Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[Rothman]

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.

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! 

If one is to be ridiculous, it is best to be MAXIMUM RIDICULOUS

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

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.

[hobsini2]

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?

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.

[heynow415]

A 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.

[mgk920]

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

[kernals12]

Public meeting on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25

[michravera]

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?

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."

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

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?

[JayhawkCO]

From Fernley to Winnemucca minus Lovelock.

[Plutonic Panda]

Public meeting on extending I-11 to Mercury scheduled for June 25

Might as well go to at least NV 160.

[Plutonic Panda]

From Fernley to Winnemucca minus Lovelock.

Interesting. I haven't been on this stretch yet. Why not further east of Winnemucca?

[JayhawkCO]

From 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.

[gonealookin]

From 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.

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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

[cl94]

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.

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Scott5114]

Public meeting 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.

[US 395]

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.

Gardnerville to Topaz Lake is actually in the plans.

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...

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 (

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.

Gardnerville to Topaz Lake is actually in the plans.

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...

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.

[LilianaUwU]

I remember it being a lot less flat

I'm having war flashbacks.

[US 395]

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?

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.

[gonealookin]

Reno 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.

[DenverBrian]

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.

[JayhawkCO]

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.

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.)

[gonealookin]

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.

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.