Northern extension of Interstate 11

[Sub-Urbanite]

Seattle to Las Vegas is 1100 miles.  In the 21st century, most people fly distances over about 600 miles (a long day's drive).

When I'm traveling from Portland to St. George alone, I fly.

When I'm doing it with a family member, I still get in the car and set the cruise control at 80.

[mcarling]

I sometimes drive and sometimes fly between Portland and Las Vegas ... depending on what I'm taking with me and other factors.

[mrsman]

Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon (or Yerington, if you take 95A), Fernley. 

And I'll say it ... the local police and the NHP love enforcing the 25mph speed limits in each of these places (and especially also in Goldfield). And the 35mph limits on either side of the town. And the 45mph limits, which seem to stretch out for-fricking-ever beyond any actual population.

And many of those limits are unreasonable.  Even through the center of towns like Tonopah, with two lanes in each direction and roadside businesses, the street has the feel of 35 or 40, not 25.

A definite ticket trap.

[kkt]

US 95 through Tonopah, you should be through it in 6 minutes, according to Goog.

[Sub-Urbanite]

I should be through it in 2 minutes at 80 mph on a shiny new interstate bypass, according to me and my dream world where we actually can afford infrastructure.

[Pete from Boston]

If we had a fully funded system this wouldn't be an Interstate, so you might need to expand your dream to a world in which there's more money than sense.

[kkt]

I should be through it in 2 minutes at 80 mph on a shiny new interstate bypass, according to me and my dream world where we actually can afford infrastructure.

So the AADT of US 95 before and after Tonopah is 5600... so the annual is about 2 million... so the time wasted spent going through town is 8 million minutes per year...

New bypass is maybe 5 miles @5M per mile, so we'd be paying $25M, design life of the structure is 25 years... $1 M per year, not including complicating factors like interest.
$1M for 8 million minutes saved, 12.5 cents per minute.

What other projects in Nevada would have a better payoff?

[Duke87]

"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.

[nexus73]

Oh heck, build I-11 to Nome and run it under the sea to connect with the Putin Parkway...LOL!

Rick

[mcarling]

So the AADT of US 95 before and after Tonopah is 5600... so the annual is about 2 million... so the time wasted spent going through town is 8 million minutes per year...

New bypass is maybe 5 miles @5M per mile, so we'd be paying $25M, design life of the structure is 25 years... $1 M per year, not including complicating factors like interest.
$1M for 8 million minutes saved, 12.5 cents per minute.

What other projects in Nevada would have a better payoff?

The other factor is that Interstates are much safer than single carriageways.  In the US, a statistical life is generally considered to be worth about $2-3 million.  Opportunities to save statistical lives at $2M each are generally considered worthwhile expenditures.  Over about $3M per statistical life, there are better alternative ways to save more lives for less money.  So one needs to consider the construction cost against all the benefits, including time saved, lives saved, and reduced traffic on alternative routes.

If I-11 will be built to Reno and then onward past Susanville, Klamath Falls, and Bend to Yakima before the next major Cascadia Subduction Earthquake, then people will respectively see I-11 as very wise.  Prior to the next major Cascadia Subduction Earthquake, I-11 north of Reno will be widely seen as a waste of money, whether built or merely proposed.

[mrsman]

"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.

I agree.  I believe that building a full interstate along US 95 is probably unnecessary.  The roadway should be improved to a divided 4-lane roadway with intersections, with small sections of freeway to bypass towns along the way.  The goal should be a road similar to US 101 along California's central coast.

[Rothman]

Pfft.  I drove through Tonopah coming from the east on US 6 and continuing on US 6/US 95.  There's no need for a bypass or four-laning anything out there.  Heck, I was able to stop the car in the middle of the road and take pictures of the scenery for at least ten minutes at a time and I still only moved because I was done and not because another vehicle was coming my way.  There just isn't anyone out there to benefit from any major increase in transportation spending.

I'll put it this way:  NY has a hard enough time justifying the conversion of NY 17 to I-86.  The idea of converting anything out in the boondocks of NV to some four-laned highway just seems absurd.

[kkt]

At 5600 AADT it doesn't even need 4 lanes.  Nevada should save its money or spend it where it's needed, in rapidly growing cities.  If they want to think ahead, they could maybe reserve ROW for a bypass 40 years from now when the AADT might justify it, if the aquifers aren't dry first.

[roadfro]

"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.

I agree.  I believe that building a full interstate along US 95 is probably unnecessary.  The roadway should be improved to a divided 4-lane roadway with intersections, with small sections of freeway to bypass towns along the way.  The goal should be a road similar to US 101 along California's central coast.

At 5600 AADT it doesn't even need 4 lanes.  Nevada should save its money or spend it where it's needed, in rapidly growing cities.  If they want to think ahead, they could maybe reserve ROW for a bypass 40 years from now when the AADT might justify it, if the aquifers aren't dry first.

Despite the potential I-11 can bring, I would agree with these sentiments. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense to extend I-11 northward at this time, at least not without a clear plan of where it will go and what it will connect to. Some new 4-lane sections in specific areas would be good, but other than that I don't foresee the need. It would be cool, but impractical.

In many rural areas, NDOT maintains a pretty wide right of way around it's highways. So most of the expansion space is available along existing US 95. Even in those places where it would make sense to straighten out alignments or otherwise realign, much of the surrounding land is under the BLM so probably could be acquired for highway ROW fairly easily.

Pfft.  I drove through Tonopah coming from the east on US 6 and continuing on US 6/US 95.  There's no need for a bypass or four-laning anything out there.  Heck, I was able to stop the car in the middle of the road and take pictures of the scenery for at least ten minutes at a time and I still only moved because I was done and not because another vehicle was coming my way.  There just isn't anyone out there to benefit from any major increase in transportation spending.

With all the trips I've made between Reno and Vegas at various days and times in the last 15 years, I find it very unlikely you were able to stop your car in the middle of US 95 for 10 minutes to take pictures and not affect any traffic–unless you were taking pictures at night. I'd believe it on US 6, but not US 95.

[Rothman]

"Build a five mile bypass of Tonopah" is a long way from "Build a 400 mile interstate from Las Vegas to Reno". The former might actually be reasonable. The latter sure as hell isn't.

I agree.  I believe that building a full interstate along US 95 is probably unnecessary.  The roadway should be improved to a divided 4-lane roadway with intersections, with small sections of freeway to bypass towns along the way.  The goal should be a road similar to US 101 along California's central coast.

At 5600 AADT it doesn't even need 4 lanes.  Nevada should save its money or spend it where it's needed, in rapidly growing cities.  If they want to think ahead, they could maybe reserve ROW for a bypass 40 years from now when the AADT might justify it, if the aquifers aren't dry first.

Despite the potential I-11 can bring, I would agree with these sentiments. It just doesn't seem to make economic sense to extend I-11 northward at this time, at least not without a clear plan of where it will go and what it will connect to. Some new 4-lane sections in specific areas would be good, but other than that I don't foresee the need. It would be cool, but impractical.

In many rural areas, NDOT maintains a pretty wide right of way around it's highways. So most of the expansion space is available along existing US 95. Even in those places where it would make sense to straighten out alignments or otherwise realign, much of the surrounding land is under the BLM so probably could be acquired for highway ROW fairly easily.

Pfft.  I drove through Tonopah coming from the east on US 6 and continuing on US 6/US 95.  There's no need for a bypass or four-laning anything out there.  Heck, I was able to stop the car in the middle of the road and take pictures of the scenery for at least ten minutes at a time and I still only moved because I was done and not because another vehicle was coming my way.  There just isn't anyone out there to benefit from any major increase in transportation spending.

With all the trips I've made between Reno and Vegas at various days and times in the last 15 years, I find it very unlikely you were able to stop your car in the middle of US 95 for 10 minutes to take pictures and not affect any traffic–unless you were taking pictures at night. I'd believe it on US 6, but not US 95.

Heh.  And by "traffic," you'd mean about three or four vehicles that I would have inconvenienced.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think Interstate 11 should go beyond Las Vegas. Heck, it probably shouldn't go south of Phoenix. Even more, is an Interstate between these cities necessary? Maybe they could just four-lane all of US 93 and US 60 with bypasses around towns and call it a day.

[dfwmapper]

A 4 lane divided highway with few/no stops can be justified between Phoenix and Vegas based on traffic counts and safety issues. A full-on freeway, no. But, calling it an Interstate increases visibility that might help with funding, especially given how broke Arizona is. Four lane it all, build bypasses around cities and grade-separated interchanges at the busiest crossroads, and preserve enough ROW to cheaply and easily go full freeway if/when traffic volumes warrant.

[andy3175]

The compromise $281 billion transportation bill retains the I-11 future extension northwest to Reno:

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/01/reno-las-vegas-interstate-included-us-highway-bill-deal/76624672/

The House and Senate have reached agreement on a 5-year, $281 billion transportation bill that would increase spending to address the nation's aging and congested highways and transit systems, including an extension of the future Interstate 11 connecting Las Vegas to Interstate 80. ...

Included in the bill is an extension for the future I-11, which as it currently stands would connect Las Vegas with Phoenix. Nevada's Washington delegation, including Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sen. Dean Heller, has lobbied for an extension to Reno.

Heller said in a news release the inclusion of the Reno extension was a boon for the the state's economy.

"Today's news that the extension of I-11 was included in the final highway bill is a major win for our state," Heller said. "Connecting Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Northern Nevada will spur long-term economic development, create jobs, and bolster international trade."

[roadfro]

Andy, I was just going to post that article. Here's another from the Las Vegas Review Journal:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/i-11-extension-proposal-clears-another-congressional-hurdle

A proposed interstate highway directly connecting Las Vegas and Reno won a major boost Tuesday when key lawmakers formally announced a compromise on a huge five-year transportation bill authorizing funding for the nation's highway, bridge, transit and rail programs.

Language on the Interstate 11 extension has been a top transportation goal for members of the Nevada delegation.

While the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act is an authorization bill and does not provide specific funding for the proposed project, the language in the measure advances the current priority designation of I-11 from Phoenix to Las Vegas north and beyond from Las Vegas to Interstate 80 along the U.S. 95 corridor.

Meg Ragonese, public information officer for the Nevada Department of Transportation, said the new road will meet interstate standards "at a minimum." She said that means the road will be at least four lanes wide and include a divider, which could be made up of space or a railing.

[kkt]

It's an authorization, not an appropriation.  It doesn't actually spend money, it's just one hurdle.

Still, of all the projects, even in Nevada, why?