally talking about a part of Nevada that rivals much Alaska for low population density.
Forget about the rest of Nevada for a minute, and just look at Indian Springs (in Clark County!). Due to presence of both Creech AFB and the mountains close by to the south, Indian Springs has hard-and-fast development limits. It's quite doubtful they can ever justify two exits. However, NDOT can design an exit to the immediate east of town that can serve both the town and Creech AFB while providing the Air Force a more standardized base entrance than what it has right now. And all this can be done within current US 95 right-of-way.
A bypass of Indian Springs is, frankly, lunacy.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 15, 2024, 01:28:36 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2024, 07:38:18 PMGoldfield NV (WEST of town)
Goldfield has a town now? When'd that start?
Looks like a sizeable pain in the ass to not build a bypass around.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goldfield,+NV+89013/@37.7108198,-117.2478966,15z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x80beb451d0bb660f:0xf02c9ea8aa5aa0a0!8m2!3d37.7084481!4d-117.2357131!16zL20vMDF5X2Ix?entry=ttu
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 15, 2024, 03:18:47 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 15, 2024, 01:28:36 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2024, 07:38:18 PMGoldfield NV (WEST of town)
Goldfield has a town now? When'd that start?
Looks like a sizeable pain in the ass to not build a bypass around.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goldfield,+NV+89013/@37.7108198,-117.2478966,15z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x80beb451d0bb660f:0xf02c9ea8aa5aa0a0!8m2!3d37.7084481!4d-117.2357131!16zL20vMDF5X2Ix?entry=ttu
Looks like a spot that was made to have a U.S. route through it where you slow down for a few blocks and maybe get a nice cold lemonade at the diner.
If they went to all this trouble to detail I-11 all the way to Mercury, why the heck didn't they just take it another 8 miles to the terminus of SR 160, which runs south from there to Pahrump? I know the 4-lane divided US 95 ends just west of the Mercury interchange, but still, SR 160 seems to be a more logical end point for this section of the future Interstate than the isolated Mercury.
Quote from: SSR_317 on June 15, 2024, 05:56:17 PMIf they went to all this trouble to detail I-11 all the way to Mercury, why the heck didn't they just take it another 8 miles to the terminus of SR 160, which runs south from there to Pahrump? I know the 4-lane divided US 95 ends just west of the Mercury interchange, but still, SR 160 seems to be a more logical end point for this section of the future Interstate than the isolated Mercury.
Because traffic counts drop pretty dramatically at Indian Springs and you start running into ROW issues past Mercury. A conversion south of Mercury can be done in place with minimal additional ROW. There's also a canyon between Mercury and SR 160 that may require blasting to be made wide enough for a 4-lane freeway with full shoulders.
As I have said before, NDOT is doing enough to show politicians that they're working on the conversion and little more. The minute you get past Mercury, the work and money required grow exponentially due to the need for additional ROW and environmental studies. And those environmental studies will be contested given the presence of several endangered/ endemic species along US 95.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2024, 02:14:31 PMQuote from: TheStranger on June 15, 2024, 01:51:01 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2024, 12:55:49 AMIt'd absolutely hilarious how so many are getting worked up here about building a road in a road discussion forum.
Not everyone in this forum is gung ho about road construction for various reasons (people who are against the impacts of eminent domain/relocation, some mass transit advocates, etc.).
Others just think that this project might not be as important as others they are more interested in or want to see more funding for. But that's also the reality of having 50 states with competing interests and different approaches to their highway networks too.
I bring up California's situations a lot on this forum not because I fully like or dislike everything out here, but more to be realistic about what can and can't happen in this current age. Nevada is different (look at how they already planned for things going north of Summerlin and thereabouts), but planning is always going to be different from whether lines on a map have the funding to turn into real routes.
The only reason I'm against I-11 north of Las Vegas is because it isn't needed nor will ever be. The idea is FritzOwlian at best.
A lot of people would do themselves a favor to dig into the three main proposals to drag I-70 across Nevada during the 1960s qnd early 1970s. All of those had that the same "build it and they will come" mindset that has taken over all talk/scoping on I-11.
Also, why do some of the posters on this forum seem to think all of us want nothing but freeways and Interstates? We are literally talking about a part of Nevada that rivals much Alaska for low population density.
Speaking of Alaska, I think we should run I-11 along the Dalton Hwy to the Arctic Circle. The Arctic Ocean is the only ocean in the country not served by an interstate and would be infinitely safer to be stuck in a blizzard in [/joke]
Quote from: cl94 on June 15, 2024, 07:30:08 PMQuote from: SSR_317 on June 15, 2024, 05:56:17 PMIf they went to all this trouble to detail I-11 all the way to Mercury, why the heck didn't they just take it another 8 miles to the terminus of SR 160, which runs south from there to Pahrump? I know the 4-lane divided US 95 ends just west of the Mercury interchange, but still, SR 160 seems to be a more logical end point for this section of the future Interstate than the isolated Mercury.
Because traffic counts drop pretty dramatically at Indian Springs and you start running into ROW issues past Mercury. A conversion south of Mercury can be done in place with minimal additional ROW. There's also a canyon between Mercury and SR 160 that may require blasting to be made wide enough for a 4-lane freeway with full shoulders.
As I have said before, NDOT is doing enough to show politicians that they're working on the conversion and little more. The minute you get past Mercury, the work and money required grow exponentially due to the need for additional ROW and environmental studies. And those environmental studies will be contested given the presence of several endangered/ endemic species along US 95.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Not to mention that there's plenty of precedence for interstates ending at military bases. In fact, I really don't see much need for I-11 to go past Mercury at all. Just don't then sign anything near I-80 and then create a semi-permanent gap, so IMO, if anything gets built on that end, it should have a separate number unless the middle part (which really isn't necessary) gets finished. Maybe north of Mercury could get the CR 215 treatment.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 15, 2024, 08:04:40 PMSpeaking of Alaska, I think we should run I-11 along the Dalton Hwy to the Arctic Circle. The Arctic Ocean is the only ocean in the country not served by an interstate and would be infinitely safer to be stuck in a blizzard in [/joke]
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12994.msg314359#msg314359
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 01:54:51 PMQuote from: US 395 on June 14, 2024, 01:51:30 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 01:31:07 PMQuote from: US 395 on June 14, 2024, 01:27:55 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2024, 09:37:24 AMThe current routing OR 39 and US 97 take more or less functions as a bypass of the original alignment through downtown. The amount of traffic doesn't really justify doing much to either. OR 39 towards CA 139 is boasted as the preferred route to Reno from the area.
OR 39/CA 139 is the way to go. It's the road I go on between Susanville and Klamath Falls whenever I go to Salem from Reno.
Yes, and it is a total cake walk at that. Freight tends to cut over to US 395 via CA 299 near Canby. OR 39/CA 139 were more or less improved around the same time to permit a handy cutoff route for all traffic.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/09/oregon-route-39-and-california-state.html?m=1
I remember around three years ago there was some improvements being done on 139 by Adin and I believe by Eagle Lake. The one thing that definitely needs improvement is the cell service.
That used to be a major problem on US 95 for a long time between Las Vegas and Fallon. Since about 2016 it hasn't been too bad in most of those valleys.
Yeah, I remember that. I also have Verizon so it wasn't as bad as someone with AT&T or T-Mobile at the time. When there was no LTE, 3G CDMA would take over and kept the service going somewhat.
Quote from: cl94 on June 14, 2024, 08:03:58 PMHonestly, if anywhere on the Vegas-Oregon corridor needs to be 4-laned, it's US 395 between Hallelujah Junction and Susanville. I'm not saying it's needed, but it has higher traffic counts than any of the 2-lane segments in Nevada by a decent margin and is more important in terms of need for redundancy given that it's an alternate for I-80 during winter.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I agree. As part of my job, I would go out and deliver to the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong. It's a pretty busy stretch of rural highway. There are passing lanes but having it be entirely four lanes definitely would be an improvement.
Quote from: vdeane on June 15, 2024, 10:06:18 PMQuote from: cl94 on June 15, 2024, 07:30:08 PMQuote from: SSR_317 on June 15, 2024, 05:56:17 PMIf they went to all this trouble to detail I-11 all the way to Mercury, why the heck didn't they just take it another 8 miles to the terminus of SR 160, which runs south from there to Pahrump? I know the 4-lane divided US 95 ends just west of the Mercury interchange, but still, SR 160 seems to be a more logical end point for this section of the future Interstate than the isolated Mercury.
Because traffic counts drop pretty dramatically at Indian Springs and you start running into ROW issues past Mercury. A conversion south of Mercury can be done in place with minimal additional ROW. There's also a canyon between Mercury and SR 160 that may require blasting to be made wide enough for a 4-lane freeway with full shoulders.
As I have said before, NDOT is doing enough to show politicians that they're working on the conversion and little more. The minute you get past Mercury, the work and money required grow exponentially due to the need for additional ROW and environmental studies. And those environmental studies will be contested given the presence of several endangered/ endemic species along US 95.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Not to mention that there's plenty of precedence for interstates ending at military bases. In fact, I really don't see much need for I-11 to go past Mercury at all. Just don't then sign anything near I-80 and then create a semi-permanent gap, so IMO, if anything gets built on that end, it should have a separate number unless the middle part (which really isn't necessary) gets finished. Maybe north of Mercury could get the CR 215 treatment.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 15, 2024, 08:04:40 PMSpeaking of Alaska, I think we should run I-11 along the Dalton Hwy to the Arctic Circle. The Arctic Ocean is the only ocean in the country not served by an interstate and would be infinitely safer to be stuck in a blizzard in [/joke]
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12994.msg314359#msg314359
Personally, I don't see the point in I-11 existing at all. It's not the end of the world if Vegas and Phoenix don't have a direct Interstate connection. US 93 being four laned would be more than enough.
I'm also the person that thinks I-15 is pointless beyond the 84 merge towards Portland and Boise so what would I know? Lol.
US 93 used to be super hectic south of Boulder City before it began to be expanded. Quaint that I remember it being an almost completely two lane highway to Wickenburg. It was famous at the time for head on collisions.
Yeah, the head-ons are what 395 north of Reno and 93 north of Ely are famous for. Both of those have the dangerous combination of high truck traffic and lots of timid drivers afraid to pass, so passing often involves blowing past several vehicles at once.
Quote from: US 395 on June 15, 2024, 10:14:03 PMQuote from: cl94 on June 14, 2024, 08:03:58 PMHonestly, if anywhere on the Vegas-Oregon corridor needs to be 4-laned, it's US 395 between Hallelujah Junction and Susanville. I'm not saying it's needed, but it has higher traffic counts than any of the 2-lane segments in Nevada by a decent margin and is more important in terms of need for redundancy given that it's an alternate for I-80 during winter.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I agree. As part of my job, I would go out and deliver to the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong. It's a pretty busy stretch of rural highway. There are passing lanes but having it be entirely four lanes definitely would be an improvement.
I think this stretch, and maybe some parts of 95, would be great opportunities for a Euro-style 2+1 road. Alternating passing lane, Jersey barrier or guiderail separating directions so you can only cross the centerline at intersections. Relatively inexpensive to construct and it would greatly increase safety.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I will say one thing, This is also responding directly to a couple posters that I respect greatly, I am very happy they are not in charge. Because I think there are several highways out on the west that you could say don't deserve to be full interstate quality and that a four-lane at grade Road would suffice. One such obvious road is I-70 in Utah. I am very happy I can travel that road at 80 miles an hour and not have to go through at grade intersections. I think you could say the same thing about some segments of I-10 in western Texas.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 15, 2024, 03:18:47 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 15, 2024, 01:28:36 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on June 14, 2024, 07:38:18 PMGoldfield NV (WEST of town)
Goldfield has a town now? When'd that start?
Looks like a sizeable pain in the ass to not build a bypass around.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goldfield,+NV+89013/@37.7108198,-117.2478966,15z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x80beb451d0bb660f:0xf02c9ea8aa5aa0a0!8m2!3d37.7084481!4d-117.2357131!16zL20vMDF5X2Ix?entry=ttu
Flip it over to satellite view.
Problem is that much of Goldfield is a historic district, which effectively stops any major changes, such as knocking down some of what remains for a freeway.
I-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I agree, but I'm also not a huge fan of how it ties way the hell out east of Reno and way the hell out west of Phoenix. Whatever the case, If these DOTs Are dead set on these alignments, They need to find a way to build high-speed expressways to connect to any extension to these respective cities.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 07:45:25 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I agree, but I'm also not a huge fan of how it ties way the hell out east of Reno and way the hell out west of Phoenix. Whatever the case, If these DOTs Are dead set on these alignments, They need to find a way to build high-speed expressways to connect to any extension to these respective cities.
Have any links on this? I assumed 11 would just run into 580 in Carson City and 17 in Phoenix via an upgraded US 60.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 07:45:25 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I agree, but I'm also not a huge fan of how it ties way the hell out east of Reno and way the hell out west of Phoenix. Whatever the case, If these DOTs Are dead set on these alignments, They need to find a way to build high-speed expressways to connect to any extension to these respective cities.
Reviewing the topography of the area is instructive:
(https://i.imgur.com/bhvlwbG.jpeg)
Given the layout of the mountain ranges in the area, I don't really see any way that you
could connect the US-95 and I-580/US-395 corridors without either backtracking, or things getting very expensive very quickly.
Connecting to I-80 in Fernley is fine with me.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 16, 2024, 08:00:01 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 07:45:25 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I agree, but I'm also not a huge fan of how it ties way the hell out east of Reno and way the hell out west of Phoenix. Whatever the case, If these DOTs Are dead set on these alignments, They need to find a way to build high-speed expressways to connect to any extension to these respective cities.
Reviewing the topography of the area is instructive:
(https://i.imgur.com/bhvlwbG.jpeg)
Given the layout of the mountain ranges in the area, I don't really see any way that you could connect the US-95 and I-580/US-395 corridors without either backtracking, or things getting very expensive very quickly.
Connecting to I-80 in Fernley is fine with me.
I'm aware of the topography. But do it right or don't do it at all. That's my philosophy. If they want to throw it away the hell east on I-80 then fuck it I could care less about it.
I think the only thing that it would really have going for it to get extended any further northwest would be if that big lithium mine comes to fruition. I'm not sure how many new cars and trucks that would put on the road though.
Or who knows maybe that Oregon, Idaho, Northern California succession thing Will happen and that new area will want their own high-speed road. I sure wouldn't count on Federal dollars is helping out with it though lol
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:47:20 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 07:45:25 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I agree, but I'm also not a huge fan of how it ties way the hell out east of Reno and way the hell out west of Phoenix. Whatever the case, If these DOTs Are dead set on these alignments, They need to find a way to build high-speed expressways to connect to any extension to these respective cities.
Have any links on this? I assumed 11 would just run into 580 in Carson City and 17 in Phoenix via an upgraded US 60.
Here's the one for Nevada: https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/programs-studies/future-i-11-alternatives-analysis-las-vegas-valley-to-i-80
I'm 99% certain the purple alignment tie in to I-580 in Carson City has been eliminated, officially.
But never say never. I doubt this is the last study before this gets built if it ever does. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets shelved for another decade or two and then they do a new study.https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowImage?id=5767&t=636639631055800000 (https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowImage?id=5767&t=636639631055800000)
In Arizona and the same thing with Nevada it's not letting me post pictures directly here, but it starts on slide 19: http://i11study.com/Arizona/PDF/I-11_ASR_December-2017.pdf
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 08:18:12 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 16, 2024, 08:00:01 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 07:45:25 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I agree, but I'm also not a huge fan of how it ties way the hell out east of Reno and way the hell out west of Phoenix. Whatever the case, If these DOTs Are dead set on these alignments, They need to find a way to build high-speed expressways to connect to any extension to these respective cities.
Reviewing the topography of the area is instructive:
(https://i.imgur.com/bhvlwbG.jpeg)
Given the layout of the mountain ranges in the area, I don't really see any way that you could connect the US-95 and I-580/US-395 corridors without either backtracking, or things getting very expensive very quickly.
Connecting to I-80 in Fernley is fine with me.
I'm aware of the topography. But do it right or don't do it at all. That's my philosophy. If they want to throw it away the hell east on I-80 then fuck it I could care less about it.
Ending it in Fernley (or Clark)
is doing it right—that's the route that exists now.
A tunnel to Carson would be neat, but unless Sens. Cortez-Masto and Rosen can compel Mayor Pete to slap down the big bucks for it, there's really no way it's going to happen.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 08:18:12 AMI'm aware of the topography. But do it right or don't do it at all. That's my philosophy. If they want to throw it away the hell east on I-80 then fuck it I could care less about it.
I think the only thing that it would really have going for it to get extended any further northwest would be if that big lithium mine comes to fruition. I'm not sure how many new cars and trucks that would put on the road though.
Or who knows maybe that Oregon, Idaho, Northern California succession thing Will happen and that new area will want their own high-speed road. I sure wouldn't count on Federal dollars is helping out with it though lol
How is going through Carson doing it right? The topography says it all. Las Vegas is east enough of Reno that you need to go east-west between the two somewhere. Terrain dictates that somewhere is I-80 unless you're going to spend a lot more. By the time you get to the north side of Walker Lake, I-80 and the southern end of I-580 are about the same mileage as each other, but the latter is much more expensive.
It really isn't much a jog from Fernley to Reno. Fernley lines up better with US 95 heading north to the ION Highway anyways.
Quote from: vdeane on June 15, 2024, 10:06:18 PMQuote from: cl94 on June 15, 2024, 07:30:08 PMQuote from: SSR_317 on June 15, 2024, 05:56:17 PMIf they went to all this trouble to detail I-11 all the way to Mercury, why the heck didn't they just take it another 8 miles to the terminus of SR 160, which runs south from there to Pahrump? I know the 4-lane divided US 95 ends just west of the Mercury interchange, but still, SR 160 seems to be a more logical end point for this section of the future Interstate than the isolated Mercury.
Because traffic counts drop pretty dramatically at Indian Springs and you start running into ROW issues past Mercury. A conversion south of Mercury can be done in place with minimal additional ROW. There's also a canyon between Mercury and SR 160 that may require blasting to be made wide enough for a 4-lane freeway with full shoulders.
As I have said before, NDOT is doing enough to show politicians that they're working on the conversion and little more. The minute you get past Mercury, the work and money required grow exponentially due to the need for additional ROW and environmental studies. And those environmental studies will be contested given the presence of several endangered/ endemic species along US 95.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Not to mention that there's plenty of precedence for interstates ending at military bases. In fact, I really don't see much need for I-11 to go past Mercury at all. Just don't then sign anything near I-80 and then create a semi-permanent gap, so IMO, if anything gets built on that end, it should have a separate number unless the middle part (which really isn't necessary) gets finished. Maybe north of Mercury could get the CR 215 treatment.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 15, 2024, 08:04:40 PMSpeaking of Alaska, I think we should run I-11 along the Dalton Hwy to the Arctic Circle. The Arctic Ocean is the only ocean in the country not served by an interstate and would be infinitely safer to be stuck in a blizzard in [/joke]
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12994.msg314359#msg314359
Okay, but I-11W should be I-211, and I-11E should be I-11.
;)
that honestly may be why US 95 doesn't make it to Reno and instead goes east.
Probably has more to do with US 395 being extended through Nevada several years prior to US 95. US 95 being extended was delayed largely by how poor conditions on the ION Highway in Oregon were.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 16, 2024, 07:36:02 AMI-11 makes sense from 80 in Reno to 10 in Phoenix. no need for it elsewhere.
I put it farther south at both ends: from Las Vegas (or Indian Springs) to I-8 at Gila Bend.
Geography generally gets the last word unless you have particularly huge needs and a particularly huge budget. Interstate from Las Vegas to Reno has neither.
Furthermore, if you make some weird jog to Carson, I would bet that a decent amount of traffic cuts the corner up to I-80. Short of some very expensive engineering to tunnel under the Wassuk Range west of Hawthorne, any reasonable route to Carson would involve a pretty big detour from a reasonable Reno-Vegas routing.
There's a reason why Carson City wasn't on the I-system until the 2010s and terrain is a large part of it. The city is in a valley with rugged mountains surrounding it, and these mountains have a ton of seismic activity. The only realistic route east is that used by US 50, which runs NE from Carson.
Quote from: brad2971Forget about the rest of Nevada for a minute, and just look at Indian Springs (in Clark County!). Due to presence of both Creech AFB and the mountains close by to the south, Indian Springs has hard-and-fast development limits. It's quite doubtful they can ever justify two exits. However, NDOT can design an exit to the immediate east of town that can serve both the town and Creech AFB while providing the Air Force a more standardized base entrance than what it has right now. And all this can be done within current US 95 right-of-way.
There is enough space within the current US-95 ROW for them to build an exit with slip ramps in front of the main gate of Creech AFB.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2024, 02:14:31 PMQuote from: TheStranger on June 15, 2024, 01:51:01 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 15, 2024, 12:55:49 AMIt'd absolutely hilarious how so many are getting worked up here about building a road in a road discussion forum.
Not everyone in this forum is gung ho about road construction for various reasons (people who are against the impacts of eminent domain/relocation, some mass transit advocates, etc.).
Others just think that this project might not be as important as others they are more interested in or want to see more funding for. But that's also the reality of having 50 states with competing interests and different approaches to their highway networks too.
I bring up California's situations a lot on this forum not because I fully like or dislike everything out here, but more to be realistic about what can and can't happen in this current age. Nevada is different (look at how they already planned for things going north of Summerlin and thereabouts), but planning is always going to be different from whether lines on a map have the funding to turn into real routes.
The only reason I'm against I-11 north of Las Vegas is because it isn't needed nor will ever be. The idea is FritzOwlian at best.
A lot of people would do themselves a favor to dig into the three main proposals to drag I-70 across Nevada during the 1960s qnd early 1970s. All of those had that the same "build it and they will come" mindset that has taken over all talk/scoping on I-11.
Also, why do some of the posters on this forum seem to think all of us want nothing but freeways and Interstates? We are literally talking about a part of Nevada that rivals much Alaska for low population density.
Yeah, but Nevada also sits in the middle of pretty populous states where a lot of people are trying to get from one to the other. Can't really say the same about Alaska until the Bering Straight Bridge gets built.
That's kind of a point I was making earlier. The Vancouver, BC metro has 2.6 million people. The Seattle-Tacoma metro is home to over 4 million people. The Portland metro has 2.5 million people. Farther South, the Las Vegas metro has 2.2 million people. The Phoenix metro has 4.8 million people. The I-11 corridor could potentially connect all those metro areas with a high speed, no-stops, limited access highway connection. And it could have one or more gateways into Mexico that are not located in California.
Reno has over 260,000 people and almost 500,000 in its metro area. That's a pretty size-able stop in between. But it's probably not a big enough metro on its own to build a Vegas-Reno Interstate. A bigger, longer distance corridor directly linking Phoenix and Seattle would be more worthwhile.
Hence why I keep bringing up how things went down with similar proposals for I-70 in Nevada, Many of you seem to be fixated on helping out long range traffic and don't care about what is actually going on (or what will go on) in Nevada. At least I-70 was potentially eligible for chargeable miles, I-11 isn't.
Never mind that people aren't driving the long distances in question. Las Vegas to Reno is 440 miles driving distance. It's another 425 to Eugene. These distances are far enough that normal people will choose to fly instead of drive, especially if they don't need a car on the far end. LAS-RNO is a busy air route (over 10% of RNO's passenger traffic) and I don't see that changing with a new road.
There are also long distances without anything on these routes. We've talked about south of Reno ad infinitum, but north of Reno isn't any less desolate. Head north of Reno on US 395 and the next McDonald's you'll pass is in Burns, Oregon, 350 miles away. That may be the longest distance between 2 McDonald's stores on a major road in the lower 48. Indeed, until the Tonopah McDonald's closed, the "McFurthest Spot" was a little southeast of the CA/NV/OR tripoint. 395 north of CA 36 is bleeping desplate, as are CA 139/ OR 39, and the terrain isn't particularly conducive to building a freeway.
^ Agreed. Also long-haul truckers already have, between Vancouver BC/Seattle/Portland OR and Las Vegas/Phoenix, a mostly-Interstate route over I-5, I-90, I-82, I-84 and/or I-15, plus I-11 south of Las Vegas if that ever gets extended to Phoenix. A new Interstate could shave some mileage and time off the existing-Interstates route, but at what cost?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2024, 10:34:22 PMThat's kind of a point I was making earlier. The Vancouver, BC metro has 2.6 million people. The Seattle-Tacoma metro is home to over 4 million people. The Portland metro has 2.5 million people. Farther South, the Las Vegas metro has 2.2 million people. The Phoenix metro has 4.8 million people. The I-11 corridor could potentially connect all those metro areas with a high speed, no-stops, limited access highway connection. And it could have one or more gateways into Mexico that are not located in California.
Reno has over 260,000 people and almost 500,000 in its metro area. That's a pretty size-able stop in between. But it's probably not a big enough metro on its own to build a Vegas-Reno Interstate. A bigger, longer distance corridor directly linking Phoenix and Seattle would be more worthwhile.
Are you talking about people in Seattle or Vancouver who want to go to Las Vegas for a few days? They'd fly. Cheap flights, couple of hours. It's a pretty sizeable drive. Google Maps says 17 hours - at least 2 days drive, 3 days if you want to enjoy the trip. Each way. Just the hotel bills would probably pay for the flight.
Truckers can probably handle driving on some (gasp) US routes in addition to interstates.
Quote from: cl94 on June 16, 2024, 11:16:41 PMThere are also long distances without anything on these routes. We've talked about south of Reno ad infinitum, but north of Reno isn't any less desolate. Head north of Reno on US 395 and the next McDonald's you'll pass is in Burns, Oregon, 350 miles away. That may be the longest distance between 2 McDonald's stores on a major road in the lower 48. Indeed, until the Tonopah McDonald's closed, the "McFurthest Spot" was a little southeast of the CA/NV/OR tripoint. 395 north of CA 36 is bleeping desplate, as are CA 139/ OR 39, and the terrain isn't particularly conducive to building a freeway.
Actually, there's one in Susanville, which is about 300 miles from Burns. Same for Starbucks.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 08:31:07 AMIn Arizona and the same thing with Nevada it's not letting me post pictures directly here, but it starts on slide 19: http://i11study.com/Arizona/PDF/I-11_ASR_December-2017.pdf
I'm glad to see they're considering the remote possibility of a second Interstate between Phoenix and Tucson. I would think the Casa Grande area will expand greatly, and having a freeway down either side could be more useful than one really wide road. Sort of like I-5 and CA-99 in the Central Valley. Or I-20 and I-30 between Fort Worth and Dallas.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 01:22:15 AMI will say one thing, This is also responding directly to a couple posters that I respect greatly, I am very happy they are not in charge. Because I think there are several highways out on the west that you could say don't deserve to be full interstate quality and that a four-lane at grade Road would suffice. One such obvious road is I-70 in Utah. I am very happy I can travel that road at 80 miles an hour and not have to go through at grade intersections. I think you could say the same thing about some segments of I-10 in western Texas.
That's something we haven't considered. Maybe the reason people want a high speed Interstate highway through hundreds of miles of nothing is that they just want to get the damn ride over with, it's so boring. That's certainly why I rarely get off the Interstate when I'm driving through the middle of the country.
Quote from: pderocco on June 17, 2024, 12:31:16 AMQuote from: cl94 on June 16, 2024, 11:16:41 PMThere are also long distances without anything on these routes. We've talked about south of Reno ad infinitum, but north of Reno isn't any less desolate. Head north of Reno on US 395 and the next McDonald's you'll pass is in Burns, Oregon, 350 miles away. That may be the longest distance between 2 McDonald's stores on a major road in the lower 48. Indeed, until the Tonopah McDonald's closed, the "McFurthest Spot" was a little southeast of the CA/NV/OR tripoint. 395 north of CA 36 is bleeping desplate, as are CA 139/ OR 39, and the terrain isn't particularly conducive to building a freeway.
Actually, there's one in Susanville, which is about 300 miles from Burns. Same for Starbucks.
Read my wording again. 395 does not pass the McDonald's in question, which is on CA 36 and about 3 miles from 395.
Quote from: cl94 on June 17, 2024, 01:01:04 AMQuote from: pderocco on June 17, 2024, 12:31:16 AMQuote from: cl94 on June 16, 2024, 11:16:41 PMThere are also long distances without anything on these routes. We've talked about south of Reno ad infinitum, but north of Reno isn't any less desolate. Head north of Reno on US 395 and the next McDonald's you'll pass is in Burns, Oregon, 350 miles away. That may be the longest distance between 2 McDonald's stores on a major road in the lower 48. Indeed, until the Tonopah McDonald's closed, the "McFurthest Spot" was a little southeast of the CA/NV/OR tripoint. 395 north of CA 36 is bleeping desplate, as are CA 139/ OR 39, and the terrain isn't particularly conducive to building a freeway.
Actually, there's one in Susanville, which is about 300 miles from Burns. Same for Starbucks.
Read my wording again. 395 does not pass the McDonald's in question, which is on CA 36 and about 3 miles from 395.
Okay, you got me on a technicality. But if you
really want to get technical, I don't see a McDonalds on US-395 south of there until you get to Bishop. There are some a few doors down, though...
Quote from: pderocco on June 17, 2024, 12:38:05 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 01:22:15 AMI will say one thing, This is also responding directly to a couple posters that I respect greatly, I am very happy they are not in charge. Because I think there are several highways out on the west that you could say don't deserve to be full interstate quality and that a four-lane at grade Road would suffice. One such obvious road is I-70 in Utah. I am very happy I can travel that road at 80 miles an hour and not have to go through at grade intersections. I think you could say the same thing about some segments of I-10 in western Texas.
That's something we haven't considered. Maybe the reason people want a high speed Interstate highway through hundreds of miles of nothing is that they just want to get the damn ride over with, it's so boring. That's certainly why I rarely get off the Interstate when I'm driving through the middle of the country.
I can tell you given Utah's practices of signing its two-lane roads at 65 mph, The fact that I drive to Moab once or twice a month, That ride would be absolute hell. I'm so happy that I 70 is an interstate through eastern Utah.
Quote from: kktAre you talking about people in Seattle or Vancouver who want to go to Las Vegas for a few days?
No, this has more to do about aiding commercial traffic. I think a NAFTA style corridor that bypasses much of California would be pretty attractive to long haul truckers.
Also, some people are going to prefer driving to flying depending on the leg of I-11 they're using. I think air travel sucks ass these days. And they nickel and dime you to death with all the damned added fees. A completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 17, 2024, 03:34:18 AMQuote from: pderocco on June 17, 2024, 12:38:05 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 01:22:15 AMI will say one thing, This is also responding directly to a couple posters that I respect greatly, I am very happy they are not in charge. Because I think there are several highways out on the west that you could say don't deserve to be full interstate quality and that a four-lane at grade Road would suffice. One such obvious road is I-70 in Utah. I am very happy I can travel that road at 80 miles an hour and not have to go through at grade intersections. I think you could say the same thing about some segments of I-10 in western Texas.
That's something we haven't considered. Maybe the reason people want a high speed Interstate highway through hundreds of miles of nothing is that they just want to get the damn ride over with, it's so boring. That's certainly why I rarely get off the Interstate when I'm driving through the middle of the country.
I can tell you given Utah's practices of signing its two-lane roads at 65 mph, The fact that I drive to Moab once or twice a month, That ride would be absolute hell. I'm so happy that I 70 is an interstate through eastern Utah.
Wait, you drive to Moab twice a month but stick only to I-15 and I-70? I'll give you that both have some really top-notch Interstate segments but that's a lot of really top shelf state highway and US Route stuff you're skipping. UT 12 is on a lot of top ten general scenic highway lists.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2024, 02:14:31 PMAlso, why do some of the posters on this forum seem to think all of us want nothing but freeways and Interstates? We are literally talking about a part of Nevada that rivals much Alaska for low population density.
Then why aren't we bringing I-A1, I-A2, I-A3, and I-A4 up to interstate standards?!?!?!?!?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2024, 01:58:14 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2024, 02:14:31 PMAlso, why do some of the posters on this forum seem to think all of us want nothing but freeways and Interstates? We are literally talking about a part of Nevada that rivals much Alaska for low population density.
Then why aren't we bringing I-A1, I-A2, I-A3, and I-A4 up to interstate standards?!?!?!?!?
I think this is needed. :-/
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: kktAre you talking about people in Seattle or Vancouver who want to go to Las Vegas for a few days?
No, this has more to do about aiding commercial traffic. I think a NAFTA style corridor that bypasses much of California would be pretty attractive to long haul truckers.
Also, some people are going to prefer driving to flying depending on the leg of I-11 they're using. I think air travel sucks ass these days. And they nickel and dime you to death with all the damned added fees. A completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
I think driving on US 93 would be completely acceptable to long-haul truckers. It's two lanes, but not crowded at all. There's no trouble finding a place to pass.
Yes, the added fees on air travel are annoying, but even with them it's still cheaper than a couple of nights in hotels and meals on the road. Some people love long distance drives, but most don't.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMAlso, some people are going to prefer driving to flying depending on the leg of I-11 they're using. I think air travel sucks ass these days. And they nickel and dime you to death with all the damned added fees. A completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
People complain about paying ancillary fees no matter what the cost of the base ticket is. My mom got pissed she had to pay $60 for checked baggage when she was flying Frontier, thought that was insane. I reminded her that the base price was $39 and so she paid $100 one way for what Delta was going to charge her $179. If you don't have the patience nor ability to do the math, you deserve to pay more and be annoyed. :)
Also, barely anyone from Vegas goes to Reno, so flying between the two isn't that popular as it is. I would estimate 90% of the traffic between the two cities is freight, which obviously isn't going to fly.
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2024, 02:23:13 PMI think driving on US 93 would be completely acceptable to long-haul truckers. It's two lanes, but not crowded at all. There's no trouble finding a place to pass.
Indeed, if a Las Vegas/Pacific Northwest trucker wanted to bypass Provo/Salt Lake City/Ogden on I-15, US 93 between Las Vegas and I-84 at Twin Falls ID would probably be the best non-Interstate bypass route.
It takes 16 hours to drive from Portland to Vegas. A freeway won't make that less than 14-15. Flight is 2-3 hours. Most people would take the flight. Unless you're going with a group of people or need a ton of equipment, the flight will be cheaper, especially given that a drive that long involves an overnight somewhere for most people.
People in our hobby are unusually averse to flying compared to the general population. Most people will take whatever is cheapest or fastest. With how cheap flights to Vegas are, most people are going to fly, especially if they don't need a car in Vegas and hotels are going to charge obscene amounts for parking.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2024, 02:34:35 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMAlso, some people are going to prefer driving to flying depending on the leg of I-11 they're using. I think air travel sucks ass these days. And they nickel and dime you to death with all the damned added fees. A completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
People complain about paying ancillary fees no matter what the cost of the base ticket is. My mom got pissed she had to pay $60 for checked baggage when she was flying Frontier, thought that was insane. I reminded her that the base price was $39 and so she paid $100 one way for what Delta was going to charge her $179. If you don't have the patience nor ability to do the math, you deserve to pay more and be annoyed. :)
Also, barely anyone from Vegas goes to Reno, so flying between the two isn't that popular as it is. I would estimate 90% of the traffic between the two cities is freight, which obviously isn't going to fly.
More than you think. Busiest route out of Reno by far. There is a LOT of air traffic between the two, whether it be business or Tahoe tourism.
Quote from: cl94 on June 17, 2024, 02:37:37 PMMore than you think. Busiest route out of Reno by far. There is a LOT of air traffic between the two, whether it be business or Tahoe tourism.
Busiest route out of Reno, sure. Just like Denver is the busiest route out of Liberal, KS.
I'm being hyperbolic, obviously.
Total RNO-LAS traffic from 4/23-4/24 is 487,000 passengers, with some of that obviously connecting traffic as Southwest has 50% market share and has lots of destinations from LAS.
If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd bet that about 20% is actually O/D traffic, so I'll round up and say 100,000 passengers, so less than 300 per day. This is probably the equivalent of an AADT of 200, and it looks like the AADT on US95 by Goldfield is 2,400.
So tl;dr, I don't think flying puts a statistically significant dent in the traffic on this route. Not many people travel between the two cities whether by land or air.
Maybe I-11 to Reno is borne of an interoffice dispute at NDOT.
"God damn it, if you're going to make people from the Las Vegas office come up to Carson for these stupid meetings you should at least let us expense the air travel."
"If you didn't want to drive, George, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a job with NDOT."
"Well maybe if there was an INTERSTATE I wouldn't have PROBLEM with it JEFF"
"WELL MAYBE WE'LL MAKE THERE BE A WHOLE ASS INTERSTATE JUST FOR WHINY BABY GEORGE"
"WELL MAYBE YOU'D BETTER"
"WELL MAYBE I WILL"
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 17, 2024, 03:01:27 PMMaybe I-11 to Reno is borne of an interoffice dispute at NDOT.
"God damn it, if you're going to make people from the Las Vegas office come up to Carson for these stupid meetings you should at least let us expense the air travel."
"If you didn't want to drive, George, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a job with NDOT."
"Well maybe if there was an INTERSTATE I wouldn't have PROBLEM with it JEFF"
"WELL MAYBE WE'LL MAKE THERE BE A WHOLE ASS INTERSTATE JUST FOR WHINY BABY GEORGE"
"WELL MAYBE YOU'D BETTER"
"WELL MAYBE I WILL"
:clap:
Really, the travel expense for mandatory meetings should be expensed either way, but...
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 17, 2024, 03:01:27 PMMaybe I-11 to Reno is borne of an interoffice dispute at NDOT.
"God damn it, if you're going to make people from the Las Vegas office come up to Carson for these stupid meetings you should at least let us expense the air travel."
"If you didn't want to drive, George, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a job with NDOT."
"Well maybe if there was an INTERSTATE I wouldn't have PROBLEM with it JEFF"
"WELL MAYBE WE'LL MAKE THERE BE A WHOLE ASS INTERSTATE JUST FOR WHINY BABY GEORGE"
"WELL MAYBE YOU'D BETTER"
"WELL MAYBE I WILL"
That's the first funny thing I've seen all day. I needed that.
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2024, 03:07:10 PMReally, the travel expense for mandatory meetings should be expensed either way, but...
George, Jeff said he wants you to get off the Internet during work hours.
Quote from: cl94 on June 17, 2024, 02:37:37 PMIt takes 16 hours to drive from Portland to Vegas. A freeway won't make that less than 14-15. Flight is 2-3 hours. Most people would take the flight. Unless you're going with a group of people or need a ton of equipment, the flight will be cheaper, especially given that a drive that long involves an overnight somewhere for most people.
People in our hobby are unusually averse to flying compared to the general population. Most people will take whatever is cheapest or fastest. With how cheap flights to Vegas are, most people are going to fly, especially if they don't need a car in Vegas and hotels are going to charge obscene amounts for parking.
Definitely this. No one outside of hardcore roadgeeks and driving enthusiasts is driving more than 3-4 hours to Vegas. People who are used to driving long distances vastly underrate the aversion that most people have to driving more than an hour. When I tell people I drive from the Bay Area to Vegas (7-8 hours) I get shocked looks. (I hate flying and enjoy driving.)
SoCal, Phoenix, and maybe SLC are surely the only metros that would drive to Vegas and that wouldn't change even if there were an interstate going northwest from Vegas.
You could probably get more people to drive from Phoenix if there were an interstate, unless the existing US-93 between the two cities is sufficiently interstate-like (I haven't driven it). Remember, this is for normies, not anyone who reads or posts on this forum.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: kktAre you talking about people in Seattle or Vancouver who want to go to Las Vegas for a few days?
No, this has more to do about aiding commercial traffic. I think a NAFTA style corridor that bypasses much of California would be pretty attractive to long haul truckers.
This. New interstates are being built for truck traffic. Auto traffic is pretty much incidental.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2024, 01:07:12 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 17, 2024, 03:34:18 AMQuote from: pderocco on June 17, 2024, 12:38:05 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 01:22:15 AMI will say one thing, This is also responding directly to a couple posters that I respect greatly, I am very happy they are not in charge. Because I think there are several highways out on the west that you could say don't deserve to be full interstate quality and that a four-lane at grade Road would suffice. One such obvious road is I-70 in Utah. I am very happy I can travel that road at 80 miles an hour and not have to go through at grade intersections. I think you could say the same thing about some segments of I-10 in western Texas.
That's something we haven't considered. Maybe the reason people want a high speed Interstate highway through hundreds of miles of nothing is that they just want to get the damn ride over with, it's so boring. That's certainly why I rarely get off the Interstate when I'm driving through the middle of the country.
I can tell you given Utah's practices of signing its two-lane roads at 65 mph, The fact that I drive to Moab once or twice a month, That ride would be absolute hell. I'm so happy that I 70 is an interstate through eastern Utah.
Wait, you drive to Moab twice a month but stick only to I-15 and I-70? I'll give you that both have some really top-notch Interstate segments but that's a lot of really top shelf state highway and US Route stuff you're skipping. UT 12 is on a lot of top ten general scenic highway lists.
I drive there at least once a month. I take different routes sometimes depending on the time of day. I haven't been on UT-12 yet I need to check it out. Obviously I have taken the 191. Sometimes I go through Zion. I've taken 89 from Kanab to Page and then 98 to US-160 which depending on where I want to go I will either go through Monument Valley or continue to US-191.
Taking US-89 north from Kanab is on my to do list and it looks like I will be adding UT-12 as well.
I will take the 15 to I-70 depending on if I am in a hurry or if it's nighttime.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 17, 2024, 08:45:35 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2024, 01:07:12 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 17, 2024, 03:34:18 AMQuote from: pderocco on June 17, 2024, 12:38:05 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 16, 2024, 01:22:15 AMI will say one thing, This is also responding directly to a couple posters that I respect greatly, I am very happy they are not in charge. Because I think there are several highways out on the west that you could say don't deserve to be full interstate quality and that a four-lane at grade Road would suffice. One such obvious road is I-70 in Utah. I am very happy I can travel that road at 80 miles an hour and not have to go through at grade intersections. I think you could say the same thing about some segments of I-10 in western Texas.
That's something we haven't considered. Maybe the reason people want a high speed Interstate highway through hundreds of miles of nothing is that they just want to get the damn ride over with, it's so boring. That's certainly why I rarely get off the Interstate when I'm driving through the middle of the country.
I can tell you given Utah's practices of signing its two-lane roads at 65 mph, The fact that I drive to Moab once or twice a month, That ride would be absolute hell. I'm so happy that I 70 is an interstate through eastern Utah.
Wait, you drive to Moab twice a month but stick only to I-15 and I-70? I'll give you that both have some really top-notch Interstate segments but that's a lot of really top shelf state highway and US Route stuff you're skipping. UT 12 is on a lot of top ten general scenic highway lists.
I drive there at least once a month. I take different routes sometimes depending on the time of day. I haven't been on UT-12 yet I need to check it out. Obviously I have taken the 191. Sometimes I go through Zion. I've taken 89 from Kanab to Page and then 98 to US-160 which depending on where I want to go I will either go through Monument Valley or continue to US-191.
Taking US-89 north from Kanab is on my to do list and it looks like I will be adding UT-12 as well.
I will take the 15 to I-70 depending on if I am in a hurry or if it's nighttime.
The nice thing about UT 12 is the eastern terminus drops you off at UT 24 approaching Capitol Reef. I'm a fan of UT 95 which isn't too far from Moab either.
This thread's a train wreck.
*tunes in to read about I-11*
Um...Utah?
Southern Utah highway talk would be my preferred alternative to I-11 conjecture north of Las Vegas.
There's already an interstate from Las Vegas to southern Utah.
Nothing wrong with having I-11 end in or near Las Vegas.
Well, according To the Las Vegas review journal, The Nevada Department of transportation sure seems to imply it will run all the way from Canada to Mexico.
QuoteNevada transportation officials have identified options for the next step to extend Interstate 11 farther north beyond the Las Vegas Valley.
The Nevada Department of Transportation is conducting a virtual public meeting to gather feedback from residents on three identified options to bring U.S. Highway 95 to interstate code from the northwest valley through Indian Springs.
The virtual public meeting runs through July 12 online, with an in-person meeting scheduled for 4-7 p.m. June 25 at the Indian Springs Park Community Center.
Interstate 11 currently runs from the Arizona-Nevada border to the Henderson Interchange on U.S. 95. Long-term plans call for the interstate to run from Canada all the way to Mexico.
This year new I-11 signage will be added along U.S. 95 from the Henderson Interchange to Kyle Canyon Road.
The three new options being considered would travel through Indian Springs, where a mix of commercial and residential property and Creech Air Force Base are located. That mix leaves little room to increase the highway's footprint to allow both local and interstate access.
Design alternatives
Alternative 1 includes a new route that would loop south of Indian Springs, with two interchanges constructed on both sides of the community.
Alternative 2 would maintain northbound interstate travel on U.S. 95 through town, with southbound travel moved to a new corridor south of the community, using the same alignment as Alternative 1. Both directions would converge at interchanges on each end of Indian Springs. Frontage roads would be added to allow local access through town.
Alternative 3 would maintain both directions of travel on U.S. 95 through the community, with two options: 3a) a raised road or 3b) a depressed road option. Local travel would take place on the current U.S. 95 corridor, and the interstate route would be constructed either below or above U.S. 95, with interchanges built on both sides of Indian Springs.
New interchanges
No matter which alternative is chosen, bringing the stretch of U.S. 95 to interstate code for I-11 will mean roadway features will need to be updated and all at-grade intersections would need to be replaced by interchanges.
To bring the highway to interstate code, NDOT would look to widen the inside and outside shoulders, feature a wider median and/or include safety barriers, add improved signage and striping, and create higher bridge clearances and shallower grades.
A total of 10 interchanges also would be included in the plan at various points on the highway. They would consist of traditional diamond layouts that would provide access to both areas on both sides of I-11.
Three of the 10 already exist, at Snow Mountain and Lee Canyon in Clark County and in Mercury in Nye County, but those will need to be updated as part of the I-11 project. Seven new interchanges would be built along the nearly 50-mile stretch of highway.
The new interchanges would be built at:
Sheep Mountain Road: This interchange is proposed to connect to a planned Sheep Mountain Parkway corridor, which will provide north-south access west of the 215 Beltway.
Corn Creek Road: This interchange would provide access to the community of Corn Creek and the Corn Creek Visitor Center and Desert National Wildlife Refuge.
Cold Creek Road: An interchange would replace the existing at-grade intersection that provides access to the Southern Desert Correctional Center and the community of Cold Creek.
Indian Springs: Interchanges will be built on the northern and southern ends of the community.
Big Timber Spring: An interchange would be constructed to provide access to public lands located south of U.S. 95.
Rock Spring: An interchange would be constructed to give access to public lands located south of U.S. 95.
A truck parking facility also would be constructed between Lee Canyon and Cold Creek interchanges to provide drivers of long-haul trucks a place to rest.
Ultimate goal
Linking Las Vegas to Phoenix and then eventually to Mexico and Canada via I-11 are the goals of the long-term project.
The I-11 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement from Nogales to Wickenburg in Arizona was completed in 2021, with the record of decision from that establishing the selected corridor, which is 2,000 feet wide, according to the Arizona Department of Transportation.
A Tier 2 environmental study must still be completed to narrow the corridor to 400-foot-wide alignments, or routes. A Tier 2 EIS has been programmed for study from Buckeye to Wickenburg.
No time frame is set as to when work on new portions of I-11 in both Nevada and Arizona might begin, and funding has yet to be identified.
- https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/ndot-seeking-public-opinion-on-planned-i-11-extension-3070028/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3gvu3KMlX_xXVgzzr_a_FKA9t_yFqFPzOZkcB5lQFD-4HPcimrrnLkWBM_aem_0PLa6pL8TZKvkdRQE6D4Xw
Ah, I see NDOT was taken over by FritzOwl. The Interstate Empire is about to emerge onto the unsuspecting populace.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2024, 12:46:43 AMAh, I see NDOT was taken over by FritzOwl. The Interstate Empire is about to emerge onto the unsuspecting populace.
I thought you might like that article. FritzOwl is moving onto bigger and better things here. Fritz, care to chime in? Or does he only stay in his own thread?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 18, 2024, 12:53:52 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2024, 12:46:43 AMAh, I see NDOT was taken over by FritzOwl. The Interstate Empire is about to emerge onto the unsuspecting populace.
I thought you might like that article. FritzOwl is moving onto bigger and better things here. Fritz, care to chime in? Or does he only stay in his own thread?
The dark lord of the Interstate never tells his secrets off the Fictional board.
Sigh... again, NDOT is doing just enough to placate the politicians and no further. Congress and Nevada's congresscritters degreed that it's going border to border, so NDOT needs to give it lip service.
NDOT's real intentions and expectations are in their long-range planning documents. None of which include I-11 north of Vegas, nor does their model. Heck, NDOT doesn't even identify US 95 as a priority corridor (a designation given to 93 and 395).
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2024, 12:46:43 AMAh, I see NDOT was taken over by FritzOwl. The Interstate Empire is about to emerge onto the unsuspecting populace.
NDOT presents: Interstate System 2, this time with blackjack and hookers.
Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2024, 01:09:18 AMSigh... again, NDOT is doing just enough to placate the politicians and no further. Congress and Nevada's congresscritters degreed that it's going border to border, so NDOT needs to give it lip service.
NDOT's real intentions and expectations are in their long-range planning documents. None of which include I-11 north of Vegas, nor does their model. Heck, NDOT doesn't even identify US 95 as a priority corridor (a designation given to 93 and 395).
(personal opinion emphasized)
Doesn't the Canamax corridor follow I-15 north of Las Vegas (https://web.archive.org/web/20130729191113/http://www.canamex.org/canamex/federal-definition/) instead? Or has there been a change? Because if not, it seems like a case of the media being dumb. Although Arizona seems to have fully bought into that logic with their plans to send I-11 down I-19.
Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2024, 01:09:18 AMSigh... again, NDOT is doing just enough to placate the politicians and no further. Congress and Nevada's congresscritters degreed that it's going border to border, so NDOT needs to give it lip service.
NDOT's real intentions and expectations are in their long-range planning documents. None of which include I-11 north of Vegas, nor does their model. Heck, NDOT doesn't even identify US 95 as a priority corridor (a designation given to 93 and 395).
(personal opinion emphasized)
I think there's a better chance of 395 being four-laned by NDOT and Caltrans from Gardnerville to Bridgeport than I-11 making it to 80.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2024, 02:57:01 PMQuote from: cl94 on June 17, 2024, 02:37:37 PMMore than you think. Busiest route out of Reno by far. There is a LOT of air traffic between the two, whether it be business or Tahoe tourism.
Busiest route out of Reno, sure. Just like Denver is the busiest route out of Liberal, KS.
I'm being hyperbolic, obviously.
Total RNO-LAS traffic from 4/23-4/24 is 487,000 passengers, with some of that obviously connecting traffic as Southwest has 50% market share and has lots of destinations from LAS.
If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd bet that about 20% is actually O/D traffic, so I'll round up and say 100,000 passengers, so less than 300 per day. This is probably the equivalent of an AADT of 200, and it looks like the AADT on US95 by Goldfield is 2,400.
So tl;dr, I don't think flying puts a statistically significant dent in the traffic on this route. Not many people travel between the two cities whether by land or air.
There are around 10-12 flights a day via Southwest (Spirit flies the route too but not sure on their frequency) between Reno and Vegas. Yes, even the Reno-bound flights are usually pretty packed.
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2024, 02:23:13 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMQuote from: kktAre you talking about people in Seattle or Vancouver who want to go to Las Vegas for a few days?
No, this has more to do about aiding commercial traffic. I think a NAFTA style corridor that bypasses much of California would be pretty attractive to long haul truckers.
Also, some people are going to prefer driving to flying depending on the leg of I-11 they're using. I think air travel sucks ass these days. And they nickel and dime you to death with all the damned added fees. A completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
I think driving on US 93 would be completely acceptable to long-haul truckers. It's two lanes, but not crowded at all. There's no trouble finding a place to pass.
Yes, the added fees on air travel are annoying, but even with them it's still cheaper than a couple of nights in hotels and meals on the road. Some people love long distance drives, but most don't.
I love driving long distance. But I also don't do more than a 10-12 hour drive time from Reno. Anything farther and I'll just fly there.
Quote from: cl94 on June 18, 2024, 01:09:18 AMSigh... again, NDOT is doing just enough to placate the politicians and no further. Congress and Nevada's congresscritters degreed that it's going border to border, so NDOT needs to give it lip service.
NDOT's real intentions and expectations are in their long-range planning documents. None of which include I-11 north of Vegas, nor does their model. Heck, NDOT doesn't even identify US 95 as a priority corridor (a designation given to 93 and 395).
Gee, I thought perhaps NDOT was advertising the long distance plan because, if it ever materialized, it would steer work and money their way. I was impressed that there still existed a Department of Transportation somewhere that still liked the idea of building roads. Maybe I was wrong...
Quote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:23:06 AMI think there's a better chance of 395 being four-laned by NDOT and Caltrans from Gardnerville to Bridgeport than I-11 making it to 80.
Gardnerville to Topaz Lake is actually in the plans.
Quote from: pderocco on June 19, 2024, 12:42:04 AMGee, I thought perhaps NDOT was advertising the long distance plan because, if it ever materialized, it would steer work and money their way. I was impressed that there still existed a Department of Transportation somewhere that still liked the idea of building roads. Maybe I was wrong...
Building and maintaining roads costs money. If the feds aren't going to kick in the funds to build it (Interstate-specific funds are dead), the money either needs to be raised through taxes/tolls or come from elsewhere in the budget. If NDOT can get money from the feds earmarked to I-11 that doesn't require cannibalizing funds from elsewhere in the state, they'll build it. It would be horrendous politics to take money away from Vegas or Reno/Carson/Minden/Fernley/Tahoe to build something in the middle of nowhere.
NDOT has trouble finding the money to finish I-580 or do the much-needed US 395 upgrades between Carson and Topaz Lake, and that is a corridor that serves people. How are they going to find hundreds of billions of dollars to build a road in the middle of nowhere that will serve a couple thousand vehicles a day? Even the I-11 study materials say pretty clearly that a full freeway may never happen along the entire corridor. Apart from Clark and Washoe Counties (which have high county fuel taxes earmarked for roads), things generally aren't getting built in Nevada unless a local municipality or developer chips in substantially.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: cl94 on June 19, 2024, 01:02:50 AMNDOT has trouble finding the money to finish I-580
What would finishing I-580 entail?
Quote from: Bruce on June 19, 2024, 01:27:49 AMQuote from: cl94 on June 19, 2024, 01:02:50 AMNDOT has trouble finding the money to finish I-580
What would finishing I-580 entail?
Interchange at the south end. Due to needing to maintain traffic and work around businesses/parkland, it will not be an easy task. And indeed, when there was an I-11 briefing at the NDOT board meeting a month or two ago, a large percentage of the public commenters noted that 580 still hasn't officially been completed and complained that NDOT was giving
any attention to a new freeway if the projects proposed along 395 couldn't get funded.
Quote from: cl94 on June 19, 2024, 01:02:50 AMBuilding and maintaining roads costs money. If the feds aren't going to kick in the funds to build it (Interstate-specific funds are dead), the money either needs to be raised through taxes/tolls or come from elsewhere in the budget. If NDOT can get money from the feds earmarked to I-11 that doesn't require cannibalizing funds from elsewhere in the state, they'll build it. It would be horrendous politics to take money away from Vegas or Reno/Carson/Minden/Fernley/Tahoe to build something in the middle of nowhere.
All true, but NDOT is given money by politicians, whether state or federal. I could imagine NDOT wanting to tout the possibility of some grandiose project in order to encourage the politicians to steer more money their way. They may not want to cannibalize the I-580 project to build more of I-11 in the desert, but they might not mind if the money came from some water project, the welfare system, energy subsidies, or whatever. We're only talking about the verbiage in some public-facing document talking about nebulous plans for the future. All bureaucracies want to be bigger and more important.
Wut.
Quote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:32:05 AMThere are around 10-12 flights a day via Southwest (Spirit flies the route too but not sure on their frequency) between Reno and Vegas. Yes, even the Reno-bound flights are usually pretty packed.
I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that the majority of the people on that plane are not originating in Vegas, merely connecting.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 08:26:03 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:32:05 AMThere are around 10-12 flights a day via Southwest (Spirit flies the route too but not sure on their frequency) between Reno and Vegas. Yes, even the Reno-bound flights are usually pretty packed.
I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that the majority of the people on that plane are not originating in Vegas, merely connecting.
Connecting you say? Sure. From places like say Portland and Seattle? Or maybe Phoenix? definitely. Reno-Tahoe Airport got 4.573 million passengers in 2023. But Northwest Nevada and Tahoe is a major draw for tourism even for people who live in Vegas. Not to mention the amount of trade that goes through the region.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 19, 2024, 10:53:21 AMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 08:26:03 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:32:05 AMThere are around 10-12 flights a day via Southwest (Spirit flies the route too but not sure on their frequency) between Reno and Vegas. Yes, even the Reno-bound flights are usually pretty packed.
I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that the majority of the people on that plane are not originating in Vegas, merely connecting.
Connecting you say? Sure. From places like say Portland and Seattle? Or maybe Phoenix? definitely. Reno-Tahoe Airport got 4.573 million passengers in 2023. But Northwest Nevada and Tahoe is a major draw for tourism even for people who live in Vegas. Not to mention the amount of trade that goes through the region.
Not sure from your tone if you're trying to agree with me or rebut me.
In case you're in disagreement, I'm not saying Reno/Tahoe area isn't "important". I'm saying that not many people travel from Vegas to Reno and vice versa, either by road or by air. Using the amount of flights between Vegas and Reno as a way to disprove my statement doesn't necessarily hold water because Vegas is a focus city for Southwest and lots of people on the LAS-RNO/RNO-LAS flights are connecting, not O/D traffic. And, to summarize to make this more on topic, there isn't much demand for a quicker route between Vegas and Reno, as evident by the already low AADT numbers on US95 and only maybe having 300 people per day flying
specifically between the two cities.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 12:24:13 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on June 19, 2024, 10:53:21 AMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 08:26:03 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:32:05 AMThere are around 10-12 flights a day via Southwest (Spirit flies the route too but not sure on their frequency) between Reno and Vegas. Yes, even the Reno-bound flights are usually pretty packed.
I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that the majority of the people on that plane are not originating in Vegas, merely connecting.
Connecting you say? Sure. From places like say Portland and Seattle? Or maybe Phoenix? definitely. Reno-Tahoe Airport got 4.573 million passengers in 2023. But Northwest Nevada and Tahoe is a major draw for tourism even for people who live in Vegas. Not to mention the amount of trade that goes through the region.
Not sure from your tone if you're trying to agree with me or rebut me.
In case you're in disagreement, I'm not saying Reno/Tahoe area isn't "important". I'm saying that not many people travel from Vegas to Reno and vice versa, either by road or by air. Using the amount of flights between Vegas and Reno as a way to disprove my statement doesn't necessarily hold water because Vegas is a focus city for Southwest and lots of people on the LAS-RNO/RNO-LAS flights are connecting, not O/D traffic. And, to summarize to make this more on topic, there isn't much demand for a quicker route between Vegas and Reno, as evident by the already low AADT numbers on US95 and only maybe having 300 people per day flying specifically between the two cities.
I was in disagreement with your assessment. According to flightradar, there are 83 routes from Reno to Las Vegas per week, most of any city. Second is Denver (50) and 3rd is Phoenix (47).
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 17, 2024, 03:01:27 PMMaybe I-11 to Reno is borne of an interoffice dispute at NDOT.
"God damn it, if you're going to make people from the Las Vegas office come up to Carson for these stupid meetings you should at least let us expense the air travel."
"If you didn't want to drive, George, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a job with NDOT."
"Well maybe if there was an INTERSTATE I wouldn't have PROBLEM with it JEFF"
"WELL MAYBE WE'LL MAKE THERE BE A WHOLE ASS INTERSTATE JUST FOR WHINY BABY GEORGE"
"WELL MAYBE YOU'D BETTER"
"WELL MAYBE I WILL"
As a Northern Nevada resident who knows there will never be any interstate freeway constructed north of Mercury, I have mostly limited my participation in these 1200+ comments worth of hot air to :popcorn: but it's good for some laughs.
There could possibly stand to be more discussion of the 3di spurs into places like Tonopah and Hawthorne, which would give Wyoming's Interstate 180 some serious competition.
P.S. on the point about air traffic between Reno and Las Vegas, I have flown that route many times but always as a connecting leg of a RNO-LAS-??? trip on Southwest. If I were going to Vegas specifically to spend my entire time on the Strip I would fly that, but similar to Vegas residents such as Scott5114 I consider the Strip something to avoid completely. My trips to Vegas are usually for something outlying, such as the October PGA Tour event in Summerlin, and I need my car for that, so I invest the 7 hours or so each way driving down there rather than the close to 3 hours each way it would take to drive from Tahoe to RNO, get parked and get through security at the airport, then the actual flying time to LAS and the transit to the hotel.
Edit to add: The traffic volume and ability to pass slower vehicles has never been an issue on that drive regardless of specific route chosen. The minor aggravation that does occur due to lack of a four-lane highway is the times when there is road work, a flagger, and you get stuck in a line behind a vehicle with a "Pilot Car - Follow Me" sign for a 20 or 30 minute delay.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 19, 2024, 12:47:30 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 12:24:13 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on June 19, 2024, 10:53:21 AMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 08:26:03 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:32:05 AMThere are around 10-12 flights a day via Southwest (Spirit flies the route too but not sure on their frequency) between Reno and Vegas. Yes, even the Reno-bound flights are usually pretty packed.
I'm not saying they aren't. What I am saying is that the majority of the people on that plane are not originating in Vegas, merely connecting.
Connecting you say? Sure. From places like say Portland and Seattle? Or maybe Phoenix? definitely. Reno-Tahoe Airport got 4.573 million passengers in 2023. But Northwest Nevada and Tahoe is a major draw for tourism even for people who live in Vegas. Not to mention the amount of trade that goes through the region.
Not sure from your tone if you're trying to agree with me or rebut me.
In case you're in disagreement, I'm not saying Reno/Tahoe area isn't "important". I'm saying that not many people travel from Vegas to Reno and vice versa, either by road or by air. Using the amount of flights between Vegas and Reno as a way to disprove my statement doesn't necessarily hold water because Vegas is a focus city for Southwest and lots of people on the LAS-RNO/RNO-LAS flights are connecting, not O/D traffic. And, to summarize to make this more on topic, there isn't much demand for a quicker route between Vegas and Reno, as evident by the already low AADT numbers on US95 and only maybe having 300 people per day flying specifically between the two cities.
I was in disagreement with your assessment. According to flightradar, there are 83 routes from Reno to Las Vegas per week, most of any city. Second is Denver (50) and 3rd is Phoenix (47).
Not trying to be argumentative, but how does that contradict anything I'm saying? I don't disagree that a good amount of people are on LAS-RNO or RNO-LAS flights. My point of contention is that people are not
both originating in a Nevadan city
and terminating in a Nevadan city all that often, because those passengers you reference are likely connecting through LAS on Southwest (or Spirit).
So the people who are flying on those flights never would have even considered driving because they're flying something like IAH-LAS-RNO or MDW-LAS-RNO. And, again, to make this relevant to the topic in this thread, upgrading US95 to interstate standards is not really improving conditions for many people, since the AADT is already low and the demand gained from making driving more palatable to flying is also incredibly minimal.
That is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
JayhawkCO's analysis is correct. Reno doesn't have long-haul flights; a couple a day to DFW and Chicago are about it. Any place east you want to fly to, you're almost always either going to Las Vegas or Denver (occasionally Phoenix) first and connecting to continue on. Southwest flies to many of the cities in its network nonstop from Vegas, so it's logical to go through there and with all those flights from Reno to Vegas there's usually not more than a 90 minute connection time.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 02:26:33 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
JayhawkCO's analysis is correct. Reno doesn't have long-haul flights; a couple a day to DFW and Chicago are about it. Any place east you want to fly to, you're almost always either going to Las Vegas or Denver (occasionally Phoenix) first and connecting to continue on. Southwest flies to many of the cities in its network nonstop from Vegas, so it's logical to go through there and with all those flights from Reno to Vegas there's usually not more than a 90 minute connection time.
Either way that's still surprising to me. Even with Lake Tahoe, being as big as a tourist destination as it is, If one were to fly to an international airport to get there and not want to drive seven hours from Vegas, there's Sacramento. So I'm just not understanding the demand for all of these flights.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
Hard disagree. The demand is for people to get to Reno to other cities or vice versa. And since there's not quite enough demand for more non-stops ex-RNO, connecting in Vegas is the most logical spot since Southwest has 50% market share at RNO.
If, instead, United had 50% market share at RNO, there would be a hell of a lot less RNO-LAS flights and a lot more RNO-SFO and RNO-DEN flights, not because there's a lot of demand for Coloradoans or Bay Area folks to fly to Reno, but because those are the hubs where you can connect to myriad other cities.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:33:05 PMQuote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 02:26:33 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
JayhawkCO's analysis is correct. Reno doesn't have long-haul flights; a couple a day to DFW and Chicago are about it. Any place east you want to fly to, you're almost always either going to Las Vegas or Denver (occasionally Phoenix) first and connecting to continue on. Southwest flies to many of the cities in its network nonstop from Vegas, so it's logical to go through there and with all those flights from Reno to Vegas there's usually not more than a 90 minute connection time.
Either way that's still surprising to me. Even with Lake Tahoe, being as big as a tourist destination as it is, If one were to fly to an international airport to get there and not want to drive seven hours from Vegas, there's Sacramento. So I'm just not understanding the demand for all of these flights.
A good chunk of the year Sacramento isn't exactly super accessible due to chain controls.
Well, I'm not trying to make a case to build I-11 based on the amount of flights. I'm just surprised by that number. Reno doesn't seem like the biggest tourist attraction. Tahoe does. And I don't see much news about corporate activity and growth in Reno. If there's that much demand for Tahoe bound tourism why wouldn't Reno capitalize off of that and expand their own airport to handle direct flights?
I understand Carson City being the capitol having something to do with that but still 83 flights is a lot. If there only other connecting flights are to just a couple other cities that is a weird airport where an overwhelmingly majority of people in the airport are all going to the same place even if it's to connect to other flights in Vegas.
I've just never heard of an airport like that before. Now I'm wondering about Palm Springs being a tourist bound destination but obviously it's far from the capitol so not so much a good comparison.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:33:05 PMQuote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 02:26:33 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
JayhawkCO's analysis is correct. Reno doesn't have long-haul flights; a couple a day to DFW and Chicago are about it. Any place east you want to fly to, you're almost always either going to Las Vegas or Denver (occasionally Phoenix) first and connecting to continue on. Southwest flies to many of the cities in its network nonstop from Vegas, so it's logical to go through there and with all those flights from Reno to Vegas there's usually not more than a 90 minute connection time.
Either way that's still surprising to me. Even with Lake Tahoe, being as big as a tourist destination as it is, If one were to fly to an international airport to get there and not want to drive seven hours from Vegas, there's Sacramento. So I'm just not understanding the demand for all of these flights.
As someone who lives in Reno but travels to Las Vegas several times per year, not in a tourist capacity but for family visits and work trips, I can tell you that there is a definite need for direct flights between the two most populous metro areas in a state this large. People conduct in person business between the two cities all the time, college students go back and forth (roughly 30% of the UNR incoming class each year is from Clark County), state officials going to functions and meetings (I've encountered the governor and other state officials on Southwest flights several times)... And at least to me, it seems a significant chunk of people on these flights get off the plane and head straight to baggage claim at either airport.
So I will concede that a significant chunk of RNO tavelers are likely connecting through LAS, but dispute assertions that less than 300 people per day only go from one to the other.
Even if you make it so 50% of the people are originating and deplaning in Nevada, that's still only about 600 a day in each direction. I still maintain that 50% would be a pretty extreme overestimate.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:44:27 PMWell, I'm not trying to make a case to build I-11 based on the amount of flights. I'm just surprised by that number. Reno doesn't seem like the biggest tourist attraction. Tahoe does. And I don't see much news about corporate activity and growth in Reno. If there's that much demand for Tahoe bound tourism why wouldn't Reno capitalize off of that and expand their own airport to handle direct flights?
I understand Carson City being the capitol having something to do with that but still 83 flights is a lot. If there only other connecting flights are to just a couple other cities that is a weird airport where an overwhelmingly majority of people in the airport are all going to the same place even if it's to connect to other flights in Vegas.
I've just never heard of an airport like that before. Now I'm wondering about Palm Springs being a tourist bound destination but obviously it's far from the capitol so not so much a good comparison.
RNO airport has long range plans to expand capacity at the airport. They're finishing up an expansion of the ticketing hall. Long term, they plan to reconstruct the concourses to add gates and increase operational capacity.
The flights aren't just going to Vegas. RNO has direct flights to many other major surrounding airports (OAK, SFO, San Jose, LAX, DEN, Seattle) as well as other destinations across country.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 19, 2024, 02:59:06 PMEven if you make it so 50% of the people are originating and deplaning in Nevada, that's still only about 600 a day in each direction. I still maintain that 50% would be a pretty extreme overestimate.
Well maybe I'm overestimating how many people fit in a plane?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2024, 02:34:35 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMA completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
Also, barely anyone from Vegas goes to Reno, so flying between the two isn't that popular as it is. I would estimate 90% of the traffic between the two cities is freight, which obviously isn't going to fly.
The traffic making the LAS-RNO drive is far from 90% freight... I've made that drive at all times of day and year over the last 20+ years, and maybe the middle of the route has maxed out at more like 20% trucks.
A completed I-11 isn't going to entice more passenger traffic. It's always the tradeoff between driving 7 hours and convenience of flying (airport hassles not withstanding).
For me on persona/family trips, I'll consider driving down to Vegas if I'm going to be there more than a week and having a car with me is going to be necessary while there. Otherwise, it's often not worth losing two days to the drive.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
... and with a decent interstate, it could be 5 hours. Staying on the east side of the Sierras has a certain whether benefit. Sacramento *IS* an option, except during ski season.
Quote from: michravera on June 19, 2024, 03:47:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
... and with a decent interstate, it could be 5 hours. Staying on the east side of the Sierras has a certain whether benefit. Sacramento *IS* an option, except during ski season.
That's the thing, now that USA Parkway exists how much time would be saved? There is a lot of existing 70 MPH territory along US 95 already. Most of the slowdowns come in towns I think many would stop for food or a restroom break anyway.
I'm sure getting a better surface bypass for US 95A around Yerington would knock out much of the travel time that a full Interstate would.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 04:32:57 PMQuote from: michravera on June 19, 2024, 03:47:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
... and with a decent interstate, it could be 5 hours. Staying on the east side of the Sierras has a certain whether benefit. Sacramento *IS* an option, except during ski season.
That's the thing, now that USA Parkway exists how much time would be saved? There is a lot of existing 70 MPH territory along US 95 already. Most of the slowdowns come in towns I think many would stop for food or a restroom break anyway.
I'm sure getting a better surface bypass for US 95A around Yerington would knock out much of the travel time that a full Interstate would.
Yeah, an Interstate would only save a lot of time if it blasted straight over (under?) mountain ranges and eliminated all the frickin' zigzags any route between Reno and Vegas requires now.
From Tahoe, if I'm taking the mostly US 95 route, it's 95 miles from my house out to Schurz, north of Walker Lake where US 95A meets US 95, and at that point I have made ZERO southbound progress. Schurz is directly east of me.
In any case there still has to be a big looping route from the Tonopah area down to Indian Springs because of all that fenced-off Air Force territory.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 01:59:14 PMThere could possibly stand to be more discussion of the 3di spurs into places like Tonopah and Hawthorne, which would give Wyoming's Interstate 180 some serious competition.
Why settle for that? Let's dream big! I-11 on an elevated viaduct through Tonopah, a beltway around it, and a spur along US 6 from I-11 past the beltway to the airport. If you're going to do it, do it right! :bigass:
Quote from: vdeane on June 19, 2024, 08:35:36 PMQuote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 01:59:14 PMThere could possibly stand to be more discussion of the 3di spurs into places like Tonopah and Hawthorne, which would give Wyoming's Interstate 180 some serious competition.
Why settle for that? Let's dream big! I-11 on an elevated viaduct through Tonopah, a beltway around it, and a spur along US 6 from I-11 past the beltway to the airport. If you're going to do it, do it right! :bigass:
If one is to be ridiculous, it is best to be MAXIMUM RIDICULOUS
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 04:32:57 PMQuote from: michravera on June 19, 2024, 03:47:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
... and with a decent interstate, it could be 5 hours. Staying on the east side of the Sierras has a certain whether benefit. Sacramento *IS* an option, except during ski season.
That's the thing, now that USA Parkway exists how much time would be saved? There is a lot of existing 70 MPH territory along US 95 already. Most of the slowdowns come in towns I think many would stop for food or a restroom break anyway.
I'm sure getting a better surface bypass for US 95A around Yerington would knock out much of the travel time that a full Interstate would.
Speed limit 100MPH.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:33:05 PMQuote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 02:26:33 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
JayhawkCO's analysis is correct. Reno doesn't have long-haul flights; a couple a day to DFW and Chicago are about it. Any place east you want to fly to, you're almost always either going to Las Vegas or Denver (occasionally Phoenix) first and connecting to continue on. Southwest flies to many of the cities in its network nonstop from Vegas, so it's logical to go through there and with all those flights from Reno to Vegas there's usually not more than a 90 minute connection time.
Either way that's still surprising to me. Even with Lake Tahoe, being as big as a tourist destination as it is, If one were to fly to an international airport to get there and not want to drive seven hours from Vegas, there's Sacramento. So I'm just not understanding the demand for all of these flights.
Reno is a lot closer to Tahoe than Sacramento. Just saying.
Quote from: roadfro on June 19, 2024, 03:26:59 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2024, 02:34:35 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2024, 12:42:58 PMA completed I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas would likely attract more personal vehicle traffic.
Also, barely anyone from Vegas goes to Reno, so flying between the two isn't that popular as it is. I would estimate 90% of the traffic between the two cities is freight, which obviously isn't going to fly.
The traffic making the LAS-RNO drive is far from 90% freight... I've made that drive at all times of day and year over the last 20+ years, and maybe the middle of the route has maxed out at more like 20% trucks.
A completed I-11 isn't going to entice more passenger traffic. It's always the tradeoff between driving 7 hours and convenience of flying (airport hassles not withstanding).
For me on persona/family trips, I'll consider driving down to Vegas if I'm going to be there more than a week and having a car with me is going to be necessary while there. Otherwise, it's often not worth losing two days to the drive.
Reno is also near Carson City, the state capital, so it's reasonable to assume a decent number of passengers on those flights are on State business or doing business with them, Zoom notwithstanding.
As I have said upthread, best is probably a 'no intersection turns' surface route between the end of I-580 in Carson City and US 95/Clark County 215/I-11 in LAS, with any further upgrades happening as traffic warrants and funding allows.
Mike
Public meeting (https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/870/) on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 01:38:27 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 04:32:57 PMQuote from: michravera on June 19, 2024, 03:47:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
... and with a decent interstate, it could be 5 hours. Staying on the east side of the Sierras has a certain whether benefit. Sacramento *IS* an option, except during ski season.
That's the thing, now that USA Parkway exists how much time would be saved? There is a lot of existing 70 MPH territory along US 95 already. Most of the slowdowns come in towns I think many would stop for food or a restroom break anyway.
I'm sure getting a better surface bypass for US 95A around Yerington would knock out much of the travel time that a full Interstate would.
Speed limit 100MPH.
Lots of incremental improvements would help. But, none as much as a second carriageway. I've been in a light vehicle (VW Jetta) when a large truck passed in the other direction. That just doesn't happen on a divided road. I've felt less wake turbulence when a 737 passed me (although a few hundred meters away in and in the same direction) in an Cessna. It's not driving 85MPH having to pass a truck going 75 (or even 50) that irks me or is that unsafe. It's the opposite direction truck going at a decent speed that nearly blows me off the road. As I've said earlier "If they can't post it at 80 MPH, they'd be better off just making incremental improvements."
Quote from: michravera on June 20, 2024, 04:36:57 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 01:38:27 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 04:32:57 PMQuote from: michravera on June 19, 2024, 03:47:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2024, 02:23:09 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
A seven hour drive between the two.
... and with a decent interstate, it could be 5 hours. Staying on the east side of the Sierras has a certain whether benefit. Sacramento *IS* an option, except during ski season.
That's the thing, now that USA Parkway exists how much time would be saved? There is a lot of existing 70 MPH territory along US 95 already. Most of the slowdowns come in towns I think many would stop for food or a restroom break anyway.
I'm sure getting a better surface bypass for US 95A around Yerington would knock out much of the travel time that a full Interstate would.
Speed limit 100MPH.
Lots of incremental improvements would help. But, none as much as a second carriageway. I've been in a light vehicle (VW Jetta) when a large truck passed in the other direction. That just doesn't happen on a divided road. I've felt less wake turbulence when a 737 passed me (although a few hundred meters away in and in the same direction) in an Cessna. It's not driving 85MPH having to pass a truck going 75 (or even 50) that irks me or is that unsafe. It's the opposite direction truck going at a decent speed that nearly blows me off the road. As I've said earlier "If they can't post it at 80 MPH, they'd be better off just making incremental improvements."
I think realistically if it were signed at 100MPH it would have to be 3 lanes each way to be safe. That isn't happening. 80-85MPH would be nice. I-80 east of Reno is 80MPH right?
From Fernley to Winnemucca minus Lovelock.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 20, 2024, 02:56:19 PMPublic meeting (https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/870/) on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25
Might as well go to at least NV 160.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 20, 2024, 05:19:59 PMFrom Fernley to Winnemucca minus Lovelock.
Interesting. I haven't been on this stretch yet. Why not further east of Winnemucca?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 05:22:41 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 20, 2024, 05:19:59 PMFrom Fernley to Winnemucca minus Lovelock.
Interesting. I haven't been on this stretch yet. Why not further east of Winnemucca?
I've only driven it once a little over eight years ago, but I remember it being a lot less flat out that way than I was expecting. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6619029,-116.4358065,3a,75y,84.9h,76.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXZrAUa4_D8xvabl6tCk7vg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DXZrAUa4_D8xvabl6tCk7vg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D84.90035374019914%26pitch%3D13.152603661271769%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 20, 2024, 05:29:25 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 05:22:41 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 20, 2024, 05:19:59 PMFrom Fernley to Winnemucca minus Lovelock.
Interesting. I haven't been on this stretch yet. Why not further east of Winnemucca?
I've only driven it once a little over eight years ago, but I remember it being a lot less flat out that way than I was expecting. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6619029,-116.4358065,3a,75y,84.9h,76.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXZrAUa4_D8xvabl6tCk7vg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DXZrAUa4_D8xvabl6tCk7vg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D84.90035374019914%26pitch%3D13.152603661271769%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
There are a few other segments east of Winnemucca posted at 80, notably Elko to Wells. The stated reason for the rest of it being posted at 75 is that because those do have some grades, trucks can't maintain a speed close to 80 and there is too much difference between them and the rest of the traffic.
Shouldn't any news about potential northern extensions of Interstate 11 beyond NV 157 be posted on the "Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north" thread? In any event, 10 interchanges in a 60-mile corridor seems about the right number of interchanges. Outside of the new (and existing) proposed interchanges, there probably won't be a lot of additional grade-separations since there is not a whole lot between Las Vegas and Mercury.
Mod Note: This post, two before it, and two after it, all made in the "Nevada" stickied thread on 6/20/2024, were merged into this thread on 6/21/2024 ("Nevada" thread title retained for ease of identification). —Roadfro
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 20, 2024, 07:07:42 PMShouldn't any news about potential northern extensions of Interstate 11 beyond NV 157 be posted on the "Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north" thread? In any event, 10 interchanges in a 60-mile corridor seems about the right number of interchanges. Outside of the new (and existing) proposed interchanges, there probably won't be a lot of additional grade-separations since there is not a whole lot between Las Vegas and Mercury.
I doubt there will be much work involved beyond new interchanges, building some frontage roads where necessary, and cutting off the side roads. This section is already divided, after all, hence why it's being done first.
NDOT will only post an 80 MPH limit if it is relatively straight, relatively flat, and low traffic. The minute it gets mountainous, they knock it down to 75, and they generally limit to 70 in places with decent volumes or extreme mountain/canyon terrain (see I-80 west of Fernley). As far as 80 MPH segments, you have Fernley to Winnemucca (minus Lovelock), east of Golconda Summit to Battle Mountain, Elko to Wells, and near the Utah line (80 is the limit in Utah and, interestingly, all Interstates in Nevada match bordering state speed limits).
I-80 between Fernley and Lovelock is the Fernley Sink and Humboldt Sink (the infamous "Forty Mile Desert" along the California Trail), a large set of salt flats that are, well, flat. The lower Humboldt River valley from Lovelock to Winnemucca is relatively wide and flat, with only a handful of curves. East of there, the river valley narrows and the road cuts corners to bypass narrow, winding canyons, which means crossing mountains. East of Wells (where the Humboldt rises), there's no river to follow to Wendover and Utah, so you're crossing the highest pass along I-80 between the Sierra and Rockies.
I wish they would at least increase the stretch of I-15 from Primm to NV 146 to 75MPH. Really 80MPH wouldn't do much harm since much of the traffic flows that faster if not faster anyways.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 05:20:42 PMQuote from: kernals12 on June 20, 2024, 02:56:19 PMPublic meeting (https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/870/) on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25
Might as well go to at least NV 160.
As was pointed out in the I-11 thread, there's a pretty narrow gap between mountains between Mercury and NV-160 that would probably require blasting (or at the very least a pretty big alignment shift) to fit a divided highway through. I'm guessing that's why they're just leaving off at Mercury.
Quote from: cl94 on June 19, 2024, 01:02:50 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:23:06 AMI think there's a better chance of 395 being four-laned by NDOT and Caltrans from Gardnerville to Bridgeport than I-11 making it to 80.
Gardnerville to Topaz Lake is actually in the plans.
Quote from: pderocco on June 19, 2024, 12:42:04 AMGee, I thought perhaps NDOT was advertising the long distance plan because, if it ever materialized, it would steer work and money their way. I was impressed that there still existed a Department of Transportation somewhere that still liked the idea of building roads. Maybe I was wrong...
Building and maintaining roads costs money. If the feds aren't going to kick in the funds to build it (Interstate-specific funds are dead), the money either needs to be raised through taxes/tolls or come from elsewhere in the budget. If NDOT can get money from the feds earmarked to I-11 that doesn't require cannibalizing funds from elsewhere in the state, they'll build it. It would be horrendous politics to take money away from Vegas or Reno/Carson/Minden/Fernley/Tahoe to build something in the middle of nowhere.
NDOT has trouble finding the money to finish I-580 or do the much-needed US 395 upgrades between Carson and Topaz Lake, and that is a corridor that serves people. How are they going to find hundreds of billions of dollars to build a road in the middle of nowhere that will serve a couple thousand vehicles a day? Even the I-11 study materials say pretty clearly that a full freeway may never happen along the entire corridor. Apart from Clark and Washoe Counties (Quote from: cl94 on June 19, 2024, 01:02:50 AMQuote from: US 395 on June 19, 2024, 12:23:06 AMI think there's a better chance of 395 being four-laned by NDOT and Caltrans from Gardnerville to Bridgeport than I-11 making it to 80.
Gardnerville to Topaz Lake is actually in the plans.
Quote from: pderocco on June 19, 2024, 12:42:04 AMGee, I thought perhaps NDOT was advertising the long distance plan because, if it ever materialized, it would steer work and money their way. I was impressed that there still existed a Department of Transportation somewhere that still liked the idea of building roads. Maybe I was wrong...
Building and maintaining roads costs money. If the feds aren't going to kick in the funds to build it (Interstate-specific funds are dead), the money either needs to be raised through taxes/tolls or come from elsewhere in the budget. If NDOT can get money from the feds earmarked to I-11 that doesn't require cannibalizing funds from elsewhere in the state, they'll build it. It would be horrendous politics to take money away from Vegas or Reno/Carson/Minden/Fernley/Tahoe to build something in the middle of nowhere.
NDOT has trouble finding the money to finish I-580 or do the much-needed US 395 upgrades between Carson and Topaz Lake, and that is a corridor that serves people. How are they going to find hundreds of billions of dollars to build a road in the middle of nowhere that will serve a couple thousand vehicles a day? Even the I-11 study materials say pretty clearly that a full freeway may never happen along the entire corridor. Apart from Clark and Washoe Counties (which have high county fuel taxes earmarked for roads), things generally aren't getting built in Nevada unless a local municipality or developer chips in substantially.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I must've missed it when I read the plans that NDOT has for that stretch of 395. Good to know that they're planning on four laning it. Further eliminating two lane stretches of the Reno to Los Angeles route.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 20, 2024, 05:29:25 PMI remember it being a lot less flat
I'm having war flashbacks.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:33:05 PMQuote from: gonealookin on June 19, 2024, 02:26:33 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 19, 2024, 02:21:36 PMThat is really hard to believe there's 83 flights a week from Vegas to Reno. How is that sustainable? What is driving that demand?
JayhawkCO's analysis is correct. Reno doesn't have long-haul flights; a couple a day to DFW and Chicago are about it. Any place east you want to fly to, you're almost always either going to Las Vegas or Denver (occasionally Phoenix) first and connecting to continue on. Southwest flies to many of the cities in its network nonstop from Vegas, so it's logical to go through there and with all those flights from Reno to Vegas there's usually not more than a 90 minute connection time.
Either way that's still surprising to me. Even with Lake Tahoe, being as big as a tourist destination as it is, If one were to fly to an international airport to get there and not want to drive seven hours from Vegas, there's Sacramento. So I'm just not understanding the demand for all of these flights.
Reno is a 30 minute drive to Tahoe. Sacramento is about an hour and a half.
Quote from: US 395 on June 21, 2024, 02:14:29 AMReno is a 30 minute drive to Tahoe. Sacramento is about an hour and a half.
Not if you add the time on the side of the highway receiving your speeding citation.
Actual distance and driving times from my house (close enough to the Stateline casinos to be a long walk) to RNO and SMF, with SMF being on the other side of the city:
RNO: 55 miles, 1 hour (no real variables in the time; in heavy snow I've done it in about 1:20)
SMF: 117 miles, 2 hours 15 minutes (variables: traffic through Sacramento, winter conditions over the Sierra, sometimes heavy traffic on US 50 e.g. westbound on Sunday afternoon)
I like Sacramento's nonstops to Hawaii, which Reno has never had, and have used SMF quite a bit. It does often require spending the previous night at a Sacramento hotel. I much prefer flying out of Reno. And in winter, the chance of a weather-related missed connection is much less in Las Vegas than it is in the Bay Area (westbound) or Denver (eastbound). So that might help explain why RNO-LAS is my preferred first leg of a longer trip if Southwest has a schedule that makes sense, and all those daily RNO-LAS flights improve the opportunities for connections that make sense.
Again, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
Where, in your opinion, should I-11 connect to Canada? (I'm assuming even if they never build I-11 south of I-10, you'd consider I-19->I-10->I-11 as connected to Mexico.)
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
And as a Nevada taxpayer I really don't give a hoot about trucks going Mexico-Canada. If that's the rationale for building this thing then somebody else gotta pay for it.
If this was something akin to a "chargeable" corridor north of Vegas where the Feds are paying for it that changes the narrative substantially. Trouble is that isn't what is happening.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 20, 2024, 01:05:16 PMAs I have said upthread, best is probably a 'no intersection turns' surface route between the end of I-580 in Carson City and US 95/Clark County 215/I-11 in LAS, with any further upgrades happening as traffic warrants and funding allows.
Mike
As much as I would like to see that, it is difficult on the Carson City end for that to happen because of Mt Siegel and Lyon Peak unless Sunrise Pass was utilized for such a highway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2024, 02:23:55 PMIf this was something akin to a "chargeable" corridor north of Vegas where the Feds are paying for it that changes the narrative substantially. Trouble is that isn't what is happening.
I think DenverBrian makes a valid point. The constituency that benefits most from a new Interstate across the Nevada desert is the long-distance trucking industry. Cost-benefit ratio would be really lousy for the citizens of Nevada, and that's made clear by the AADT on various sections of US 95.
So, here's the solution: The trucking industry can self-assess and build a 400-mile Interstate-standard freeway as a private road. Upon completion the new highway could be turned over to the State of Nevada for maintenance. We have precedent for this: the northern segment of USA Parkway was built as a dead-end private road by the developers of the industrial center out there. When it was determined that a through highway south to US 50 was needed, the State paid for that part of it (by raiding money from some other projects), the developers turned over their private road to the State, and the whole thing became NDOT-maintained SR 439.
Take that 6-mile private road, expand the concept to a 400-mile freeway, have the trucking industry pay for it and Voila! Everyone is happy, especially roadgeeks. Maybe not truckers, because at that point they are broke.
I don't mind building I-11 from Vegas up to Reno, but there's just no reason for the State of Nevada to participate financially if almost all of the benefit accrues to out-of-state interests.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2024, 02:23:55 PMIf this was something akin to a "chargeable" corridor north of Vegas where the Feds are paying for it that changes the narrative substantially. Trouble is that isn't what is happening.
[/quoQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2024, 02:23:55 PMIf this was something akin to a "chargeable" corridor north of Vegas where the Feds are paying for it that changes the narrative substantially. Trouble is that isn't what is happening.
I recall the original studies for I-11 north of Vegas were to get set up to receive federal infrastructure funds because Yucca Mountain was being bandied about to receive nuclear waste from other states. With the administration change this was dropped, https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2022/jan/05/yucca-mountain-remains-debate-over-nuclear-waste-s/.
The updating of the design to interstate standards of the section of highway closest to Vegas makes sense as there are higher traffic counts. If Yucca Mountain were to receive nuclear waste for storage, elimination of all at grade intersections and bypasses of towns would certainly make US 95 safer and a little more palatable. The upgrades would albeit likely need to north of Mercury and affected towns should rightfully expect compensation or economic benefits of some sort.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
I-11 is on politician's minds as a freeway to new suburbs of Tucson that the real estate developer doesn't have to pay for.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 21, 2024, 01:41:25 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
Where, in your opinion, should I-11 connect to Canada? (I'm assuming even if they never build I-11 south of I-10, you'd consider I-19->I-10->I-11 as connected to Mexico.)
I'm just making the observation that, in 2024, new interstates are built with the thinking of trucks in mind far more than the thinking of cars in mind. I sincerely doubt that I-11 will ever extend Mexico to Canada; but I'm of the opinion that additional miles of interstate are built in today's world with truck traffic in mind first.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 04:56:56 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 21, 2024, 01:41:25 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
Where, in your opinion, should I-11 connect to Canada? (I'm assuming even if they never build I-11 south of I-10, you'd consider I-19->I-10->I-11 as connected to Mexico.)
I'm just making the observation that, in 2024, new interstates are built with the thinking of trucks in mind far more than the thinking of cars in mind. I sincerely doubt that I-11 will ever extend Mexico to Canada; but I'm of the opinion that additional miles of interstate are built in today's world with truck traffic in mind first.
Completely understood, and I agree with that. But if most new interstates are built to connect to our neighbors to the north and south respectively, I just have no idea why I-11 would have those same goals. There aren't any population centers north of Reno in the U.S other than maybe Spokane or Boise, and certainly nothing in Canada. I don't see how anyone could justify extending I-11 to Reno because "it's on the way" to Canada when there's nothing in Canada to connect it to.
Nah, the reason provided by Nevada politicians is to bring money to rural Nevada. That's it. The old "build it and they will come", which does not work with rural expressway/freeway facilities. Building a new freeway in the state means lots of jobs. It's not serving state interests apart from jobs.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 21, 2024, 02:57:54 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2024, 02:23:55 PMIf this was something akin to a "chargeable" corridor north of Vegas where the Feds are paying for it that changes the narrative substantially. Trouble is that isn't what is happening.
I think DenverBrian makes a valid point. The constituency that benefits most from a new Interstate across the Nevada desert is the long-distance trucking industry. Cost-benefit ratio would be really lousy for the citizens of Nevada, and that's made clear by the AADT on various sections of US 95.
So, here's the solution: The trucking industry can self-assess and build a 400-mile Interstate-standard freeway as a private road. Upon completion the new highway could be turned over to the State of Nevada for maintenance. We have precedent for this: the northern segment of USA Parkway was built as a dead-end private road by the developers of the industrial center out there. When it was determined that a through highway south to US 50 was needed, the State paid for that part of it (by raiding money from some other projects), the developers turned over their private road to the State, and the whole thing became NDOT-maintained SR 439.
Take that 6-mile private road, expand the concept to a 400-mile freeway, have the trucking industry pay for it and Voila! Everyone is happy, especially roadgeeks. Maybe not truckers, because at that point they are broke.
I don't mind building I-11 from Vegas up to Reno, but there's just no reason for the State of Nevada to participate financially if almost all of the benefit accrues to out-of-state interests.
Assuming I were making decisions in Nevada, I think it would be difficult for me to justify building what would be a very lightly traveled Interstate for the benefit of outside interests. Especially if Nevada is not getting any money to build a highway that would predominantly benefit interests outside the state.
Sure, on the national level, I-11 might be beneficial to the rest of the Interstate system, but at the state level, they would be spending a lot of money in a very sparsely populated area. Even if I-11 were built, the path it would take is not one that would be favorable to rapid development outside Reno or Las Vegas. I don't imagine Tonopah would have the resources (and water access) to support it growing much more than it currently is.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2024, 05:59:34 PMSure, on the national level, I-11 might be beneficial to the rest of the Interstate system, but at the state level, they would be spending a lot of money in a very sparsely populated area. Even if I-11 were built, the path it would take is not one that would be favorable to rapid development outside Reno or Las Vegas. I don't imagine Tonopah would have the resources (and water access) to support it growing much more than it currently is.
There is a reason why, prior to Lake Mead becoming a thing, most of Nevada's sizeable permanent settlements were along the Humboldt River or one of the rivers flowing from eastern side of the Sierra. That reason is water. You need a substantial and continuous water source to build thriving permanent settlements and agricultural communities. Lake Mead made Southern Nevada viable as more than a railroad siding. Get away from the major rivers and springs (all heavily regulated, by the way) and year-round water supply ranges from sparse to barely existent. Of the communities along the planned route of I-11, maybe Fallon could grow, but many of those water rights are being bought up by the feds for wetland restoration.
I would guess that if you WERE to develop the I-11 corridor so that it attracted trucks, then it might also attract the Loves/Pilots/Flying Js of the world to add truck stops at various points; this then creates jobs along the corridor. Again, all of it supporting truck traffic, with auto traffic being BTW/incidental.
Of course, what we really need is a better truck superhighway east-west - I've long thought an extended I-66 across the country, built as at least 3x3 or perhaps 2-2x2-2, would be a boon to cross country trucking, with the BTW benefit of cross country automobile driving. But that's all I'll say on that, as SOMEONE needs to stay on topic LOL.
I never noticed this before, but the Mercury Hwy interchange looks like it got modified at one point to allow for eventual conversion to a trumpet interchange. However, Google Earth shows that that happened before their earliest imagery from 1995.
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
As I mentioned earlier (before it got buried behind an argument about flights), the Mexico-Canada corridor only follows I-11 south of Las Vegas (https://web.archive.org/web/20130729191113/http://www.canamex.org/canamex/federal-definition/); north of there, it follows I-15. Unless there's been a change, I-11 between Reno and Las Vegas has nothing to do with that.
Quote from: vdeane on June 21, 2024, 11:18:29 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
As I mentioned earlier (before it got buried behind an argument about flights), the Mexico-Canada corridor only follows I-11 south of Las Vegas (https://web.archive.org/web/20130729191113/http://www.canamex.org/canamex/federal-definition/); north of there, it follows I-15. Unless there's been a change, I-11 between Reno and Las Vegas has nothing to do with that.
If you're referring to official CANAMEX, you're right. If you're a politician, I doubt you even know what CANAMEX is.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 21, 2024, 01:53:15 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
And as a Nevada taxpayer I really don't give a hoot about trucks going Mexico-Canada. If that's the rationale for building this thing then somebody else gotta pay for it.
And such a road already passes through LAS, it is called 'I-15'.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 22, 2024, 11:01:31 AMAnd such a road already passes through LAS, it is called 'I-15'.
The only road that passes through LAS is NV 171.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 22, 2024, 11:01:31 AMQuote from: gonealookin on June 21, 2024, 01:53:15 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on June 21, 2024, 01:38:12 PMAgain, some posters are missing the point of I-11. It's not on politicians' minds because it can somehow connect Reno and Las Vegas with an interstate. It's on their minds because they want trucks to be connected Mexico to Canada.
And as a Nevada taxpayer I really don't give a hoot about trucks going Mexico-Canada. If that's the rationale for building this thing then somebody else gotta pay for it.
And such a road already passes through LAS, it is called 'I-15'.
Mike
How in the world does I-15 bypass Las Vegas lol? Las Vegas traffic sure flows better for the most part but there are massive housing developments planned and who knows how much longer Vegas traffic will flow at effective LOS levels. Maybe Scott can shed some light since he lives there. I just visit and maybe I get lucky but the only segments of freeway I ever experience "real" big city traffic on is I-15 and I-11(formally I-515) near DTLV. Las Vegas is certainly a big city IMO. Not LA or NYC big but bigger than a lot of cities. I-15 goes straight through. Less than half a mile from it's core. I consider it's core downtown even if the strip is busier.
Given trends of decentralization of cities I still think of their downtowns as the main part of economic activity and vibrancy.
Assuming you're responding to Scott, I think he's making a joke that NV171 passes through LAS, the airport.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 22, 2024, 05:17:41 PMAssuming you're responding to Scott, I think he's making a joke that NV171 passes through LAS, the airport.
Ah sarcasm and the internet
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 22, 2024, 12:03:27 PMQuote from: mgk920 on June 22, 2024, 11:01:31 AMAnd such a road already passes through LAS, it is called 'I-15'.
The only road that passes through LAS is NV 171.
I appreciate the joke!
Although, it's technically inaccurate. SR 171 only exists between I-215 and the south portals of the airport tunnels. The remainder of the airport connector (the actual tunnels under the runways and the one way roads serving the terminals up to Tropicana to the north) are county/airport facilities.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 21, 2024, 01:28:52 PMQuote from: US 395 on June 21, 2024, 02:14:29 AMReno is a 30 minute drive to Tahoe. Sacramento is about an hour and a half.
Not if you add the time on the side of the highway receiving your speeding citation.
Actual distance and driving times from my house (close enough to the Stateline casinos to be a long walk) to RNO and SMF, with SMF being on the other side of the city:
RNO: 55 miles, 1 hour (no real variables in the time; in heavy snow I've done it in about 1:20)
SMF: 117 miles, 2 hours 15 minutes (variables: traffic through Sacramento, winter conditions over the Sierra, sometimes heavy traffic on US 50 e.g. westbound on Sunday afternoon)
I like Sacramento's nonstops to Hawaii, which Reno has never had, and have used SMF quite a bit. It does often require spending the previous night at a Sacramento hotel. I much prefer flying out of Reno. And in winter, the chance of a weather-related missed connection is much less in Las Vegas than it is in the Bay Area (westbound) or Denver (eastbound). So that might help explain why RNO-LAS is my preferred first leg of a longer trip if Southwest has a schedule that makes sense, and all those daily RNO-LAS flights improve the opportunities for connections that make sense.
I go up Mount Rose Highway (NV 431 for the out of staters). So for me, it's not 55 minutes.
Quote from: cl94 on June 21, 2024, 08:38:40 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2024, 05:59:34 PMSure, on the national level, I-11 might be beneficial to the rest of the Interstate system, but at the state level, they would be spending a lot of money in a very sparsely populated area. Even if I-11 were built, the path it would take is not one that would be favorable to rapid development outside Reno or Las Vegas. I don't imagine Tonopah would have the resources (and water access) to support it growing much more than it currently is.
There is a reason why, prior to Lake Mead becoming a thing, most of Nevada's sizeable permanent settlements were along the Humboldt River or one of the rivers flowing from eastern side of the Sierra. That reason is water. You need a substantial and continuous water source to build thriving permanent settlements and agricultural communities. Lake Mead made Southern Nevada viable as more than a railroad siding. Get away from the major rivers and springs (all heavily regulated, by the way) and year-round water supply ranges from sparse to barely existent. Of the communities along the planned route of I-11, maybe Fallon could grow, but many of those water rights are being bought up by the feds for wetland restoration.
Well, if Lake Mead (and the river) dries up, Vegas will go back to being a railroad siding...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 22, 2024, 06:57:59 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 22, 2024, 05:17:41 PMAssuming you're responding to Scott, I think he's making a joke that NV171 passes through LAS, the airport.
Ah sarcasm and the internet
For an example of 'identity', 'MKE' was originally the identifier for the Milwaukee, WI airport (and later on their downtown Amtrak station). Now it also generically means the city and metro area in general, so much so that the National League Milwaukee Brewers will often use 'MKE' as a part the design of their home uniforms. You see this in other metros as well (ie, Atlanta, GA, 'ATL').
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 24, 2024, 10:47:19 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 22, 2024, 06:57:59 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on June 22, 2024, 05:17:41 PMAssuming you're responding to Scott, I think he's making a joke that NV171 passes through LAS, the airport.
Ah sarcasm and the internet
For an example of 'identity', 'MKE' was originally the identifier for the Milwaukee, WI airport (and later on their downtown Amtrak station). Now it also generically means the city and metro area in general, so much so that the National League Milwaukee Brewers will often use 'MKE' as a part the design of their home uniforms. You see this in other metros as well (ie, Atlanta, GA, 'ATL').
Mike
As a regular poster on FlyerTalk, there's often discussion about utilizing airport codes when referring to a city vs. an airport. Obviously, on that site, airport codes are much more widely known, so they're pretty common knowledge. Outside of aviation nerds, I would argue that there are very few cities that are referred to by their airport codes.
Quote from: JayhawkCOBut if most new interstates are built to connect to our neighbors to the north and south respectively, I just have no idea why I-11 would have those same goals. There aren't any population centers north of Reno in the U.S other than maybe Spokane or Boise, and certainly nothing in Canada.
That's looking in the wrong direction. If the I-11 route is directed from Reno to Klamath Falls and over to the Medford-Ashland area it taps into I-5. Portland, Seattle-Tacoma and Vancouver BC are all very big, major destinations. That's how I-11 can be turned into a "CANAMEX" route.
I don't think I-11 needs to be extended down to Tucson or Nogales to gain that function either. It would be enough for I-11 to just reach the Phoenix area. I-19 has more than enough room in its existing ROW to be doubled in capacity. People in Tucson just have to get over themselves and allow some new loop freeways to get built.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 24, 2024, 11:26:33 AMQuote from: JayhawkCOBut if most new interstates are built to connect to our neighbors to the north and south respectively, I just have no idea why I-11 would have those same goals. There aren't any population centers north of Reno in the U.S other than maybe Spokane or Boise, and certainly nothing in Canada.
That's looking in the wrong direction. If the I-11 route is directed from Reno to Klamath Falls and over to the Medford-Ashland area it taps into I-5. Portland, Seattle-Tacoma and Vancouver BC are all very big, major destinations. That's how I-11 can be turned into a "CANAMEX" route.
Fair idea except for the terrain. Someone more familiar with the area than me, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see an interstate in this day and age in that portion of southern Oregon.
The terrain along OR 39/CA 139 isn't unworkable. Jogging west from Klamath Falls over to Medford would a significant engineering challenge. There is a reason US 97 was rerouted over Green Springs Highway to Weed, California.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2024, 01:26:07 PMThe terrain along OR 39/CA 139 isn't unworkable. Jogging west from Klamath Falls over to Medford would a significant engineering challenge. There is a reason US 97 was rerouted over Green Springs Highway to Weed, California.
The biggest problem with CA 139 is getting between Susanville and the Tule Lake area. Some really rugged terrain in there that would cost a fortune to deal with. The railroad grade that generally parallels US 395 takes a very circuitous route to get over that set of mountains.
Quote from: cl94 on June 24, 2024, 02:43:08 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2024, 01:26:07 PMThe terrain along OR 39/CA 139 isn't unworkable. Jogging west from Klamath Falls over to Medford would a significant engineering challenge. There is a reason US 97 was rerouted over Green Springs Highway to Weed, California.
The biggest problem with CA 139 is getting between Susanville and the Tule Lake area. Some really rugged terrain in there that would cost a fortune to deal with. The railroad grade that generally parallels US 395 takes a very circuitous route to get over that set of mountains.
Right, which is why most freight swings east on CA 299 in Canby to get towards US 395. US 395 has far more reasonable terrain south of there towards Susanville.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 24, 2024, 11:26:33 AMQuote from: JayhawkCOBut if most new interstates are built to connect to our neighbors to the north and south respectively, I just have no idea why I-11 would have those same goals. There aren't any population centers north of Reno in the U.S other than maybe Spokane or Boise, and certainly nothing in Canada.
That's looking in the wrong direction. If the I-11 route is directed from Reno to Klamath Falls and over to the Medford-Ashland area it taps into I-5. Portland, Seattle-Tacoma and Vancouver BC are all very big, major destinations. That's how I-11 can be turned into a "CANAMEX" route.
I don't think I-11 needs to be extended down to Tucson or Nogales either to gain that function either. It would be enough for I-11 to just reach the Phoenix area. I-19 has more than enough room in its existing ROW to be doubled in capacity. People in Tucson just have to get over themselves and allow some new loop freeways to get built.
That's right. Suggesting a CANAMEX route does not necessarily imply that the entire road as one number has to reach from Canada to Mexico. Instead it can be part of an important link in the chain.
I would say that I-29 (north of Kansas City) and I-35 (south of Kansas City) combined makes a CANAMEX route, even though there is a number change and possibly some interchanging (or bypassing) in the KC area that is needed to make the route work.
So traffic from Calgary and Lethbridge cross into the USA and enter I-15. The most direct way to Mexico from there, utilizes I-90, I-25, and I-10 to reach Ciudad Juarez by way of Denver, Albuquerque and El Paso. Or if the western parts of Mexico are desired, traffic can stay on I-15 to pass through SLC, Las Vegas, and San Diego to Tijuana.
Now if I-11, in conjunction with I-15, is to be used as a CANAMEX corridor, does this mean that the traffic from Canada is basically going to use I-15 to Las Vegas and then I-11 to get to the Phoenix area, and then use the existing interstates to get to Tucson and Nogales? Would this be faster than following the US 89 corridor between southern Utah and Flagstaff? And if so much traffic will be "turning" from I-15 to I-11, it would seem that it would be really nice if the eastern leg of a I-215 beltway could somehow be built to divert this traffic away from central Las Vegas.
Quote from: Max RockantanskyThe terrain along OR 39/CA 139 isn't unworkable. Jogging west from Klamath Falls over to Medford would a significant engineering challenge. There is a reason US 97 was rerouted over Green Springs Highway to Weed, California.
The OR-140 corridor between Klamath Falls and White City wouldn't be that difficult to upgrade from an engineering standpoint. But the existing Falls Highway is considered a scenic route. So there could be vocal push-back for doing any expansion work on the highway. Nevertheless, semi trucks drive on that route already.
The more difficult thing is how to get I-11 from the NV/CA border up to Klamath Falls. Overlapping CA-139 out of Susanville looks like a non-starter. If the US could build highway tunnels without it breaking the bank then it might be an option. Otherwise, the Interstate would have to go around the Sierra Army Depot and Honey Lake and then back-track East. They might be able to shave some mileage off the route going around Honey Lake. Still, taking US-395 up to near Alturas and then shifting West looks like a more work-able solution.
Quote from: US 395 on June 24, 2024, 01:15:43 AMWell, if Lake Mead (and the river) dries up, Vegas will go back to being a railroad siding...
Anything's possible, I guess, but Vegas has gotten pretty good at maxing out the measly 4% of the river we're allowed to use. Just about everything that goes down the drain in Vegas gets recycled and reused. I remember seeing something saying that a given drop of water will go back and forth between Vegas and Lake Mead 17 times before it goes through Hoover Dam. And in 2027 it will become illegal to water decorative grass using Lake Mead water.
Point being, if the lake does dry up, California will start hurting way before anywhere in Nevada does. There are farms in Imperial County that use more water than the entire Las Vegas Valley does. (The Las Vegas TV news names and shames individual California farmers for this on slow news days.)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 24, 2024, 11:18:07 AMAs a regular poster on FlyerTalk, there's often discussion about utilizing airport codes when referring to a city vs. an airport. Obviously, on that site, airport codes are much more widely known, so they're pretty common knowledge. Outside of aviation nerds, I would argue that there are very few cities that are referred to by their airport codes.
In local usage, LAS pretty much universally refers to the airport (and neatly avoids anyone biting your head off for calling it McCarran or Reid). The preferred abbreviation for the city, meanwhile, is just "LV".
Even if they weren't about to close, would the Mirage still be able to do their 'volcano' water and light show?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2024, 08:21:25 PMEven if they weren't about to close, would the Mirage still be able to do their 'volcano' water and light show?
The Bellagio does fountain shows every half hour, which according to Google/Wikipedia, uses 12M gallons of water per year (33k/day). I suppose in the grand scheme of things that's not that much; it amounts to 0.05 gallons (0.8 cups) per Las Vegas resident per day.
Quote from: FredAkbar on June 28, 2024, 09:54:57 PMQuote from: mgk920 on June 28, 2024, 08:21:25 PMEven if they weren't about to close, would the Mirage still be able to do their 'volcano' water and light show?
The Bellagio does fountain shows every half hour, which according to Google/Wikipedia, uses 12M gallons of water per year (33k/day). I suppose in the grand scheme of things that's not that much; it amounts to 0.05 gallons (0.8 cups) per Las Vegas resident per day.
The Bellagio fountains use non-potable water. I think it's seawater that's trucked in.
I imagine the Mirage volcano drains to the sewer, which means it would be fine.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2024, 04:43:30 AMThe Bellagio fountains use non-potable water. I think it's seawater that's trucked in.
The Dunes had its own wells. The Bellagio got those wells when they bought the Dunes land. It could very well not be water from the dam.
Quote from: cahwyguy on June 29, 2024, 11:26:04 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2024, 04:43:30 AMThe Bellagio fountains use non-potable water. I think it's seawater that's trucked in.
The Dunes had its own wells. The Bellagio got those wells when they bought the Dunes land. It could very well not be water from the dam.
I had heard years ago that Lake Bellagio was gray water that had been treated on site...
But according to this page (https://www.mgmresorts.com/en/company/sis/protecting-the-planet/water.html) (about 3/4 way down), Lake Bellagio is fed from groundwater well rights as well as twice-yearly pool drainage from the "O" show.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 24, 2024, 11:26:33 AMThat's looking in the wrong direction. If the I-11 route is directed from Reno to Klamath Falls and over to the Medford-Ashland area it taps into I-5. Portland, Seattle-Tacoma and Vancouver BC are all very big, major destinations. That's how I-11 can be turned into a "CANAMEX" route.
If you zoom way out, then the route from Phoenix to Portland via the fantasy I-11 and the route from Phoenix to Portland via I-10 and I-5 don't seem very far apart. Sure, there's lots of traffic through California, but instead of building four lanes of fresh freeway from Vegas to somewhere in Oregon, one could also add lanes to I-10 and I-5, which would benefit many more people than just long-haul truckers.
I-5 and my idea of I-11 may not look very far apart on the map, but there are major differences between the two.
Gasoline prices in Nevada and Arizona are far less expensive than they are in California (which always has, by far, the most pricey fuel in America). The I-5 corridor in California gets overwhelmed with traffic. There are many locations in built up areas where there just isn't any space to add more lanes.
Mexico border crossings in California are very busy. Worse yet, most of the commercial traffic crossing back and forth on the MX/CA border is going to be headed to points in the Mexico mainland, not the Baja California peninsula. That means they'll be driving along routes 20 and 2, hugging the Mexico border to reach route 15, the next major North-South route. MX-15 and MX-15 reach the US border at Nogales.
An I-11 route spanning Medford to Phoenix could function as a very important relief route for I-5. It could draw a lot of trucks away from the I-5 corridor, which would be beneficial for motorists in California, not to mention reducing wear and tear on those roads.
This kind of a route might spur a lot of additional development of the logistics hub in Clark, the place I think I-11 should spur off I-80 towards Las Vegas.
Quote from: pderocco on June 30, 2024, 02:08:12 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 24, 2024, 11:26:33 AMThat's looking in the wrong direction. If the I-11 route is directed from Reno to Klamath Falls and over to the Medford-Ashland area it taps into I-5. Portland, Seattle-Tacoma and Vancouver BC are all very big, major destinations. That's how I-11 can be turned into a "CANAMEX" route.
If you zoom way out, then the route from Phoenix to Portland via the fantasy I-11 and the route from Phoenix to Portland via I-10 and I-5 don't seem very far apart. Sure, there's lots of traffic through California, but instead of building four lanes of fresh freeway from Vegas to somewhere in Oregon, one could also add lanes to I-10 and I-5, which would benefit many more people than just long-haul truckers.
I guess it comes down to a trade-off between the cities in California and a mountain crossing in Northern California or Oregon. Either traffic in the cities, or mountain grades and winter weather through the passes.
I don't think the winter weather in the Merced-Klamath Falls area is nearly as bad as it is on I-80 going thru the Sierras between Sacramento and Reno. The same goes for US-395.
The main problems with the US-95 corridor in Nevada for commercial traffic are at least two-fold. Roadside services are currently few and far between. It's a mostly two-lane route over a very long distance. No one likes driving on two-lane roads for hundreds of miles. Head-on collisions can and do happen. When collisions happen in very remote locations that kind of situation goes from bad to so much worse. Those two reasons are why there is currently very little traffic on that existing route.
Just double-barreling US-95 would be a game-changer. However, I don't like the very indirect path it currently takes. I think I-11 could completely bypass Walker Lake by taking a more direct route from Tonopah to a point North of Schurz. That saves at least a half hour worth of driving.
Is there any hope of building a freeway east-west across the Sierras that could serve to connect the bay area with Vegas (without having to overshoot to the north via Reno, or to the south via Bakersfield)?
CA-120 currently connects but it would surely not be feasible to bulldoze through Yosemite to get that done (plus weather concerns).
Maybe a more southernly route such as one between Fresno and Beatty? That would allow truck traffic to bypass the LA metro area and also connect the entire bay area / Sacramento / central valley to Vegas/Phoenix. And you'd have reasonable cause then to at least make I-11 up to the Beatty area.
I get that there's large mountains and national forests in the way, I'm just a bit incredulous that there are basically no east-west routes (that aren't winding mountain roads that get closed for the winter) across the Sierras north of I-15 and south of I-80.
You have to go clear down to mountain pass crossings not far from Las Vegas to avoid most (but NOT all) of the heavy winter weather than can happen along the Sierras. NV-374 to CA-190 to Stovepipe Wells is one crossing. NV-373 out of Amargosa Valley down to CA-127 and Death Valley Junction is another. Neither crossing gives any sort of direct access to other major highway corridors into California's inland valley.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 05:32:33 PMNeither crossing gives any sort of direct access to other major highway corridors into California's inland valley.
Yeah, the hardest part I think is bridging the gap between CA-99 and US-395, rather than east of US-395 through the desert (and some mountains) to US-95/Vegas.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 02:49:21 PMHowever, I don't like the very indirect path it currently takes. I think I-11 could completely bypass Walker Lake by taking a more direct route from Tonopah to a point North of Schurz. That saves at least a half hour worth of driving.
The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
I seriously doubt that there will likely ever be an east-west transport corridor of any kind developed east of CA 99 between I-80 and Bakersfield (CA 58). Just the topological going alone would be too dfficult (think on the lines of 'beyond major tunneling through some of the hardest rock anywhere'). Why were there no major railroads built that way before the interstates?
Mike
Quote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Quote from: FredAkbar on June 30, 2024, 03:51:38 PMIs there any hope of building a freeway east-west across the Sierras that could serve to connect the bay area with Vegas (without having to overshoot to the north via Reno, or to the south via Bakersfield)?
CA-120 currently connects but it would surely not be feasible to bulldoze through Yosemite to get that done (plus weather concerns).
Maybe a more southernly route such as one between Fresno and Beatty? That would allow truck traffic to bypass the LA metro area and also connect the entire bay area / Sacramento / central valley to Vegas/Phoenix. And you'd have reasonable cause then to at least make I-11 up to the Beatty area.
I get that there's large mountains and national forests in the way, I'm just a bit incredulous that there are basically no east-west routes (that aren't winding mountain roads that get closed for the winter) across the Sierras north of I-15 and south of I-80.
Briefly, no, there's no hope of building a freeway across the Sierra south of Donner Pass. It's not only that there's a lot of parks and wilderness areas. It's the geography. South of Donner Pass, the passes get higher. Donner Pass is hard enough for Caltrans to keep open in winter, they don't need one that's even higher. The Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sierra_Nevada_road_passes
has a nice list, showing summit elevation and arranged from north to south. So we get 2-lane roads over the mountains that close at the first big snow and don't open until late spring.
If you live in the Bay Area and you want gambling and floor shows, your choices are Reno, driving south to CA 58, I-40, and I-15, or flying.
Doesn't help that the highest part of the Sierra is east of Fresno. Minaret Summit is about the most plausible place to build "a highway" where one doesn't punch through now. Problem is that this whole proposal happened:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/07/california-state-203-road-that-could.html?m=1
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
I think the AAP makes it difficult for right-of-way expansion and interstate conversion. It's not unprecedented for a freeway to be built through a military base (see NC 24/87/210 in Fayetteville / Fort Liberty), but being an ammo depot, maybe they would be more sensitive about it, particularly with clearing the ordinance.
And assuming the DOD doesn't give an inch for right-of-way, I imagine it would either kill an interstate through there or be destructive to the town of Hawthorne. DOD might even prefer a more direct route to the east, leaving US 95 for local access, but the eastern I-11 for the long-haul traffic.
The town of Hawthorne itself poses the biggest obstacle for a new Interstate. There just isn't enough room to expand the 2-lane highway into a 4-lane divided highway flanked by frontage roads. Hawthorne Airport, the cemetery on the North side of town, the development in Babbitt on the NW side of Hawthorne all put a tight squeeze on any road expansion designs. The whole thing is surrounded by Army property.
Those obstacles have to be a key reason why there is an optional I-11 route study alternative following Pole Line Road going NW out of Tonopah.
I've always felt that I-11 should have a new alignment from at least Goldfield north, either:
1. crossing diagonally across the desert directly from Goldfield to Coaldale Junction, bypassing Tonopah and cutting about 20 miles off the alignment. This would improve access to lithium operations in Silver Peak but really give the shaft to Tonopah, turning it from the midway point on the drive into essentially a regional services center for a very sparsely populated region, or,
2. Use Pole Line and a new alignment west of Gabbs, which would require clearance from the Walker River Paiute Tribe if I-11 is to connect to USA Parkway and likely from the Navy if it's going to go from Gabbs to Fallon instead.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 01, 2024, 10:48:41 AMThe town of Hawthorne itself poses the biggest obstacle for a new Interstate. There just isn't enough room to expand the 2-lane highway into 4-lane divided highway flanked by frontage roads. Hawthorne Airport, the cemetery on the North side of town, the development in Babbitt on the NW side of Hawthorne all put a tight squeeze on any road expansion designs. The whole thing is surrounded by Army property.
Those obstacles have to be a key reason why there is an optional I-11 route study alternative following Pole Line Road going NW out of Tonopah.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 01, 2024, 08:51:57 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
I think the AAP makes it difficult for right-of-way expansion and interstate conversion. It's not unprecedented for a freeway to be built through a military base (see NC 24/87/210 in Fayetteville / Fort Liberty), but being an ammo depot, maybe they would be more sensitive about it, particularly with clearing the ordinance.
Hopefully, they'd clear the ordnance, although there may be one or more ordinances in the way too. :-D
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0773214,-117.2482362,3a,27.3y,306.77h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJzLxQl_ddy7WglAyLeBLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
Nevada is not like Oklahoma where you can just toss down a gas station any old place. In Oklahoma you can draw off of the power infrastructure that's already there and put in a shallow well and a septic system and you're in business. You know how in Oklahoma, even when you're in the middle of nowhere, you're still passing random trailers on acreages and things like that? None of that sort of thing exists in Nevada. When Nevada is empty, it is EMPTY. To put a gas station in here in between towns, you have to figure out how to run power to it, and then probably how to pipe water in from somewhere because a well is probably going to have jack shit in it unless you drill so far down they start feeling the vibrations in China.
Bypassing Hawthorne by that far would probably be a huge waste of money. Who is going to want to take a freeway with no gas stations on it?
It's 103 miles from Tonopah to Hawthorne.
A Pole Line Rd alignment would be able to offer services in Gabbs, about 70 miles from Tonopah.
That being said... by the time I-11 here opens the bulk of the fleet will be looking for a charging station, not a gas station.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2024, 07:37:53 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0773214,-117.2482362,3a,27.3y,306.77h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJzLxQl_ddy7WglAyLeBLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
Nevada is not like Oklahoma where you can just toss down a gas station any old place. In Oklahoma you can draw off of the power infrastructure that's already there and put in a shallow well and a septic system and you're in business. You know how in Oklahoma, even when you're in the middle of nowhere, you're still passing random trailers on acreages and things like that? None of that sort of thing exists in Nevada. When Nevada is empty, it is EMPTY. To put a gas station in here in between towns, you have to figure out how to run power to it, and then probably how to pipe water in from somewhere because a well is probably going to have jack shit in it unless you drill so far down they start feeling the vibrations in China.
Bypassing Hawthorne by that far would probably be a huge waste of money. Who is going to want to take a freeway with no gas stations on it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2024, 07:37:53 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0773214,-117.2482362,3a,27.3y,306.77h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJzLxQl_ddy7WglAyLeBLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
Nevada is not like Oklahoma where you can just toss down a gas station any old place. In Oklahoma you can draw off of the power infrastructure that's already there and put in a shallow well and a septic system and you're in business. You know how in Oklahoma, even when you're in the middle of nowhere, you're still passing random trailers on acreages and things like that? None of that sort of thing exists in Nevada. When Nevada is empty, it is EMPTY. To put a gas station in here in between towns, you have to figure out how to run power to it, and then probably how to pipe water in from somewhere because a well is probably going to have jack shit in it unless you drill so far down they start feeling the vibrations in China.
Bypassing Hawthorne by that far would probably be a huge waste of money. Who is going to want to take a freeway with no gas stations on it?
There is a gas station in Schurz. It's just south of the turnoff for Alt 95. It even has chargers for EVs.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2024, 05:35:51 PMQuote from: US 395 on June 24, 2024, 01:15:43 AMWell, if Lake Mead (and the river) dries up, Vegas will go back to being a railroad siding...
Anything's possible, I guess, but Vegas has gotten pretty good at maxing out the measly 4% of the river we're allowed to use. Just about everything that goes down the drain in Vegas gets recycled and reused. I remember seeing something saying that a given drop of water will go back and forth between Vegas and Lake Mead 17 times before it goes through Hoover Dam. And in 2027 it will become illegal to water decorative grass using Lake Mead water.
Point being, if the lake does dry up, California will start hurting way before anywhere in Nevada does. There are farms in Imperial County that use more water than the entire Las Vegas Valley does. (The Las Vegas TV news names and shames individual California farmers for this on slow news days.)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 24, 2024, 11:18:07 AMAs a regular poster on FlyerTalk, there's often discussion about utilizing airport codes when referring to a city vs. an airport. Obviously, on that site, airport codes are much more widely known, so they're pretty common knowledge. Outside of aviation nerds, I would argue that there are very few cities that are referred to by their airport codes.
In local usage, LAS pretty much universally refers to the airport (and neatly avoids anyone biting your head off for calling it McCarran or Reid). The preferred abbreviation for the city, meanwhile, is just "LV".
It's 2% but yeah, the water conservation had to be done out of pure necessity. The 2% was also set at a time when Vegas was barely a small town and no one expected it to be the place it is today.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 01, 2024, 08:18:43 PMA Pole Line Rd alignment would be able to offer services in Gabbs, about 70 miles from Tonopah.
There doesn't seem to be a gas station in Gabbs. How can people live 50+ miles from a gas station? Do people in that town just not drive at all?
Quote from: FredAkbar on July 01, 2024, 09:26:46 PMQuote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 01, 2024, 08:18:43 PMA Pole Line Rd alignment would be able to offer services in Gabbs, about 70 miles from Tonopah.
There doesn't seem to be a gas station in Gabbs. How can people live 50+ miles from a gas station? Do people in that town just not drive at all?
Always fill up on their way back to Gabbs?
Quote from: Scott5114Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
If anyone went so far as building a new Interstate using Pole Line Road as a far more straight shot to Schurz chances are extremely likely new utility easements and lines would be included as part of the infrastructure. It's pretty common for power lines and telecommunications lines to follow alongside highways.
Water supply is another matter. But there apparently is some water supply in that desolate area. There is a big mining facility South of Gabbs (which this conceptual I-11 alignment would have to dodge around, just like CR-89). A little farther West there is an agricultural operation with 10 large round plots of irrigated crop land.
I think perhaps the most difficult aspect of the Pole Line Road alignment is that it would travel through the Walker River Reservation. Negotiations with tribe leadership might be very tricky. But they might welcome new infrastructure and chance to grow tribe-run businesses adjacent to a new highway.
The towns of Fallon and Fernley continue to be mentioned as likely North end points for how I-11 would reach I-80. I do not think it would be so easy routing the Interstate through there. The town of Fallon would have to be bypassed well to the South and West. There is zero feasible way I-11 could be punched directly through or even near that town.
Much of Alt US-50 from Fallon to Fernley is closely flanked with development and an existing rail line. An interchange with I-80 would have to be built well East of Fernley. It's too mountainous on the South and West sides of town. And there is too much existing development.
Those are the reasons I keep mentioning the NV-439 corridor going into Clark. That 4-lane divided road can be upgraded to Interstate standards more easily than Alt US-50. It would have the added benefit of reaching I-80 about 10 miles closer to Reno.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2024, 07:37:53 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0773214,-117.2482362,3a,27.3y,306.77h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJzLxQl_ddy7WglAyLeBLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
Nevada is not like Oklahoma where you can just toss down a gas station any old place. In Oklahoma you can draw off of the power infrastructure that's already there and put in a shallow well and a septic system and you're in business. You know how in Oklahoma, even when you're in the middle of nowhere, you're still passing random trailers on acreages and things like that? None of that sort of thing exists in Nevada. When Nevada is empty, it is EMPTY. To put a gas station in here in between towns, you have to figure out how to run power to it, and then probably how to pipe water in from somewhere because a well is probably going to have jack shit in it unless you drill so far down they start feeling the vibrations in China.
Bypassing Hawthorne by that far would probably be a huge waste of money. Who is going to want to take a freeway with no gas stations on it?
Guess you've never driven I-70 in south central Utah...
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2024, 07:37:53 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0773214,-117.2482362,3a,27.3y,306.77h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJzLxQl_ddy7WglAyLeBLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
Nevada is not like Oklahoma where you can just toss down a gas station any old place. In Oklahoma you can draw off of the power infrastructure that's already there and put in a shallow well and a septic system and you're in business. You know how in Oklahoma, even when you're in the middle of nowhere, you're still passing random trailers on acreages and things like that? None of that sort of thing exists in Nevada. When Nevada is empty, it is EMPTY. To put a gas station in here in between towns, you have to figure out how to run power to it, and then probably how to pipe water in from somewhere because a well is probably going to have jack shit in it unless you drill so far down they start feeling the vibrations in China.
Bypassing Hawthorne by that far would probably be a huge waste of money. Who is going to want to take a freeway with no gas stations on it?
That's what they said about I-5 in California's Central Valley. It didn't take long for gas stations to start appearing. Even if they have to truck in water.
Quote from: DenverBrian on July 01, 2024, 11:15:08 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2024, 07:37:53 PMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
Sure, but the services... When you leave Tonopah to the west there's already a "Next Gas 100 Miles (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0773214,-117.2482362,3a,27.3y,306.77h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJzLxQl_ddy7WglAyLeBLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)" sign. (Okay, you can see a Love's in the distance so it's more like 98.) 100 miles away from that sign is Hawthorne. Schurz doesn't appear to have any gas, so your next gas is looking to be Fallon, which is about 150 miles from Tonopah even if you clip that corner you want to clip.
Nevada is not like Oklahoma where you can just toss down a gas station any old place. In Oklahoma you can draw off of the power infrastructure that's already there and put in a shallow well and a septic system and you're in business. You know how in Oklahoma, even when you're in the middle of nowhere, you're still passing random trailers on acreages and things like that? None of that sort of thing exists in Nevada. When Nevada is empty, it is EMPTY. To put a gas station in here in between towns, you have to figure out how to run power to it, and then probably how to pipe water in from somewhere because a well is probably going to have jack shit in it unless you drill so far down they start feeling the vibrations in China.
Bypassing Hawthorne by that far would probably be a huge waste of money. Who is going to want to take a freeway with no gas stations on it?
Guess you've never driven I-70 in south central Utah...
As it is, Tonopah to Hawthorne is 100 miles. Tonopah to Beatty is a little under 100 miles. US 95 already has multiple gaps similar in length to I-70 and that's with the existing towns. Unlike I-70, though, none of the side roads have a gas station 10 miles from US 95. Beatty, Tonopah, and Hawthorne are the only towns with services beyond a couple of random bars in the region. Bypassing Tonopah or Hawthorne would mean a loooooong distance between towns. Bypass both of them and you're talking well over 200 miles between towns with services.
Re: the Central Valley, the difference is that I-5 isn't that far from population centers along CA 33, CA 99, or any of the other myriad agricultural communities. Tonopah is literally the only town with more than a bar for 100 miles in any direction.
The sticking point about Hawthorne is the military installation and what would it take to route an interstate in such a way that it doesn't require right-of-way from the military (which they would be likely unwilling to give up) and that doesn't just plow straight through the town.
That's not saying that Hawthorne shouldn't have interstate access, but it might not be feasible to do so.
Having I-11 bypass Hawthorne to the East using Pole Line Road/CR-89 would shave about 20 miles off of the drive from Tonopah to Schurz. Or in this case, a point just North of Schurz
Such a road might be considerably cheaper to build than trying to upgrade US-95 along its meandering path.
If I-11 stuck to overlapping US-95 new bypasses would have to be built around the small towns of Mina and Luning; there isn't enough room along the existing US-95 ROW. As mentioned earlier, the Hawthorne Army Depot and town of Hawthorne pose some serious geometry road blocks for any Interstate-quality upgrades (especially anything that includes frontage roads). It could be pretty expensive having to get around all that crap and avoid a non-freeway Breezewood situation. Or you could just bypass it. The main point of I-11 in this region is moving traffic between the Reno and Vegas metros.
Interstate highways can also feature their own service plazas (in addition to rest areas). We have a few service plazas on our turnpikes here in Oklahoma. Loves just bought out all of them from EZ-GO. Service plazas can solve the problem about long distances without roadside services.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2024, 12:58:47 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 05:20:42 PMQuote from: kernals12 on June 20, 2024, 02:56:19 PMPublic meeting (https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/870/) on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25
Might as well go to at least NV 160.
As was pointed out in the I-11 thread, there's a pretty narrow gap between mountains between Mercury and NV-160 that would probably require blasting (or at the very least a pretty big alignment shift) to fit a divided highway through. I'm guessing that's why they're just leaving off at Mercury.
They did exactly that for the Boulder City bypass so anything's possible.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 02, 2024, 07:06:43 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 21, 2024, 12:58:47 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2024, 05:20:42 PMQuote from: kernals12 on June 20, 2024, 02:56:19 PMPublic meeting (https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/870/) on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25
Might as well go to at least NV 160.
As was pointed out in the I-11 thread, there's a pretty narrow gap between mountains between Mercury and NV-160 that would probably require blasting (or at the very least a pretty big alignment shift) to fit a divided highway through. I'm guessing that's why they're just leaving off at Mercury.
They did exactly that for the Boulder City bypass so anything's possible.
The Boulder City bypass had far more utility. Not only does that corridor serve 5x the traffic, it's part of the Hoover Dam bypass. Remember that truck traffic was banned over the dam, requiring trucks to cross at Laughlin.
Right after 9/11 the traffic at Hoover Dam was apocalyptic due to the security checkpoint. AZ 68 and NV 163 was my favored cutoff route to US 95 for almost a year even with all the extra truck traffic.
The current 4-lane configuration of US-95 drops down to 2 lanes past Mercury just for the sake of traffic counts. It doesn't have anything to do with the mountains just to the West of the Mercury interchange.
In Google Earth anyone could look at both the overhead imagery and Street View imagery of that part of US-95 and clearly see there is more than enough room for a second pair of lanes. They don't have to do any mountain blasting or even any cuts into sides of mountains. The only thing they'll need to do is grading work.
4-laning US-95 to a new freeway exit at NV-160 should not be any physical challenge. The same goes for reaching Amargosa Valley and NV-373. They'll probably have to give the Area 51 Alien Center parking lot a "haircut" though.
Beatty is the nearest point to Las Vegas that will likely need some serious hillside carving to get an I-11 route around the town.
This. As stated upthread, the Nevada Test Site had a sizable number of commuters from Las Vegas until nuclear testing was banned, so the expressway was built to Mercury.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2024, 11:34:16 AMThe current 4-lane configuration of US-95 drops down to 2 lanes past Mercury just for the sake of traffic counts. It doesn't have anything to do with the mountains just to the West of the Mercury interchange.
I love how this thread just keeps rolling back to the FritzOwlian methodology of justifying a freeway in the middle of nowhere. Lord Owl was even big on getting an Interstate through the Nevada Test Site. Quaint to recall a time when all of that was just a silly Fictional thread worth nothing more than a chuckle.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2024, 06:54:04 PMI love how this thread just keeps rolling back to the FritzOwlian methodology of justifying a freeway in the middle of nowhere. Lord Owl was even big on getting an Interstate through the Nevada Test Site. Quaint to recall a time when all of that was just a silly Fictional thread worth nothing more than a chuckle.
This whole thread should probably be moved to Fictional at this point.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 03, 2024, 11:34:16 AMThey'll probably have to give the Area 51 Alien Center parking lot a "haircut" though.
Well as long as they leave the "Alien Cathouse" in the back of that place as is I'm good with it.
I think there's a difference between "Let's draw lines on a map" and "This is one of the corridor alternatives under consideration"
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2024, 06:54:04 PMI love how this thread just keeps rolling back to the FritzOwlian methodology of justifying a freeway in the middle of nowhere. Lord Owl was even big on getting an Interstate through the Nevada Test Site. Quaint to recall a time when all of that was just a silly Fictional thread worth nothing more than a chuckle.
Oh I'm very much aware that NDOT opened the door for all this fantastical talk. All the same it only makes it nominally less FritzOwlian.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2024, 10:53:56 PMOh I'm very much aware that NDOT opened the door for all this fantastical talk. All the same it only makes it nominally less FritzOwlian.
I find much of the conversation totally speculative/fictional, despite the loose foundation in NDOT's public information.
Quote from: Rothman on July 03, 2024, 10:55:36 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2024, 10:53:56 PMOh I'm very much aware that NDOT opened the door for all this fantastical talk. All the same it only makes it nominally less FritzOwlian.
I find much of the conversation totally speculative/fictional, despite the loose foundation in NDOT's public information.
Anything north of Mercury is purely speculative at this point. There's a reason why NDOT refuses to do anything other than outlining corridors north of there until south of Mercury is complete, and it has everything to do with not wanting to expend more than minimal effort on a segment until it is clear that constructing something is within the realm of possibility. Last thing NDOT wants is to find itself in the middle of several I-11 contracts and then watch the political will disappear.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Sorry, but I still do not see the need for extending I-11 beyond Las Vegas, or even the justification for it in the first place. US 93 from I-40 to Wickenberg and US 60 from there to AZ 303 in the outskirts of Phoenix could be upgraded, and having a system interchange connection at Kingman between a US 93 bypass of Beale Street and I-40 would be nice, but anything north of I/CC 215 north of Vegas is pure conjecture. The Tucson section is not needed because AZ 85 can be upgraded with a system interchange with I-8 just east of Gila Bend, then just use I-8/I-10/I-19 to finish off to the Mexico border. I just don't see the need for anything north of Vegas that doesn't connect with I-580 to Reno. Finishing off the I/CC 215 loop around Vegas is a much more important priority. Everything else concerning I-11 should go over to Fictional.
Really the only full limited access corridor that is "necessary" is just between Las Vegas and Kingman. From there all that really needs to be done is widen US 93 through the Joshua Tree Forest and bypass Wickenburg. That former item is going to have a lot of environmental challenges when the time comes.
Quote from: Rothman on July 03, 2024, 10:55:36 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2024, 10:53:56 PMOh I'm very much aware that NDOT opened the door for all this fantastical talk. All the same it only makes it nominally less FritzOwlian.
I find much of the conversation totally speculative/fictional, despite the loose foundation in NDOT's public information.
And the several pages of discussion on extending it north of I-80 don't even have that.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 03:28:02 AMSorry, but I still do not see the need for extending I-11 beyond Las Vegas, or even the justification for it in the first place. US 93 from I-40 to Wickenberg and US 60 from there to AZ 303 in the outskirts of Phoenix could be upgraded, and having a system interchange connection at Kingman between a US 93 bypass of Beale Street and I-40 would be nice, but anything north of I/CC 215 north of Vegas is pure conjecture. The Tucson section is not needed because AZ 85 can be upgraded with a system interchange with I-8 just east of Gila Bend, then just use I-8/I-10/I-19 to finish off to the Mexico border. I just don't see the need for anything north of Vegas that doesn't connect with I-580 to Reno. Finishing off the I/CC 215 loop around Vegas is a much more important priority. Everything else concerning I-11 should go over to Fictional.
Same. I just don't see there ever being a need for it to begin with. It doesn't exactly go anywhere right now. Doesn't seem like NDOT is too serious about I-11 anyway since (as far as I'm aware) there aren't plans to change the exit numbers to follow I-11 mileage on the newly branded segments.
Quote from: US 395 on July 07, 2024, 08:31:46 PMDoesn't seem like NDOT is too serious about I-11 anyway since (as fas as I'm aware) there aren't plans to change the exit numbers to follow I-11 mileage on the newly branded segments.
I think they're just going to do that later. There's a blurb on the NDOT site right now about renumbering the exits on I-580 so that they start at I-580 mile 0 instead of US-395 mile 0. If they're bothering with that, I can't imagine they would leave I-11 the way it is. But priority is probably on getting it signed as 11 to begin with.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 03:28:02 AMFinishing off the I/CC 215 loop around Vegas is a much more important priority.
As far as I could tell as of last Wednesday, it
is finished. There's some reconstruction work going on between Jones and I-15 on the south end, but that's a segment that's been open for years.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 08, 2024, 06:37:25 AMThere's a blurb on the NDOT site right now about renumbering the exits on I-580 so that they start at I-580 mile 0 instead of US-395 mile 0. If they're bothering with that, I can't imagine they would leave I-11 the way it is.
Huh? That was done some years ago.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 01, 2024, 08:51:57 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
I think the AAP makes it difficult for right-of-way expansion and interstate conversion. It's not unprecedented for a freeway to be built through a military base (see NC 24/87/210 in Fayetteville / Fort Liberty), but being an ammo depot, maybe they would be more sensitive about it, particularly with clearing the ordinance.
And assuming the DOD doesn't give an inch for right-of-way, I imagine it would either kill an interstate through there or be destructive to the town of Hawthorne. DOD might even prefer a more direct route to the east, leaving US 95 for local access, but the eastern I-11 for the long-haul traffic.
The biggest concern going through the Hawthorne AAP is ensuring there is enough clear space between the highway ROW and the storage igloos on the base. Looking at Google Maps, it looks like US-95 heading east from the Hawthorne Bypass occupies a 150-foot ROW, and the nearest igloos are about 700-800 feet from the highway. I would assume that the ROW would need to be expanded to 300 feet to add a parallel roadway, which would still remain 550-650 feet from the nearest weapons storage igloos. But, they would also have to look at DoD and Army regulations, as they would likely have minimum distances that weapons storage facilities have to be be from the base perimeter fenceline.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 08, 2024, 06:37:25 AMQuote from: US 395 on July 07, 2024, 08:31:46 PMDoesn't seem like NDOT is too serious about I-11 anyway since (as fas as I'm aware) there aren't plans to change the exit numbers to follow I-11 mileage on the newly branded segments.
I think they're just going to do that later. There's a blurb on the NDOT site right now about renumbering the exits on I-580 so that they start at I-580 mile 0 instead of US-395 mile 0. If they're bothering with that, I can't imagine they would leave I-11 the way it is. But priority is probably on getting it signed as 11 to begin with.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2024, 03:28:02 AMFinishing off the I/CC 215 loop around Vegas is a much more important priority.
As far as I could tell as of last Wednesday, it is finished. There's some reconstruction work going on between Jones and I-15 on the south end, but that's a segment that's been open for years.
The 580 exit numbers were changed back in 2019. Saw them do it. I personally thought (and still do) that it was dumb to change longstanding exit numbers when the freeway continues beyond the Spaghetti Bowl interchange with exit numbers based on 395 mileage.
I'm sure the reasons that might be given could be that because the feds said so or because the number 580 is in an interstate shield so therefore it takes precedence over US 395 despite it being the main/through route in the Reno area.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 08, 2024, 12:04:09 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on July 01, 2024, 08:51:57 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on June 30, 2024, 11:10:12 PMQuote from: Scott5114The problem is that this would bypass Hawthorne, which is both the only place to find services in the area and a decent traffic generator in its own right (due to the Army ammunition plant there).
The Hawthorne AAP is the main employer in that location. And it's not as if that military employers wants a lot of general public traffic moving through that location. It might actually be a benefit to the Army if public Interstate highway traffic was shunted East over the side of the next mountain ridge.
I think the AAP makes it difficult for right-of-way expansion and interstate conversion. It's not unprecedented for a freeway to be built through a military base (see NC 24/87/210 in Fayetteville / Fort Liberty), but being an ammo depot, maybe they would be more sensitive about it, particularly with clearing the ordinance.
And assuming the DOD doesn't give an inch for right-of-way, I imagine it would either kill an interstate through there or be destructive to the town of Hawthorne. DOD might even prefer a more direct route to the east, leaving US 95 for local access, but the eastern I-11 for the long-haul traffic.
The biggest concern going through the Hawthorne AAP is ensuring there is enough clear space between the highway ROW and the storage igloos on the base. Looking at Google Maps, it looks like US-95 heading east from the Hawthorne Bypass occupies a 150-foot ROW, and the nearest igloos are about 700-800 feet from the highway. I would assume that the ROW would need to be expanded to 300 feet to add a parallel roadway, which would still remain 550-650 feet from the nearest weapons storage igloos. But, they would also have to look at DoD and Army regulations, as they would likely have minimum distances that weapons storage facilities have to be be from the base perimeter fenceline.
If the ROW ends up being needed (presupposing that building in the area has already been decided to be feasible, funding has been acquired, etc.), it'd probably actually be easier to get it from the DOD than it would be a private landowner. If the Nevada government were committed enough to it that they were acquiring ROW, it would just be a matter of one of the Congressional lawmakers (probably Mark Amodei, or one of the senators) to write a Congressional bill saying "The Department of Defense shall transfer X land to the Nevada Department of Transportation" and then that's that, DOD has no choice in the matter anymore. At that point moving anything on the land that is in or too close to the corridor is entirely DOD's problem.
If the project were high enough level that people outside of Nevada were interested in it, you probably wouldn't even have to do that, the secretaries of USDOT and DOD would sit down and have a talk about it. And if they couldn't come to an agreement the President of the United States could just order one of them to stand down.
The point is that DOD is not an organization that can just say "No" just because they want to and that be that. Especially in a situation like this where there's already an established corridor through the land, so it's not raising any new security concerns that weren't there previously.
Why wouldn't the DOD grant an easement that makes it easier for their personnel to get around? There is a ton of instances where Federal funding got chipped in to enhance non-Interstate road infrastructure to and around DOD installations.
What I find interesting about the US 95 interchange at Mercury is how the ramp to 95 South is rounded off so the traffic doesn't have to turn, when one can see on the satellite that at one point a more standard-looking ramp had been cleared at one point. The radius on the exit ramp curve from 95 North is also greater than the entrance ramp curve onto 95 North.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5982276,-115.9976522,684m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Quote from: Max RockatanskyWhy wouldn't the DOD grant an easement that makes it easier for their personnel to get around? There is a ton of instances where Federal funding got chipped in to enhance non-Interstate road infrastructure to and around DOD installations.
Sometimes stupid things happen when different government agencies are expected to work together and elected lawmakers (and their politics) are also involved.
Then there is also an issue of
what's in the ground on the Army's AAP property. If the Army has to relocate some buildings near US-95 to make room for a new freeway it's possible they might have to do some cleanup work in the land as part of the process. At least it's not a missile or artillery firing range where unexploded ordinance might be in the ground. But there is still plenty of not healthy materials in things that go boom.
Routing a new Interstate highway around Hawthorne
at an acceptable design speed and curve geometry would require shaving into Army property a good bit on the East and North sides of Hawthorne. The concept Interstate would probably even have to skirt the North side of Hawthorne airport to avoid the cemetery and other stuff along US-95.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 08, 2024, 11:44:35 PMThen there is also an issue of what's in the ground on the Army's AAP property. If the Army has to relocate some buildings near US-95 to make room for a new freeway it's possible they might have to do some cleanup work in the land as part of the process. At least it's not a missile or artillery firing range where unexploded ordinance might be in the ground. But there is still plenty of not healthy materials in things that go boom.
This is true, but the remediation procedures for a piece of land that will be used as highway right-of-way are less strict than what would be required if it was going to be used for residential development (or other types of development where people are going to be out walking around).
Quote from: Finrod on July 08, 2024, 10:56:27 PMWhat I find interesting about the US 95 interchange at Mercury is how the ramp to 95 South is rounded off so the traffic doesn't have to turn, when one can see on the satellite that at one point a more standard-looking ramp had been cleared at one point. The radius on the exit ramp curve from 95 North is also greater than the entrance ramp curve onto 95 North.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5982276,-115.9976522,684m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
I think that's for later conversion to a trumpet interchange.
Quote from: pderocco on July 09, 2024, 04:52:04 PMQuote from: Finrod on July 08, 2024, 10:56:27 PMWhat I find interesting about the US 95 interchange at Mercury is how the ramp to 95 South is rounded off so the traffic doesn't have to turn, when one can see on the satellite that at one point a more standard-looking ramp had been cleared at one point. The radius on the exit ramp curve from 95 North is also greater than the entrance ramp curve onto 95 North.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5982276,-115.9976522,684m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
I think that's for later conversion to a trumpet interchange.
The current design is likely in place to facilitate freer movement of traffic to/from the south, given the amount of activity that used to be out at the test site. Note that the divided highway ends about a mile to the north/west, and not much traffic coming from that way is bound to take this exit. This interchange has been in this configuration at least 23 years (the first time I drove by it), long before I-11 concepts, so it's doubtful a trumpet was ever in anyone's mind (and seems unlikely even in the I-11 buildout scenario).
Quote from: roadfro on July 10, 2024, 11:28:43 AMhis interchange has been in this configuration at least 23 years (the first time I drove by it), long before I-11 concepts, so it's doubtful a trumpet was ever in anyone's mind (and seems unlikely even in the I-11 buildout scenario).
Make it at least 40 years...
https://www.historicaerials.com/location/36.599542913631645/-115.99484324455261/1983/16
Are there any updates on when the Interstate 215-to-NV 157 segment of Interstate 11/US 95's exits will be renumbered to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 05, 2024, 07:18:43 PMAre there any updates on when the Interstate 215-to-NV 157 segment of Interstate 11/US 95's exits will be renumbered to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage?
If it's like I-580, we might have to wait for I-11 to make it to Reno (if it ever does). Or maybe they're waiting for I-11 to reach Mercury (which would allow them to get rid of the rest of the US 95 exit numbers).
An I-11 extension to Mercury at least seems within the realm of possibility under current circumstances. Going any farther past that will require some really serious efforts from lawmakers. There at least has to be a big picture plan in place, kind of like what there is for I-69. The planning for I-11 is kind of a mess.
Unless I'm mistaken, the segment between Kingman and the Nevada state line is not happening anytime soon. Arizona doesn't seem to have anything more than a study about it but maybe I miss something. I'm not not sure.
The freeway connection in Kingman is by far the hardest part of that entire Hoover Dam-to-Kingman segment.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 05, 2024, 07:18:43 PMAre there any updates on when the Interstate 215-to-NV 157 segment of Interstate 11/US 95's exits will be renumbered to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage?
No news on this front.
NDOT missed an easy opportunity here. They should've done the renumbering as they did the resigning project, since they're replacing several (but not all) BGSs along US 95 simultaneously with adding I-11 shields. That would've been more cost effective to do this all in one project. But maybe they thought that was too much change at once...?
Quote from: vdeane on August 05, 2024, 08:57:08 PMIf it's like I-580, we might have to wait for I-11 to make it to Reno (if it ever does). Or maybe they're waiting for I-11 to reach Mercury (which would allow them to get rid of the rest of the US 95 exit numbers).
I think I-580 was signed in 2012, but NDOT didn't renumber its exits until 2019-2020.
Regardless of how they want to do it or when, NDOT probably won't wait until the freeway is built to Mercury. After the Snow Mountain interchange, there are no exit numbers or interchanges except for Mercury (and the exit number 132 or whatever appears on Google Maps is not official—no exit number has ever been signed at Mercury). So every exit up to SR 157 or even Snow Mountain can be renumbered now.
Quote from: roadfro on August 06, 2024, 11:48:53 AMRegardless of how they want to do it or when, NDOT probably won't wait until the freeway is built to Mercury. After the Snow Mountain interchange, there are no exit numbers or interchanges except for Mercury (and the exit number 132 or whatever appears on Google Maps is not official—no exit number has ever been signed at Mercury). So every exit up to SR 157 or even Snow Mountain can be renumbered now.
But would they be willing to give Snow Mountain an I-11 exit number even though I-11 doesn't go there? Or have a jump for that last exit? The I-580 freeway was completed in 2017, so they waited until two years after that to change the exits, so there's precedent for NDOT to wait until well after a freeway is complete to change the exits.
Quote from: vdeane on August 06, 2024, 12:50:08 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 06, 2024, 11:48:53 AMRegardless of how they want to do it or when, NDOT probably won't wait until the freeway is built to Mercury. After the Snow Mountain interchange, there are no exit numbers or interchanges except for Mercury (and the exit number 132 or whatever appears on Google Maps is not official—no exit number has ever been signed at Mercury). So every exit up to SR 157 or even Snow Mountain can be renumbered now.
But would they be willing to give Snow Mountain an I-11 exit number even though I-11 doesn't go there? Or have a jump for that last exit? The I-580 freeway was completed in 2017, so they waited until two years after that to change the exits, so there's precedent for NDOT to wait until well after a freeway is complete to change the exits.
Please, there's precedent for them to
never change numbers to reflect the I-designation. I-515 always used US 95 exit numbers.
I think this is going to be an all-or-nothing affair. Either they extend it all the way to Reno or they don't extend it at all. There's basically nobody in between.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 06, 2024, 07:58:15 PMI think this is going to be an all-or-nothing affair. Either they extend it all the way to Reno or they don't extend it at all. There's basically nobody in between.
You do realize that plenty of interstates end at military bases, right? That's what Mercury is.
Quote from: cl94 on August 06, 2024, 06:19:24 PMQuote from: vdeane on August 06, 2024, 12:50:08 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 06, 2024, 11:48:53 AMRegardless of how they want to do it or when, NDOT probably won't wait until the freeway is built to Mercury. After the Snow Mountain interchange, there are no exit numbers or interchanges except for Mercury (and the exit number 132 or whatever appears on Google Maps is not official—no exit number has ever been signed at Mercury). So every exit up to SR 157 or even Snow Mountain can be renumbered now.
But would they be willing to give Snow Mountain an I-11 exit number even though I-11 doesn't go there? Or have a jump for that last exit? The I-580 freeway was completed in 2017, so they waited until two years after that to change the exits, so there's precedent for NDOT to wait until well after a freeway is complete to change the exits.
Please, there's precedent for them to never change numbers to reflect the I-designation. I-515 always used US 95 exit numbers.
I feel like I-11 is more major than I-515 was. Plus I-11 doesn't have US 95 continuing from it on both ends, and should it get extended past NV 157, it won't have the jump that I-515 would have had (and I-580 has) should it have ever gotten its own numbers.
I really, really, hope they don't leave the numbers as they are forever. It would be especially stupid given that I-11 exit numbers do exist, some of them switched over from US 95 numbers south of I-215.
Freeways that at end at military bases could be a topic unto itself.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 06, 2024, 09:26:25 PMFreeways that at end at military bases could be a topic unto itself.
A very short one.
Quote from: vdeane on August 06, 2024, 12:50:08 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 06, 2024, 11:48:53 AMRegardless of how they want to do it or when, NDOT probably won't wait until the freeway is built to Mercury. After the Snow Mountain interchange, there are no exit numbers or interchanges except for Mercury (and the exit number 132 or whatever appears on Google Maps is not official—no exit number has ever been signed at Mercury). So every exit up to SR 157 or even Snow Mountain can be renumbered now.
But would they be willing to give Snow Mountain an I-11 exit number even though I-11 doesn't go there? Or have a jump for that last exit? The I-580 freeway was completed in 2017, so they waited until two years after that to change the exits, so there's precedent for NDOT to wait until well after a freeway is complete to change the exits.
Who knows?
US 95's exit numbers already jump from 85 to 90 between Craig Road and the Rancho Dr/Ann Rd interchanges even though the two interchanges are only about a mile apart. This oddity inexplicably introduced in the 1990's when the latter at-grade intersections were reconstructed as interchanges, and does not conform to the mileposts posted in the field. Eventually as more interchanges were constructed as development spread northwest, that jump caused the Snow Mountain interchange to be renumbered to exit 99 from the original exit 95 (which was accurate to the milepost) to avoid having two exit 95's—the Horse Drive interchange (now Skye Canyon Park Dr) was numbered exit 95 when that opened.
Maybe existing Exit 99 should be renumbered to correspond with Interstate 11's mileage, even if it never becomes part of Interstate 11. Having the exit numbers go from Exit 54 (which I assume will be the future number), to Exit 99 would be confusing. Another option would be to denumber Exit 99, until it becomes part of Interstate 11 (if it ever does).
Quote from: roadfro on August 09, 2024, 11:13:33 AMQuote from: vdeane on August 06, 2024, 12:50:08 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 06, 2024, 11:48:53 AMRegardless of how they want to do it or when, NDOT probably won't wait until the freeway is built to Mercury. After the Snow Mountain interchange, there are no exit numbers or interchanges except for Mercury (and the exit number 132 or whatever appears on Google Maps is not official—no exit number has ever been signed at Mercury). So every exit up to SR 157 or even Snow Mountain can be renumbered now.
But would they be willing to give Snow Mountain an I-11 exit number even though I-11 doesn't go there? Or have a jump for that last exit? The I-580 freeway was completed in 2017, so they waited until two years after that to change the exits, so there's precedent for NDOT to wait until well after a freeway is complete to change the exits.
Who knows?
US 95's exit numbers already jump from 85 to 90 between Craig Road and the Rancho Dr/Ann Rd interchanges even though the two interchanges are only about a mile apart. This oddity inexplicably introduced in the 1990's when the latter at-grade intersections were reconstructed as interchanges, and does not conform to the mileposts posted in the field. Eventually as more interchanges were constructed as development spread northwest, that jump caused the Snow Mountain interchange to be renumbered to exit 99 from the original exit 95 (which was accurate to the milepost) to avoid having two exit 95's—the Horse Drive interchange (now Skye Canyon Park Dr) was numbered exit 95 when that opened.
I think I read somewhere that the reason on why the exit numbers jump from 85 to 90 instead of going from 85 to 86 or whatever had to do with the original US 95 alignment on surface streets. It said that by the time 95 made it to what is now the Rancho Drive interchange, it would've been around milepost 90. If true, I guess it makes sense but since 95 was being moved to the new freeway, why have it follow the old alignment mileposts. It would've been logical to have it follow the new alignment mileposts going forward.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 09, 2024, 08:03:42 PMAnother option would be to denumber Exit 99, until it becomes part of Interstate 11 (if it ever does).
That's actually against the MUTCD—since 2009 it has said that all exits are supposed to be numbered. Unnumbered exits simply haven't been updated to comply with that requirement.
Quote from: US 395 on August 12, 2024, 12:48:35 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 09, 2024, 11:13:33 AMUS 95's exit numbers already jump from 85 to 90 between Craig Road and the Rancho Dr/Ann Rd interchanges even though the two interchanges are only about a mile apart. This oddity inexplicably introduced in the 1990's when the latter at-grade intersections were reconstructed as interchanges, and does not conform to the mileposts posted in the field. Eventually as more interchanges were constructed as development spread northwest, that jump caused the Snow Mountain interchange to be renumbered to exit 99 from the original exit 95 (which was accurate to the milepost) to avoid having two exit 95's—the Horse Drive interchange (now Skye Canyon Park Dr) was numbered exit 95 when that opened.
I think I read somewhere that the reason on why the exit numbers jump from 85 to 90 instead of going from 85 to 86 or whatever had to do with the original US 95 alignment on surface streets. It said that by the time 95 made it to what is now the Rancho Drive interchange, it would've been around milepost 90. If true, I guess it makes sense but since 95 was being moved to the new freeway, why have it follow the old alignment mileposts. It would've been logical to have it follow the new alignment mileposts going forward.
That cannot be true logically. If they used original mileposts past exit 85, the exit number would have been lower because the original alignment is shorter—Rancho Dr is basically a hypotenuse and the 95 freeway is the two sides forming the right triangle. Even if you factor the other former alignment along Fremont St & Boulder Hwy into the mix, that's also shorter because it's another straight shot out of town (as opposed to the turns/zig-zags the 95 freeway makes heading southeast from downtown).
The exits on Interstate 11/US 95 jumping from 85 to 90 will, of course, become a moot point when they are renumbered to Interstate 11's mileage. Still, they should have renumbered the exits northwest of the Business 95/NV 599 interchange to correspond to the actual mileage of US 95, with the exits being numbered 86-94 instead of 90-99.
Quote from: kernals12I think this is going to be an all-or-nothing affair. Either they extend it all the way to Reno or they don't extend it at all. There's basically nobody in between.
It's not practical to connect I-11 directly to Reno. That's assuming the Interstate overlaps some or all of existing I-580. It's going to take major break throughs in tunnel building technology -advancements that significantly lower the cost- to make such a thing possible. Otherwise any hopes to extend I-11 up to the I-80 corridor would most likely go through Fallon and Ferley, well to the East of Reno. Clark is still a better connection, using NV-439 as the outlet from I-80. It splits the distance between Reno and Fernley. Unlike the situation in Fernley, there isn't a bunch of stuff next to existing highways to buy, demolish and build over. Under current circumstances I-11 will probably never get any farther North than Mercury.
Quote from: vdeaneYou do realize that plenty of interstates end at military bases, right? That's what Mercury is.
Lots of Interstate highways pass next to or within the vicinity of military bases. Very few of them actually start/end at military bases.
MOD NOTE: Much of the discussion about freeways that end at military bases that ensued from the second half of this post was broken off to its own thread on 8/19/2024. Due to quoting, the split wasn't perfect...and when it circled back to Mercury and atomic testing, I left that material in-thread. —Roadfro
Quote from: roadfro on August 13, 2024, 11:00:51 AMQuote from: US 395 on August 12, 2024, 12:48:35 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 09, 2024, 11:13:33 AMUS 95's exit numbers already jump from 85 to 90 between Craig Road and the Rancho Dr/Ann Rd interchanges even though the two interchanges are only about a mile apart. This oddity inexplicably introduced in the 1990's when the latter at-grade intersections were reconstructed as interchanges, and does not conform to the mileposts posted in the field. Eventually as more interchanges were constructed as development spread northwest, that jump caused the Snow Mountain interchange to be renumbered to exit 99 from the original exit 95 (which was accurate to the milepost) to avoid having two exit 95's—the Horse Drive interchange (now Skye Canyon Park Dr) was numbered exit 95 when that opened.
I think I read somewhere that the reason on why the exit numbers jump from 85 to 90 instead of going from 85 to 86 or whatever had to do with the original US 95 alignment on surface streets. It said that by the time 95 made it to what is now the Rancho Drive interchange, it would've been around milepost 90. If true, I guess it makes sense but since 95 was being moved to the new freeway, why have it follow the old alignment mileposts. It would've been logical to have it follow the new alignment mileposts going forward.
That cannot be true logically. If they used original mileposts past exit 85, the exit number would have been lower because the original alignment is shorter—Rancho Dr is basically a hypotenuse and the 95 freeway is the two sides forming the right triangle. Even if you factor the other former alignment along Fremont St & Boulder Hwy into the mix, that's also shorter because it's another straight shot out of town (as opposed to the turns/zig-zags the 95 freeway makes heading southeast from downtown).
Hence why I said "if true". Still, the logical sense would've been to have the mileposts and exit numbers align more with the at-the-time new freeway north of the interchange instead of having a random jump in numbers.
I have similar thinking with the 580/395 exit numbers. Should've either stayed as they were based on 395 mileage pre-2019 or have the entire freeway facility have one set of exit numbers instead of two as it is now today. Consistency should be key.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 13, 2024, 12:52:23 PMThe exits on Interstate 11/US 95 jumping from 85 to 90 will, of course, become a moot point when they are renumbered to Interstate 11's mileage. Still, they should have renumbered the exits northwest of the Business 95/NV 599 interchange to correspond to the actual mileage of US 95, with the exits being numbered 86-94 instead of 90-99.
I measured out US 95 from the state line to exit 99 on Google Maps and those exit numbers
are accurate of US 95's mileage (especially the mileage as it was before the Boulder City Bypass opened and it was 2/3 of a mile longer). It's the ones southeast of there that are wrong.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 13, 2024, 01:51:45 PMOff the top of my brain, I know of I-H3, I-564, and I-781 for interstates. Am I missing any others?
I-185
Quote from: vdeane on August 13, 2024, 09:18:25 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on August 13, 2024, 12:52:23 PMThe exits on Interstate 11/US 95 jumping from 85 to 90 will, of course, become a moot point when they are renumbered to Interstate 11's mileage. Still, they should have renumbered the exits northwest of the Business 95/NV 599 interchange to correspond to the actual mileage of US 95, with the exits being numbered 86-94 instead of 90-99.
I measured out US 95 from the state line to exit 99 on Google Maps and those exit numbers are accurate of US 95's mileage (especially the mileage as it was before the Boulder City Bypass opened and it was 2/3 of a mile longer). It's the ones southeast of there that are wrong.
At least to the mileposts that are in the field, the old number was correct (granted, NDOT hasn't been good about maintaining milepost panels along US 95 within Vegas for years).
Quote from: US 395 on August 13, 2024, 06:26:21 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 13, 2024, 11:00:51 AMQuote from: US 395 on August 12, 2024, 12:48:35 PMQuote from: roadfro on August 09, 2024, 11:13:33 AMUS 95's exit numbers already jump from 85 to 90 between Craig Road and the Rancho Dr/Ann Rd interchanges even though the two interchanges are only about a mile apart. This oddity inexplicably introduced in the 1990's when the latter at-grade intersections were reconstructed as interchanges, and does not conform to the mileposts posted in the field. Eventually as more interchanges were constructed as development spread northwest, that jump caused the Snow Mountain interchange to be renumbered to exit 99 from the original exit 95 (which was accurate to the milepost) to avoid having two exit 95's—the Horse Drive interchange (now Skye Canyon Park Dr) was numbered exit 95 when that opened.
I think I read somewhere that the reason on why the exit numbers jump from 85 to 90 instead of going from 85 to 86 or whatever had to do with the original US 95 alignment on surface streets. It said that by the time 95 made it to what is now the Rancho Drive interchange, it would've been around milepost 90. If true, I guess it makes sense but since 95 was being moved to the new freeway, why have it follow the old alignment mileposts. It would've been logical to have it follow the new alignment mileposts going forward.
That cannot be true logically. If they used original mileposts past exit 85, the exit number would have been lower because the original alignment is shorter—Rancho Dr is basically a hypotenuse and the 95 freeway is the two sides forming the right triangle. Even if you factor the other former alignment along Fremont St & Boulder Hwy into the mix, that's also shorter because it's another straight shot out of town (as opposed to the turns/zig-zags the 95 freeway makes heading southeast from downtown).
Hence why I said "if true". Still, the logical sense would've been to have the mileposts and exit numbers align more with the at-the-time new freeway north of the interchange instead of having a random jump in numbers.
I have similar thinking with the 580/395 exit numbers. Should've either stayed as they were based on 395 mileage pre-2019 or have the entire freeway facility have one set of exit numbers instead of two as it is now today. Consistency should be key.
After vdeane's post, that got me reevaluating my initial thought. I measured out on GoogleMaps the old route of US 95 using Boulder Hwy/Fremont St, Las Vegas Blvd, Bonanza Rd, and Rancho Dr. From the state line to the Snow Mountain interchange along this route is about 95 miles.
So this would seem to suggest that NDOT never recalibrated the overall US 95 mileposts when the freeway was constructed through Las Vegas. I guess given that the freeway construction actually started at downtown going west first, then southeast in stages, that somewhat makes sense. And also makes some sense why there haven't ever been decent mileposts on the 95 as well. But also, that freeway alignment in its current form has been complete since circa 1994, you'd think they would've made adjustments by now.
Makes me wonder how they picked mileposts and exit numbers to begin with, as I couldn't find anything with the old route that quite aligns to the exit numbers on the freeway...
FWIW, Mercury unlike many of the bases being discussed here doesn't have a very significant enlisted population living on site. There is a couple barracks, a post office, a clinic and a small shopping complex but not much else on their admin side.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 08:30:07 AMFWIW, Mercury unlike many of the bases being discussed here doesn't have a very significant enlisted population living on site. There is a couple barracks, a post office, a clinic and a small shopping complex but not much else on their admin side.
So does that mean there is less traffic between there and Vegas than if everyone lived on base, or more? I would think it would mean more. Or it could mean more commuter cars and fewer trucks. I dunno.
Personally, I don't obsess about where Interstates end, because a dangling end can always be excused with a "Someday ...".
Quote from: pderocco on August 16, 2024, 04:40:56 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 08:30:07 AMFWIW, Mercury unlike many of the bases being discussed here doesn't have a very significant enlisted population living on site. There is a couple barracks, a post office, a clinic and a small shopping complex but not much else on their admin side.
So does that mean there is less traffic between there and Vegas than if everyone lived on base, or more? I would think it would mean more. Or it could mean more commuter cars and fewer trucks. I dunno.
Personally, I don't obsess about where Interstates end, because a dangling end can always be excused with a "Someday ...".
Eyeball test always told me it was more every time I passed the military rush hour.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 08:30:07 AMFWIW, Mercury unlike many of the bases being discussed here doesn't have a very significant enlisted population living on site. There is a couple barracks, a post office, a clinic and a small shopping complex but not much else on their admin side.
It used to. Long ago.
Right, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
I'm sure if above ground testing was still a thing that the hotels in Las Vegas would still be throwing nuke parties.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
Can't do that. We're a party to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2024, 12:26:54 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
I'm sure if above ground testing was still a thing that the hotels in Las Vegas would still be throwing nuke parties.
lol it'd be a tourist attraction from all over the world. I read stories about about how people in big bear could see the explosions in Nevada like it was the second sunrise.
Has anybody ever seen a test?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 17, 2024, 12:28:41 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
Can't do that. We're a party to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
I don't think the United States cares as much. As far as I know, we didn't even ratify it. Nor did several other countries.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Atomic_test_seen_from_Las_Vegas.jpg)
When this picture was taken, the Las Vegas Valley had a population of 25,000 or so. These days it's closer to 2.2 million. Probably not a good idea to expose that many people to radiation...
...and also Nevada is a swing state, so whatever politicians greenlit more nuclear testing here would probably get their careers nuked too.
Radiation exposure is
still an issue in these areas from the 1950s nuclear tests. People who lived downwind of the Nevada Test Site, known as downwinders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders), have had a much higher incidence of various types of cancers and birth defects than the general population, and most of these have been directly linked to radiation exposure. Compensation for these victims is still a political issue in the southwest with support on both sides of the aisle...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 01:45:21 AMQuote from: kernals12 on August 17, 2024, 12:28:41 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
Can't do that. We're a party to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
I don't think the United States cares as much. As far as I know, we didn't even ratify it. Nor did several other countries.
The US has signed and ratified the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans all above-ground nuclear detonations:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/PTBT_Participation.svg/863px-PTBT_Participation.svg.png)
What the US Senate has not formally ratified is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a total ban on all nuclear detonations, though no tests have been conducted since 1992:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/CTBT_Participation.svg/863px-CTBT_Participation.svg.png)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 01:44:51 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2024, 12:26:54 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
I'm sure if above ground testing was still a thing that the hotels in Las Vegas would still be throwing nuke parties.
lol it'd be a tourist attraction from all over the world. I read stories about about how people in big bear could see the explosions in Nevada like it was the second sunrise.
Has anybody ever seen a test?
Considering that there are now over 200,000 people in Washington County (UT), the state of Utah would raise quite the stink over such a "tourist attraction."
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2024, 10:22:16 AM(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Atomic_test_seen_from_Las_Vegas.jpg)
When this picture was taken, the Las Vegas Valley had a population of 25,000 or so. These days it's closer to 2.2 million. Probably not a good idea to expose that many people to radiation...
...and also Nevada is a swing state, so whatever politicians greenlit more nuclear testing here would probably get their careers nuked too.
Opposing nuclear testing and nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is one political issue that politicians across Nevada, on both sides of the aisle, have managed to consistently agree upon over the last several decades. Being for anything remotely related is political suicide in this state.
Not to stray this off topic any more than it already is, but:
More than 40,000 Americans suffered health effects from above-ground testing in the 1950s. "Significant amounts of radioactive particles were dropped on these areas leading to marked increases in cancers, such as leukemia, lymphoma, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, bone cancer, brain tumors, and gastrointestinal tract cancers, from the mid-1950s through 1980."
We're not testing above ground ever again.
But we like explode-y things.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 26, 2024, 12:54:18 PMWe're not testing above ground ever again.
lol okay we will see.
The USA won't, but current and future despots certainly will. Many did learn of their destructive power nearly 80 years ago.
Mike
Time to get back to the real topic here:
According to Streetview, on northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678024,-115.1590697,3a,75y,17.13h,96.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKvBSLxX6BtQpLMkI0Gri_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) I-15 the signs for exit 42 still say I-515, while the southbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1808616,-115.1454966,3a,75y,223.46h,97.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sepTsB03aDJXL6YcmP9WhLg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DepTsB03aDJXL6YcmP9WhLg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D188.5786%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) side now shows I-11 for the same exit. Any idea on when the re-signing project on I-15 will be done? Also, what about I-215?
I believe all of the remaining signage along I-15 and I-215 to be changed is part of the same contract that will change it on mainline I-11.
:hmmm: just curious, are they also finally signing CC 215 as I-215 now too?
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 06, 2024, 08:18:23 AM:hmmm: just curious, are they also finally signing CC 215 as I-215 now too?
You've been here longer than me so you might know better, but I seem to remember that Clark County would have to agree to take on an equivalent amount of state route mileage for that to happen. It might be hard to cobble up enough state routes that both make sense for the county to be maintaining and also aren't in LV or NLV city limits. (Unless the county is going to maintain roads in the cities, which would be bizarre.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 06, 2024, 08:22:21 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on September 06, 2024, 08:18:23 AM:hmmm: just curious, are they also finally signing CC 215 as I-215 now too?
You've been here longer than me so you might know better, but I seem to remember that Clark County would have to agree to take on an equivalent amount of state route mileage for that to happen. It might be hard to cobble up enough state routes that both make sense for the county to be maintaining and also aren't in LV or NLV city limits. (Unless the county is going to maintain roads in the cities, which would be bizarre.)
:hmmm: interesting. I have been on this thread a while, but I only check in occasionally, I more hang out in the midwest threads. I don't know a lot about Nevada roads! :-D
Looking at the NDOT maintenance list there is some swap opportunities:
https://www.dot.nv.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22173/638399514594330000
Some that seem like opportunities:
- The renaming 12 miles of NV 604 on Las Vegas Boulevard.
- The 18 miles or NV 164 on Nipton Road. Caltrans doesn't maintain the segment in California, so why does NDOT?
- The 7 miles of NV 161 to Goodsprings.
- The 11 miles of NV 165 to Nelson. Why does a quasi ghost town need state highway?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 06, 2024, 09:57:19 AM- The renaming 12 miles of NV 604 on Las Vegas Boulevard.
This is all in NLV city limits, so I don't think Clark County could/would take it.
Quote from: Henry on September 03, 2024, 11:25:53 PMTime to get back to the real topic here:
According to Streetview, on northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678024,-115.1590697,3a,75y,17.13h,96.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKvBSLxX6BtQpLMkI0Gri_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) I-15 the signs for exit 42 still say I-515, while the southbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1808616,-115.1454966,3a,75y,223.46h,97.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sepTsB03aDJXL6YcmP9WhLg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DepTsB03aDJXL6YcmP9WhLg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D188.5786%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) side now shows I-11 for the same exit. Any idea on when the re-signing project on I-15 will be done? Also, what about I-215?
It was discussed further upthread, but the southbound I-15 signs were changed from I-515 to I-11 as part of a separate project along I-15 that took place well before the current I-11 transition signing project was even advertised.
I'm not sure on the details for the re-signing project, but based on something I saw in a Facebook group yesterday, I think it's underway now.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 06, 2024, 08:22:21 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on September 06, 2024, 08:18:23 AM:hmmm: just curious, are they also finally signing CC 215 as I-215 now too?
You've been here longer than me so you might know better, but I seem to remember that Clark County would have to agree to take on an equivalent amount of state route mileage for that to happen. It might be hard to cobble up enough state routes that both make sense for the county to be maintaining and also aren't in LV or NLV city limits. (Unless the county is going to maintain roads in the cities, which would be bizarre.)
Hold up. Wasn't part of current I-215 county maintained for a while?
Indulging some thread drift for a second here...
Quote from: NE2 on September 06, 2024, 11:56:22 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on September 06, 2024, 08:22:21 AMQuote from: silverback1065 on September 06, 2024, 08:18:23 AM:hmmm: just curious, are they also finally signing CC 215 as I-215 now too?
You've been here longer than me so you might know better, but I seem to remember that Clark County would have to agree to take on an equivalent amount of state route mileage for that to happen. It might be hard to cobble up enough state routes that both make sense for the county to be maintaining and also aren't in LV or NLV city limits. (Unless the county is going to maintain roads in the cities, which would be bizarre.)
Hold up. Wasn't part of current I-215 county maintained for a while?
NDOT has a policy document created a few years ago that governs their roadway jurisdictional swap process. This was a long time coming, as swaps prior to this had been much more piecemeal.
IIRC, one of the first major uses of this policy were all the swaps outlined in this 2019 press release (https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4508/16?cftype=News), which resulted in NDOT taking on the maintenance of Summerlin Pkwy (Now SR 613) in exchange for offloading a significant chunk of Charleston Blvd and parts of Sahara Ave and Fremont St to the City of Las Vegas, as well as taking on maintenance of the I-215 portion of the beltway from Warm Springs Road to Stephanie (between the end stubs near I-15 & I-515 they were already maintaining) in exchange for offloading portions of Jones Blvd, Sahara Ave & Tropicana Ave within unincorporated Clark County to the county.
If you look at those transfers, the length of arterial routes offloaded to the city or county is not necessarily equivalent to length of freeway picked up by NDOT (for example, Summerlin Pkwy is about 6 miles of freeway, but more than 6 miles of Charleston Blvd alone was offloaded). I'm not sure if there that becomes more equivalent if you look at lane miles or amount/valuation of land transferred. But also, there are other factors at play. In the Vegas area especially, the CLV/CC has been keen to take on some of the routes under state maintenance just to have that control and simplify permitting and other processes—a prominent, no longer extant example being the county regulating everything about Las Vegas Blvd/the Strip except the roadway itself, so NDOT approval/permitting used to be needed for any resort connection to the road, any changes in the ROW, or even simply for the county to do maintenance on the palm trees and infrastructure in the median of Las Vegas Blvd. Also, I think NDOT has relinquished a decent amount of mileage within the urban unincorporated county limits since inception of the beltway that perhaps they have an agreement with the county to bank some of it for a future swap of the remaining beltway...?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 06, 2024, 09:57:19 AMLooking at the NDOT maintenance list there is some swap opportunities:
https://www.dot.nv.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22173/638399514594330000
Some that seem like opportunities:
- The renaming 12 miles of NV 604 on Las Vegas Boulevard.
- The 18 miles or NV 164 on Nipton Road. Caltrans doesn't maintain the segment in California, so why does NDOT?
- The 7 miles of NV 161 to Goodsprings.
- The 11 miles of NV 165 to Nelson. Why does a quasi ghost town need state highway?
I think NDOT will be more apt to want to transfer more urban mileage within the county's jurisdiction. A real likely option will probably be for NDOT to offload the portion of Boulder Highway/SR 582 still under their jurisdiction (especially if the "re-imagine Boulder Highway" project extends north from the Henderson city limits), as they've already offloaded other portions of SR 582 to Las Vegas and Henderson. Other reasonable candidates include Nellis Blvd/SR 612 and the remaining portions of Flamingo Road/SR 592 and Sunset Road/SR 594 not already relinquished to the county.
I hope CC-215 does become part of Interstate 215 eventually. I wouldn't want it to remain a county highway permanently. Then the Interstate System will have two Interstate 215s that are three-quarters of a beltway.
It probably is way more interesting as is. Fully limited access county roads aren't exactly plentiful.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 06, 2024, 04:06:26 PMIt probably is way more interesting as is. Fully limited access county roads aren't exactly plentiful.
That. You could make an argument for E-470 and a couple in Orange County, CA meeting the definition given that they're county toll authorities, but CC 215 gets pentagons and everything, plus nonstandard signage. Alfred Harrell Highway in Bakersfield is fully limited access, Nicolls Road / Suffolk CR 97 on Long Island is full freeway for a few miles, probably a handful of others scattered around, but none come close to the scale of CC 215.
CC 215 is more of a development highway. I imagine unless you're a resident of the western suburbs, most folks would just use I-15 if they're going through the city. Assuming I-11 is completed all the way to Reno, then integrating it into the Interstate system would make sense.
I doubt CC-215 is ever actually faster than I-15 but holy hell do I avoid I-15 like the plague. I'd rather drive the Strip than I-15, it's that bad.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 01:45:21 AMQuote from: kernals12 on August 17, 2024, 12:28:41 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on August 17, 2024, 12:25:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2024, 09:33:15 PMRight, not exactly many nuclear weapon tests going on these day.
I think they should do one to give people appreciation for just how powerful these weapons are. I don't think a lot of people understand the end result of nuclear war especially if it mutually assured destruction.
Can't do that. We're a party to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
I don't think the United States cares as much. As far as I know, we didn't even ratify it. Nor did several other countries.
Actually it's the Limited Test Ban Treaty the US is a party to. The Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits above-ground testing. The US has had a self-imposed moratorium on underground nuclear testing since 1992.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ibAK53HHuYJXc4GZ9
I see Googlemaps has this considered I-11 already.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2024, 06:00:07 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/ibAK53HHuYJXc4GZ9
I see Googlemaps has this considered I-11 already.
That's because it is I-11.
It got the okay to continue north of Spaghetti Junction?
Nice.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2024, 08:03:29 PMIt got the okay to continue north of Spaghetti Junction?
Nice.
To NV 157.
MOD NOTE: All the discussion about Las Vegas Blvd and conversation stemming from that over the last few days was moved to its own thread, since it was over a page of replies and at least three layers of thread drift away from talking about I-11. —Roadfro.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35203.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35203.0)
I noticed some of the new I-11 shields look like California spec interstate shields.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1516145,-115.0916901,3a,15y,196.4h,94.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6xB8tlgBpsxiuA-k0cbyWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8856072,-116.9901052,3a,15y,121.75h,87.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCxwfJydMgkZL3BGKlvWCLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
California spec would have the state name.
Quote from: US 89 on September 13, 2024, 06:26:01 PMCalifornia spec would have the state name.
But the shape of the I-11 and the I-40 shields are identical, perhaps they came from the same manufacturer. The crowns aren't as rounded as standard interstate shields elsewhere.
That's a 3di shield squished to the dimensions of a 2di shield. No idea why someone would make such a thing.
We have at least a couple of those artificially squeezed Interstate shields here in Oklahoma. This one example has been around for a long time:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011213,-97.416024,3a,75y,255.36h,99.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHi9KANdKoXuFpgu9U21cwQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHi9KANdKoXuFpgu9U21cwQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D205.17972%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
It's an I-35 shield on an overhead sign. It's a 3-digit shield squeezed to 2-digit width.
I've seen the same weird treatment on some Interstate signs in California, even from a long time ago before they started using computer-based software to design and fabricate the signs.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 16, 2024, 11:40:16 PMWe have at least a couple of those artificially squeezed Interstate shields here in Oklahoma.
Where do you think I learned to recognize that particular design malfunction? :D
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 15, 2024, 09:28:10 PMThat's a 3di shield squished to the dimensions of a 2di shield. No idea why someone would make such a thing.
I'd rather see a bubble 3di shield over one of those.
Bubble shields are pretty goofy looking too. I just have a strong dislike of artificially distorted Interstate shields. It goes along with the intense hatred I have of distorted type in commercial signs -very often the default Arial typeface squeezed or stretched to fit in a given space. It all comes down to a general level of incompetence in the "graphic designer" doing the work. Details are important, but the hacks couldn't give a tinker's damn about details.
I drove I-11 from the Arizona border to I-15 as well as on several other roads around the Vegas area a bit last week. Signage south of 215 is entirely I-11; north of it is a mix of 515 and 11. No white mileposts on the side that I saw.
Signs on I-15 have all been changed over to I-11. Surface streets, like reassurance shields on the mainline, were more of a mixed bag.
Quote from: US 89 on October 03, 2024, 10:32:07 PMI drove I-11 from the Arizona border to I-15 as well as on several other roads around the Vegas area a bit last week. Signage south of 215 is entirely I-11; north of it is a mix of 515 and 11. No white mileposts on the side that I saw.
Signs on I-15 have all been changed over to I-11. Surface streets, like reassurance shields on the mainline, were more of a mixed bag.
The changeover of I-515 to I-11 south of I-215 happened a few years ago...that (along with the opening of the Boulder City Bypass) is what first established I-11 in the field.
Seems to be a mixed bag for the rest of it. Between I-215 and I-15, there have been some one-off replacements and replacements as part of other projects. But it sounds like the resigning project has not kicked into high gear yet.
The Las Vegas Valley is markedly has been void of mileposts on the freeways for as long as I can remember. NDOT hasn't seemed to care (although they did install some on Summerlin Pkwy with their recent project). At least for I-515/US 95, there seems to be a milepost discrepancy for years that they haven't been keen to fix. Since NDOT adopted enhanced mileposts/reference markers, they've been more apt to install mileposts in urban areas during enhancement projects. Perhaps with the changeover to I-11, they'll do a milepost/exit renumbering project to finally clean this up (that work is not part of the current resigning project, according to the plans I saw).
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/traffic/i-11-signage-install-along-us-95-to-begin-this-month-3193690/
"Crews will begin installing Interstate 11 signage along U.S. Highway 95 this month throughout the Las Vegas Valley.
"Over the next year, 1,075 I-11 sign panels will be added on U.S. 95 and approaching highways, between the Henderson Interchange and Kyle Canyon Road, to reflect the 2023 Federal Highway officially designating of the freeway as such, the Nevada Department of Transportation announced Monday.
The $3 million project is expected to be completed by the fall of 2025.
Although the freeway is now designated as I-11, it will still retain its U.S. 95 and U.S. 93 designation, with I-11 taking precedence.
The project includes installing the over 1,000 sign panels on existing overhead sign supports and foundations.
Work associated with the sign installation is not expected to heavily affect traffic impact, but brief, temporary overnight traffic stoppages may be needed on I-11, I-15, and the 215 beltway, as safety precautions.
"NDOT will provide advance notice of any closures or restrictions to help drivers plan their routes," NDOT spokeswoman Kelsey McFarland said in a statement.
The highway is already signed as I-11 between the Henderson Interchange and the Nevada-Arizona border.
Looking to further extend I-11 in Nevada, NDOT is conducting a feasibility study that will be used to highlight the needed upgrades along U.S. 95 between Kyle Canyon Road and Mercury Highway to bring that stretch to interstate code.
"This study builds on the 2018 I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis, aiming to refine past recommendations and guide future development," McFarland said.
At full build out, I-11 is planned to stretch between Mexico and Canada, initially linking Las Vegas and Phoenix. There is no time frame to when either expansion will
Will the new Interstate 11 signage being erected also include new exit numbers for the Interstate 215-to-NV 157 segment? The article didn't say, but I hope that is the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 22, 2024, 10:39:22 PMWill the new Interstate 11 signage being erected also include new exit numbers for the Interstate 215-to-NV 157 segment? The article didn't say, but I hope that is the case.
No.
Quote from: splashflash on October 22, 2024, 10:02:02 AMhttps://www.reviewjournal.com/local/traffic/i-11-signage-install-along-us-95-to-begin-this-month-3193690/
"Crews will begin installing Interstate 11 signage along U.S. Highway 95 this month throughout the Las Vegas Valley.
"Over the next year, 1,075 I-11 sign panels will be added on U.S. 95 and approaching highways, between the Henderson Interchange and Kyle Canyon Road, to reflect the 2023 Federal Highway officially designating of the freeway as such, the Nevada Department of Transportation announced Monday.
The $3 million project is expected to be completed by the fall of 2025.
Although the freeway is now designated as I-11, it will still retain its U.S. 95 and U.S. 93 designation, with I-11 taking precedence.
The project includes installing the over 1,000 sign panels on existing overhead sign supports and foundations.
Watch 7@7 — now streaming
Good news tonight for renters in Las Vegas.
Work associated with the sign installation is not expected to heavily affect traffic impact, but brief, temporary overnight traffic stoppages may be needed on I-11, I-15, and the 215 beltway, as safety precautions.
"NDOT will provide advance notice of any closures or restrictions to help drivers plan their routes," NDOT spokeswoman Kelsey McFarland said in a statement.
The highway is already signed as I-11 between the Henderson Interchange and the Nevada-Arizona border.
Looking to further extend I-11 in Nevada, NDOT is conducting a feasibility study that will be used to highlight the needed upgrades along U.S. 95 between Kyle Canyon Road and Mercury Highway to bring that stretch to interstate code.
"This study builds on the 2018 I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis, aiming to refine past recommendations and guide future development," McFarland said.
At full build out, I-11 is planned to stretch between Mexico and Canada, initially linking Las Vegas and Phoenix. There is no time frame to when either expansion will
I'd be amazed to see I-11 north of Nevada within my lifetime.
Extending Interstate 11 to Canada was always a pipe dream, given the lack of need for such an extension. I'm still not convinced Interstate 11 will make it to Tucson, let alone the Mexican border.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2024, 02:41:04 PMExtending Interstate 11 to Canada was always a pipe dream, given the lack of need for such an extension. I'm still not convinced Interstate 11 will make it to Tucson, let alone the Mexican border.
I could see it making it to I-8 as the ultimate bypass of Phoenix like how AZ 85 is.
I think Phoenix to Reno is the likely final extent of I-11. Just having Las Vegas connected to Phoenix by Interstate will be a major fill-in of the system.
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 24, 2024, 03:45:44 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2024, 02:41:04 PMExtending Interstate 11 to Canada was always a pipe dream, given the lack of need for such an extension. I'm still not convinced Interstate 11 will make it to Tucson, let alone the Mexican border.
I could see it making it to I-8 as the ultimate bypass of Phoenix like how AZ 85 is.
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 24, 2024, 11:35:16 PMI think Phoenix to Reno is the likely final extent of I-11. Just having Las Vegas connected to Phoenix by Interstate will be a major fill-in of the system.
I believe you're right about those. I'd rather end it at I-8 than needlessly duplicating other nearby corridors further south, namely I-19.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2024, 02:41:04 PMExtending Interstate 11 to Canada was always a pipe dream, given the lack of need for such an extension. I'm still not convinced Interstate 11 will make it to Tucson, let alone the Mexican border.
There's no need whatsoever for I-11 to exist south of I-8. They need to concentrate on getting it built between Gila Bend and the AZ-NV state line. And nowhere else.
The best we can hope for is the completion of the original Phoenix to Las Vegas route.
Assuming it was completed between Phoenix and Reno, would there be much of the time saving of using a theoretical I-11 from, say, Tuscan to Portland?
I can see long haul traffic using it to connect from Tuscan to connect to I-40, then to CA 58 and I-5, bypassing Los Angeles. If they were to take it up to Reno, they would have to stair-step through the Donner Pass.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 25, 2024, 08:38:29 AMThe best we can hope for is the completion of the original Phoenix to Las Vegas route.
Assuming it was completed between Phoenix and Reno, would there be much of the time saving of using a theoretical I-11 from, say, Tuscan to Portland?
I can see long haul traffic using it to connect from Tuscan to connect to I-40, then to CA 58 and I-5, bypassing Los Angeles. If they were to take it up to Reno, they would have to stair-step through the Donner Pass.
Yes, the Tucson to Kingman section will get some use for that long haul traffic. Not sure extending it north of Las Vegas makes sense for anyone though.
To get from Reno to Portland, you have to cross the Sierra or the Cascades somewhere. Donner is as good as anywhere. If you really hate I-5, I understand that, and driving north on US 395 or US 97 to cross the Cascades at the Columbia Gorge on I-84 would also make sense. 395 and 97 are good 2-lane roads with passing lanes once in a while, and not all that much traffic.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on October 25, 2024, 08:38:29 AMThe best we can hope for is the completion of the original Phoenix to Las Vegas route.
Assuming it was completed between Phoenix and Reno, would there be much of the time saving of using a theoretical I-11 from, say, Tuscan to Portland?
I can see long haul traffic using it to connect from Tuscan to connect to I-40, then to CA 58 and I-5, bypassing Los Angeles. If they were to take it up to Reno, they would have to stair-step through the Donner Pass.
Last I heard there wasn't a single place to rent in all of Tuscany.
It is, of course, spelled Tucson. And no, I am sure the city and its people are nothing like they're portrayed in this Family Guy clip (and I love Family Guy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clqXS4fEjBo.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2024, 11:39:30 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on October 25, 2024, 08:38:29 AMThe best we can hope for is the completion of the original Phoenix to Las Vegas route.
Assuming it was completed between Phoenix and Reno, would there be much of the time saving of using a theoretical I-11 from, say, Tuscan to Portland?
I can see long haul traffic using it to connect from Tuscan to connect to I-40, then to CA 58 and I-5, bypassing Los Angeles. If they were to take it up to Reno, they would have to stair-step through the Donner Pass.
Last I heard there wasn't a single place to rent in all of Tuscany.
Elaine and the Maestro certainly insisted there wasn't anything but Jerry did find a place through Mr. Giggio.
I've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
Quote from: SSR_317 on November 03, 2024, 04:40:43 PMI've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
Is this what passes for conservative humor these days?
Quote from: SSR_317 on November 03, 2024, 04:40:43 PMI've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
Is he also going to move the whole city to somewhere in Vegas or points north?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2024, 08:54:35 AMQuote from: SSR_317 on November 03, 2024, 04:40:43 PMI've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
Is he also going to move the whole city to somewhere in Vegas or points north?
Probably more likely Russia.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2024, 08:54:35 AMQuote from: SSR_317 on November 03, 2024, 04:40:43 PMI've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
Is he also going to move the whole city to somewhere in Vegas or points north?
That would surely shorten future I-11.
Quote from: pderocco on November 05, 2024, 03:58:04 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2024, 08:54:35 AMQuote from: SSR_317 on November 03, 2024, 04:40:43 PMI've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
Is he also going to move the whole city to somewhere in Vegas or points north?
That would surely shorten future I-11.
What if we dropped it directly on top of Goldfield? Then Esmeralda County would have a reason to exist.
I-11 freeway entrance packages have been installed at Rainbow Boulevard (NV-595). Advance and overhead signage is still just US-95. NDOT's phasing of I-11 signage installations continues to mystify.
(https://i.imgur.com/pNqZWuZ.jpeg)
I saw some I-11 shields on southbound MLK Boulevard yesterday afternoon.
NDOT did a social media blast last week saying that I-11 signing should be complete by the end of the year. So it will be soon. No word yet on any of the other (likely) upcoming jurisdiction transfers/ number changes in Clark County.
How's the I-11 sign project in Vegas going? I know the shields are up in a lot of places but are the BGSs getting replaced yet?
Most of the reassurance shields, intersecting-road shields, and intersecting-road LGSes have been changed on the portion north of I-15 (I don't get down to ex-515 very often). There are one or two assurance assemblies where US-95 is shown alone, and BGSes are still pretty spotty. I-11 is still not shown at all on northbound I-15, for instance.
One interesting thing is that Cheyenne Avenue (NV-574) somehow got a single state-name I-11 shield, complete with a brand-spanking-new blue SOUTH banner in classic Nevada custom font. Every other interchange I've seen just got FHWA Series banners and neutered shields.
Quote from: SSR_317 on November 03, 2024, 04:40:43 PMI've heard a rumor that conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson is going to purchase the naming rights to the City of Tucson, and change its name to Buckley (after his son). :bigass:
I wonder if the post office will object to the confusion it might cause with Buckeye, AZ
What sort of cruel parent would name their kid Buckley?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 12:08:44 PMWhat sort of cruel parent would name their kid Buckley?
There is a YouTube channel I used to watch called ADoseofBuckley. (I think it was the guy's last name).
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 13, 2025, 12:17:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 12:08:44 PMWhat sort of cruel parent would name their kid Buckley?
There is a YouTube channel I used to watch called ADoseofBuckley. (I think it was the guy's last name).
I guess that I could also say what sort of cruel parent would name their kid Tucker? The grade school jokes write themselves with that one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2025, 04:32:38 AMOne interesting thing is that Cheyenne Avenue (NV-574) somehow got a single state-name I-11 shield, complete with a brand-spanking-new blue SOUTH banner in classic Nevada custom font. Every other interchange I've seen just got FHWA Series banners and neutered shields.
Where at? Street View was through the Cheyenne exit in March and I can't find it.
I didn't see such a sign on Street View, either. On an unrelated note, has anyone ever heard about the deadly crash on Cheyenne Ave. in 2022?: https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/north-las-vegas/driver-in-crash-that-killed-9-traveling-in-excess-of-100-mph-police-say-2521066/.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 13, 2025, 02:53:14 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2025, 04:32:38 AMOne interesting thing is that Cheyenne Avenue (NV-574) somehow got a single state-name I-11 shield, complete with a brand-spanking-new blue SOUTH banner in classic Nevada custom font. Every other interchange I've seen just got FHWA Series banners and neutered shields.
Where at? Street View was through the Cheyenne exit in March and I can't find it.
It's the sign at the—you know what, I'll just go down there.
Five days old, it looks like. Knockdown replacement, maybe?
(https://i.imgur.com/WTHn9Zd.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/VC9AM2U.jpeg)
Watch it end up on eBay in five days. As much as I like California style freeway entrance sign assemblies they are way too low to mitigate shield theft.
At least one set of I-11 shields has been stolen (someone posted a photo of the empty poles to Reddit and tagged NDOT), so I wouldn't be surprised.
The mastarm sign here has been updated as well, unlike many of the others (including the one on the other side of the bridge). That would be considerably harder to steal. (You can also see in the background that the northbound ramp is currently just posted for US-95. More NDOT mysteries.)
(https://i.imgur.com/ployq87.jpeg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 08:01:42 PMWatch it end up on eBay in five days. As much as I like California style freeway entrance sign assemblies they are way too low to mitigate shield theft.
Even with the CA style entrance assemblies and other signs that frequently go missing, signs from Nevada almost never appear on eBay. Very annoying.
I drove by the I-11/Lake Mead Blvd interchange at 3am and NDOT was out there changing out the mastarm sign faces.
I was nearly home by the time I realized that it probably wouldn't have registered as weird in Las Vegas to ask them for one of the old ones (I did this to Oklahoma DOT once and they yelled at me). Alas.
I've got a cutout Nevada US 95 with the state bar, but that's the only Nevada sign I've been able to land.
These days, there are several vendors who'll make you up a new "old" sign for $120 or so.
I ended up getting a bunch of Nevada shields out of a New Jersey estate sale a couple years ago. I bought a U.S. 95 shield out of Nevada from Alps I want to say in 2020? On occasion stuff pops up on eBay, seems to not be a lot of demand given the prices aren't often high. I'm sure actual I-11 shields will make it to the used market sooner or later.
Quote from: DenverBrianThese days, there are several vendors who'll make you up a new "old" sign for $120 or so.
It might be possible for vendors to mass produce such signs for a little less money, if their production quantity was at least in the dozens or more. Authentic sign materials (like .125" Aluminum and diamond-grade high intensity reflective vinyl) aren't cheap. Price per sign may be higher if artwork has to be created and it's just a quantity of one job.
I'm sure Jake would be happy to make any of you a I-11 sign.
Was down in Vegas last weekend. A good chunk of the signage is up. There are reassurance shields for the length of the new I-11 designation. A few, but not all, of the "Minutes to" signs have been updated from 515 to 11. The northbound BGS' on I-15 approaching the Spaghetti Bowl have been replaced.
One thing that was notable: The BGS' on eastbound Flamingo approaching I-11 have been replaced, but the lettering is already melting off. Couldn't snap a photo but it was... something.
NDOT has an issue with the current vinyl they use. It is severely prone to peeling in the heat.
They're probably using plain "engineer's grade" reflective vinyl for the computer cut lettering. Even in "normal" weather conditions that kind of vinyl can't be expected to last more than 5-7 years. Plenty of big green signs in Oklahoma have reflective vinyl lettering flaking off the sign panels.
Considering how much those sign structures cost, they might do better simply using computer routed aluminum letters coated with reflective paint. It's either do that or just print the sign graphics with the green background and all directly onto the type 3 high intensity reflective vinyl. We took that approach with some enter/do not enter signs we installed at the entrance and exit roads to Lawton Fort Sill Regional Airport.
I don't know that the grade of reflective sheeting matters so much, since the issue is normally not with the sheeting itself delaminating, but rather the adhesive giving out. I actually see more issues with the black (and thus non-reflective) vinyl. I think the black absorbs so much heat that it literally melts the adhesive off of the sign face.
Arizona sometimes uses demountable copy, probably for this reason.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 13, 2025, 07:59:25 PMFive days old, it looks like. Knockdown replacement, maybe?
(https://i.imgur.com/WTHn9Zd.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/VC9AM2U.jpeg)
I just love how they used a Sharpie to mark the sign as NDOT's with the date of installation. It's a much more primitive approach compared to the inventory tags you see the back of highway signage in most places.
Quote from: Scott5114I don't know that the grade of reflective sheeting matters so much, since the issue is normally not with the sheeting itself delaminating, but rather the adhesive giving out.
The "engineer's grade" reflective vinyl just isn't very good for long term outdoor use. The stuff just becomes brittle very quickly. It behaves like cheap "intermediate" vinyl. It doesn't handle hot/cold weather changes very well. We avoid using that kind of vinyl with any vehicle graphics because it can fail on those surfaces quickly. It's better to go with a metallic 2 mil "high performance" vinyl that can flex more in hot/cold cycles.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 30, 2025, 10:49:48 PMI just love how they used a Sharpie to mark the sign as NDOT's with the date of installation. It's a much more primitive approach compared to the inventory tags you see the back of highway signage in most places.
This didn't even strike me as odd—for many years Oklahoma DOT practice was to do the same, but in grease pencil rather than Sharpie. The handwriting was usually sloppier, though. (In recent years, some ODOT divisions have shifted to using stickers for this purpose, while others have just stopped marking installation dates at all.)
Most striking to me is that that I-11 sign is not 'neutered'.
Mike
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 31, 2025, 01:25:22 AMQuote from: abqtraveler on May 30, 2025, 10:49:48 PMI just love how they used a Sharpie to mark the sign as NDOT's with the date of installation. It's a much more primitive approach compared to the inventory tags you see the back of highway signage in most places.
This didn't even strike me as odd—for many years Oklahoma DOT practice was to do the same, but in grease pencil rather than Sharpie. The handwriting was usually sloppier, though. (In recent years, some ODOT divisions have shifted to using stickers for this purpose, while others have just stopped marking installation dates at all.)
Yeah, I don't think NDOT has ever used inventory stickers on signs. I've seen Sharpie like this, or "NDOT" and the date etched into the back.
All the NDOT shields I have lack inventory stickers.
Overhead surface-street signage at the Rainbow and Lake Mead interchanges has been switched out to include I-11 shields.