Nevada

[pderocco]

I've only been through there five times since they finished I-580, but between that and looking at aerial images, I don't see why it's a dangerous intersection. What is the primary mode of these accidents?

The most common is drivers coming down the hill on eastbound US 50 too fast.

The worst fatal accident involved somebody towing a boat down from Lake Tahoe.  The weight of the boat far exceeded the towing capacity of the pickup the guy was using to tow it.  His brakes failed, he bypassed the runaway truck ramp that's there for that exact situation, and ran the red light, killing two people in one of the vehicles he smashed into.  He got a prison sentence of (I think) 2 to 5 years for involuntary manslaughter.

Allegedly the dump truck that crashed yesterday also had brake failure.  Again, the driver bypassed the runaway truck ramp.  I saw one report that the dump truck was in the left lane and couldn't get to the ramp because of cars in the right lane, but that's just hearsay.  I suspect a lot of drivers avoid ramps like that if they think "I should be able to stop", because they will sink into the deep gravel and it's an expensive tow out of there.

In the one last week, it was a semi towing a couple of trailers loaded with cement, trying to make the left turn from eastbound 50 on to South Carson Street (Business US 395) too fast.  That one took down one of the signal pole structures as the wrecked cab and trailers came to rest over near the eagle sculpture.

You mentioned a SPUI. I hope that's on the N/S alignment connecting US-395 to US-395-BL, so that US-50 can be free flowing. Otherwise, it wouldn't solve the problem.

[gonealookin]

I've only been through there five times since they finished I-580, but between that and looking at aerial images, I don't see why it's a dangerous intersection. What is the primary mode of these accidents?

The most common is drivers coming down the hill on eastbound US 50 too fast.

The worst fatal accident involved somebody towing a boat down from Lake Tahoe.  The weight of the boat far exceeded the towing capacity of the pickup the guy was using to tow it.  His brakes failed, he bypassed the runaway truck ramp that's there for that exact situation, and ran the red light, killing two people in one of the vehicles he smashed into.  He got a prison sentence of (I think) 2 to 5 years for involuntary manslaughter.

Allegedly the dump truck that crashed yesterday also had brake failure.  Again, the driver bypassed the runaway truck ramp.  I saw one report that the dump truck was in the left lane and couldn't get to the ramp because of cars in the right lane, but that's just hearsay.  I suspect a lot of drivers avoid ramps like that if they think "I should be able to stop", because they will sink into the deep gravel and it's an expensive tow out of there.

In the one last week, it was a semi towing a couple of trailers loaded with cement, trying to make the left turn from eastbound 50 on to South Carson Street (Business US 395) too fast.  That one took down one of the signal pole structures as the wrecked cab and trailers came to rest over near the eagle sculpture.

You mentioned a SPUI. I hope that's on the N/S alignment connecting US-395 to US-395-BL, so that US-50 can be free flowing. Otherwise, it wouldn't solve the problem.

Traffic coming down the hill on eastbound US 50, and coming off I-580 and heading up toward Tahoe, is supposed to cross over US 395/South Carson Street on the overpass.

The shortcoming of that design is that it still leaves backups for traffic coming off southbound I-580 and making the turn on to southbound US 395 toward Minden, the worst current backups at that intersection by my observation.  I do think that's the best we can hope for though.  There was recently an updated local transportation report discussing options for upgrading US 395 between that intersection and Minden to full freeway.  It would be stupendously expensive to do that from the I-580/US 50/US 395 junction to south of Jacks Valley Road, a distance of maybe a bit more than a mile, because of all the local connections that would be required.  That area is the major shopping area for Carson City and Douglas County, with a Costco, a Walmart center, a Target/Home Depot center and another big box center (main anchor Best Buy, although I want to say the In-N-Out in there attracts the most traffic) all situated on the west side of 395.  So I expect that stretch to remain a six-lane boulevard with signals pretty much forever.

I do think US 395 will be upgraded to full freeway from south of Jacks Valley Road to Minden in the next 20 to 30 years.  There's plenty of space as the freeway frontage is all agricultural, no commercial, so that's a matter of a bit of additional right-of-way acquisition and constructing several grade-separated interchanges.

Edit to add the source for the comment about the cost of the freeway upgrading and a quote:

Douglas County Record-Courier article 7/11/26

A proposal to widen Highway 395 from Jacks Valley Road south to Highway 88 to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads would cost $138.5 million. Widening 395 from Jacks Valley Road north to the Carson City line could cost upward of $130 million...

[pderocco]

Another short term improvement might be to add a runaway truck ramp maybe three quarters of a mile before the existing one. If you're careening down the hill unable to stop, you might miss the first one, and say "Oh shit, I should have taken that ramp, now I'm screwed," and then get a second chance.

[gonealookin]

Another short term improvement might be to add a runaway truck ramp maybe three quarters of a mile before the existing one. If you're careening down the hill unable to stop, you might miss the first one, and say "Oh shit, I should have taken that ramp, now I'm screwed," and then get a second chance.

There's a big dropoff from the right side of modern US 50 to Old Clear Creek Road (original US 50 alignment, much lower in the canyon) for the last 3 miles or so before that last runaway truck ramp.  It's a good idea but not realistically practical.

[cl94]

Both truck crashes in the last week or so (last Tuesday and yesterday) involved a truck blowing past at least one runaway truck ramp with bad brakes. I actually drove past last week's while on my way up the hill to work; it was heading downhill decently fast at the interchange halfway up the hill and its brakes were already smoking pretty badly around 6,000 feet. So that truck blew past both ramps, as the upper one was below where I passed the truck, and was smoking a good 1,200 feet above the light at the bottom.

Honestly, the things that can be done in relatively short order are a) adding a second mandatory brake check at the pullout around 6,000 feet, b) getting NSP/ DCSD/ CCSD (if another is added) to enforce trucks using the brake checks because most skip, and c) stopping people from using the areas in front of the 2 ramps as parking, WHICH INCLUDES NSP AND CCSD, as both often sit there to run radar or do paperwork. Getting that interchange built will take years, though now would be a good time given that we're a year or two from a major resurfacing project on this part of US 50 and I don't think that contract has been let yet.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

[pderocco]

Both truck crashes in the last week or so (last Tuesday and yesterday) involved a truck blowing past at least one runaway truck ramp with bad brakes. I actually drove past last week's while on my way up the hill to work; it was heading downhill decently fast at the interchange halfway up the hill and its brakes were already smoking pretty badly around 6,000 feet. So that truck blew past both ramps, as the upper one was below where I passed the truck, and was smoking a good 1,200 feet above the light at the bottom.

Honestly, the things that can be done in relatively short order are a) adding a second mandatory brake check at the pullout around 6,000 feet, b) getting NSP/ DCSD/ CCSD (if another is added) to enforce trucks using the brake checks because most skip, and c) stopping people from using the areas in front of the 2 ramps as parking, WHICH INCLUDES NSP AND CCSD, as both often sit there to run radar or do paperwork. Getting that interchange built will take years, though now would be a good time given that we're a year or two from a major resurfacing project on this part of US 50 and I don't think that contract has been let yet.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

Professional truck drivers should know about engine braking. I doubt jake brakes are prohibited on that road.

[Rothman]

Both truck crashes in the last week or so (last Tuesday and yesterday) involved a truck blowing past at least one runaway truck ramp with bad brakes. I actually drove past last week's while on my way up the hill to work; it was heading downhill decently fast at the interchange halfway up the hill and its brakes were already smoking pretty badly around 6,000 feet. So that truck blew past both ramps, as the upper one was below where I passed the truck, and was smoking a good 1,200 feet above the light at the bottom.

Honestly, the things that can be done in relatively short order are a) adding a second mandatory brake check at the pullout around 6,000 feet, b) getting NSP/ DCSD/ CCSD (if another is added) to enforce trucks using the brake checks because most skip, and c) stopping people from using the areas in front of the 2 ramps as parking, WHICH INCLUDES NSP AND CCSD, as both often sit there to run radar or do paperwork. Getting that interchange built will take years, though now would be a good time given that we're a year or two from a major resurfacing project on this part of US 50 and I don't think that contract has been let yet.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

Professional truck drivers should know about engine braking. I doubt jake brakes are prohibited on that road.

Glad to live in a state where even if someone throws up an "Engine Braking Prohibited" sign somewhere on the State's system that it's unenforceable.  NYSDOT's position is that engine braking is a safety measure.

[cl94]

Safety should trump rules like that everywhere. Like I get not wanting to use jake brakes near homes, but if it's that or crash the truck, it shouldn't be a debate.

Speaking of which, the grades on 50 and 580 descending into Carson City were lined with cops this morning as I was driving to work, with several trucks pulled over. Maybe they're finally stepping up enforcement on those two 6% grades.

[moabdave]

There is a runaway truck ramp right there where the accidents are happening. However, the truck drivers aren't using it. My question is if placing the signs for it on overhead gantries (as Utah and Colorado do) would help. The current signs aren't much bigger than speed limit signs and posted similarly. I'll also point out that on all the Carson Locals social media groups this is blowing up, with people campaigning for "Call your senator" type drives. I have to imagine this is going to be an issue in this November's elections.

[Scott5114]

The shortcoming of that design is that it still leaves backups for traffic coming off southbound I-580 and making the turn on to southbound US 395 toward Minden, the worst current backups at that intersection by my observation.

I would think that because you'd be reducing the number of signal phases by switching to a SPUI, that alone might help with the backups considerably. Once the overpass is in place, if there's still backups there, you could switch it to a DDI, or take a page (and several million dollars) out of NDOT District 1's book and put in a flyover.

[roadfro]

The shortcoming of that design is that it still leaves backups for traffic coming off southbound I-580 and making the turn on to southbound US 395 toward Minden, the worst current backups at that intersection by my observation.

I would think that because you'd be reducing the number of signal phases by switching to a SPUI, that alone might help with the backups considerably. Once the overpass is in place, if there's still backups there, you could switch it to a DDI, or take a page (and several million dollars) out of NDOT District 1's book and put in a flyover.

I believe an earlier concept for that interchange had the SPUI but also included a flyover for that movement (perhaps as a later phase?), but it's been a long while since I've seen any reference to that so I can only assume the idea was scrapped. 

[moabdave]

I believe an earlier concept for that interchange had the SPUI but also included a flyover for that movement (perhaps as a later phase?), but it's been a long while since I've seen any reference to that so I can only assume the idea was scrapped.

Correct.I saw two proposals for that interchange in the local press, when the project was in the design phase. The first one was at least a 4 level interchange that would have I-580 traffic default onto US-395 and vice versa. This one was rejected due to cost and tribal opposition, as it would require relocating a Washoe tribal cemetery for the banked curves to make that connection. The 2nd option (which IIRC was the approved option) called for a SPUI interchange where I-580 traffic would default onto US-50, with a flyover from I-580 SB to US-395 SB.

[cl94]

Some visible stopgap changes on US 50 today. There's a PVMS just west of the summit reinforcing the brake check requirement, as well as a closed lane unrelated to the construction that I would guess is occasionally used by NHP to monitor traffic and pull over trucks as necessary.

[dbz77]

I believe an earlier concept for that interchange had the SPUI but also included a flyover for that movement (perhaps as a later phase?), but it's been a long while since I've seen any reference to that so I can only assume the idea was scrapped.

Correct.I saw two proposals for that interchange in the local press, when the project was in the design phase. The first one was at least a 4 level interchange that would have I-580 traffic default onto US-395 and vice versa. This one was rejected due to cost and tribal opposition, as it would require relocating a Washoe tribal cemetery for the banked curves to make that connection. The 2nd option (which IIRC was the approved option) called for a SPUI interchange where I-580 traffic would default onto US-50, with a flyover from I-580 SB to US-395 SB.

Thjere would be a huge backup though as most drivers would be trying to continue on the 395 south instead of exit on 50 westbound.

[Great Lakes Roads]

NDOT is going to conduct a feasibility study on I-15 between Sloan and the California state line.

It does the following:
-Widen I-15 to four lanes in each direction from Jean to Sloan
-Reconstructs and enhance the existing Primm and Jean interchanges
-Adds potential new interchanges along the corridor (future development between Jean and Sloan along with the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport between Primm and Jean)

Thanks to Brightline West running in the median between Jean and Sloan, NDOT will have to construct two emergency crossings (bridges?) on that stretch.

Online meeting to comment between August 24th-September 25th (no link available yet).

[Scott5114]

-Widen I-15 to four lanes in each direction from Jean to Sloan

At this point this is just NDOT dunking on Caltrans because they can. 

[Plutonic Panda]

I've always thought I 15 really needs to be four lanes each way between Barstow and Vegas. Minimum three lanes is not gonna cut it. It'll help for sure but four lanes is really what's needed especially with the truck traffic. That would make the drive much much better. And if it were up to me with no limits, I would make it five lanes each way, but for now I'm really happy to hear they're gonna widen it to four lanes each way.

[roadman65]

 I was reading on line about why the Silver State does not sign state highway shields in urban areas especially US 95 Business along Rancho Drive in the LV area.

According to the Goog its primarily because the MUTCD allows states to use their judgement especially if safety is an issue.  The search engine pulled up research that explains that Nevada specifically chooses not to shield intersections due to the clutter effecting the need for much needed signage like warning, school zones, etc.  To them shielding intersections is not necessary and unessential.


However, some freeway guides omit state routes and just sign the local street names, which to me is not creating clutter to the drivers.  So that is not being unessential by leaving out the route number especially when maps include them more than the names.

[Scott5114]

I was reading on line about why the Silver State does not sign state highway shields in urban areas especially US 95 Business along Rancho Drive in the LV area.

According to the Goog its primarily because the MUTCD allows states to use their judgement especially if safety is an issue.  The search engine pulled up research that explains that Nevada specifically chooses not to shield intersections due to the clutter effecting the need for much needed signage like warning, school zones, etc.  To them shielding intersections is not necessary and unessential.


However, some freeway guides omit state routes and just sign the local street names, which to me is not creating clutter to the drivers.  So that is not being unessential by leaving out the route number especially when maps include them more than the names.

The route numbers are kind of strewn about at random and stop and start at odd places based on whatever agreements the city and state come to on who maintains what. That makes them kind of useless for navigation, so freeway signs don't include route numbers for city streets and most people don't even notice there are numbers even when there are shields present on the surface streets. The numbers are more there for NDOT's benefit than anyone else's.

Case in point, highlighted in orange is the entirety of NV 589. Real fuckin' useful route there!


Besides, does anyone in a large city in any other state actually call city streets by number? Even in Oklahoma City, it's Northwest Expressway not 3, Sooner Road not 77H, 23rd Street not 62, etc.

[Max Rockatansky]

A lot of the surface street state highways in Las Vegas Valley have been relinquished down to basically being freeway ramp facilities.  Most states would just classify those as collateral facilities of the attached freeway.  But if you want to clinch that easy middle segment of NV 159 it takes just a couple minutes.  Just don't expect to see any reassurance shields on Charleston.

[Scott5114]

Just don't expect to see any reassurance shields on Charleston.

Well, there is one on a streetlamp going westbound just west of LVB. Or there was until the city started a project a few months back to put in a drainage tunnel under Charleston. (At least, I think it's the city, because it's doing part of Commerce and Main too and those have never been state highways as far as I know.) I'm not sure if they're replacing the lighting as part of that project, but if so that shield is probably a goner.

That's the other thing, NDOT isn't really good about cleaning up after itself when relinquishing so there's lots of stray shields hanging around on streets that aren't state highways anymore. There's a whole begin/end 589 assembly in the median where it used to end at Rainbow (595).

[roadfro]

I was reading on line about why the Silver State does not sign state highway shields in urban areas especially US 95 Business along Rancho Drive in the LV area.

According to the Goog its primarily because the MUTCD allows states to use their judgement especially if safety is an issue.  The search engine pulled up research that explains that Nevada specifically chooses not to shield intersections due to the clutter effecting the need for much needed signage like warning, school zones, etc.  To them shielding intersections is not necessary and unessential.


However, some freeway guides omit state routes and just sign the local street names, which to me is not creating clutter to the drivers.  So that is not being unessential by leaving out the route number especially when maps include them more than the names.

Although plausible, I don't know that I 100% believe that explanation. Was there any source material for that? I'd say the main thing is that the state highway numbers are not useful for navigation purposes.

If you notice, the majority of state highways in urban areas that are well signed from freeway signage are those state routes that typically leave urban area and actually go somewhere. SR 546/Lake Mead Pkwy from I-11 (goes to Lake Mead), SR 159/Charleston Blvd from CC-215 (goes to Red Rock), SR 160/Blue Diamond Rd from I-15 (goes to Pahrump), SR 445/Pyramid Way from I-80 (goes to Pyramid Lake), etc.

The route numbers are kind of strewn about at random and stop and start at odd places based on whatever agreements the city and state come to on who maintains what. That makes them kind of useless for navigation, so freeway signs don't include route numbers for city streets and most people don't even notice there are numbers even when there are shields present on the surface streets. The numbers are more there for NDOT's benefit than anyone else's.

The urban route numbers aren't necessarily random (I'm sure I've covered the patterns in prior threads). But the start and stop of route segments certainly appears to be, and yes that city/county and state control agreement structure is the main cause. It's also quite confounding on how they decide to truncate some routes but not others—for example, removing SR 159 from Charleston between essentially I-15 and CC-215 seems a weird choice to me, but the amount of Jones Blvd that is still SR 596 seems pointless. Sometimes though, it's what the city/county want to control and/or what becomes a headache for the state to control (e.g. the Strip portions of Las Vegas Blvd/former SR 604) that guides the jurisdictional swap talks.

Just don't expect to see any reassurance shields on Charleston.

Well, there is one on a streetlamp going westbound just west of LVB. Or there was until the city started a project a few months back to put in a drainage tunnel under Charleston. (At least, I think it's the city, because it's doing part of Commerce and Main too and those have never been state highways as far as I know.) I'm not sure if they're replacing the lighting as part of that project, but if so that shield is probably a goner.

That's the other thing, NDOT isn't really good about cleaning up after itself when relinquishing so there's lots of stray shields hanging around on streets that aren't state highways anymore. There's a whole begin/end 589 assembly in the median where it used to end at Rainbow (595).

They are better about this in Reno, from my observations.

[cl94]

They are better about this in Reno, from my observations.

SRs 430, 653, and 667 beg to differ. All of which have shields (sometimes multiple) on relinquished sections. 430 even has shields on sections that were *never* 430.

[Scott5114]

The urban route numbers aren't necessarily random (I'm sure I've covered the patterns in prior threads).

I'm not sure I've seen the pattern, unless you mean the numbering ranges assigned by county and importance. (And even that has exceptions, as most of the 6xx numbers are minor urban arterials, except for 613, which is a freeway.)

Although by "strewn about at random" I meant less about the numbering and more things like why are Rainbow and Jones state routes but not Decatur or Buffalo? Charleston, Sahara, Flamingo, and Trop are all state routes but Desert Inn and Spring Mountain aren't. That sort of thing.

[Max Rockatansky]

Wasn't there some correlation between what were Federal Aid corridors and what was added to the 1976 State Highway Grid?  I'm noticing that seems to be a theme on most 1968 NDOH county maps.