Interstate 11

[ARMOURERERIC]

I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.

[andy3175]

That said, I agree that we could do a better job to advertise freeways . . . this could be a pilot project for AASHTO should they go through with said proposal.

Just to throw fuel onto this fire, isn't that what an Interstate designation is for? To advertise freeways? From that perspective, the Interstate 11 designation makes perfect sense. US 93 made sense while that connection was via two-lane highways. But as that corridor increases in importance with its expansion and sees commercial traffic increase as part of the intention to expand trade corridors beyond Interstates 5 and 15, Interstate 11 makes perfect sense.

My personal belief, which is not shared by many on this Forum, is that if a freeway meets the Interstate criteria and connects to the rest of the system, the freeway should be strongly considered for promotion to Interstate status. Interstate 11, which would connect two major metropolitan areas (both of which are growing), would be a logical addition once the corridor is improved to Interstate standards. Other ideas of extending Interstate 11 north of Las Vegas should remain a long-term proposal, but it's unclear if commercial traffic ("If you build it, they will come") will be sufficient enough to justify the costs of expansion in the near term. (I will also note that my opinion is that tolled segments of Interstate-standard freeway -- regardless of initial funding sources -- should also be considered and allowed for inclusion in the Interstate Highway System especially as tolls may be considered for portions of Interstate 11.)

One thing I think AASHTO should look at it reviewing future Interstate corridors and finding a method to determine if those should be aggressively signed and posted in the field, or if the current method of signing corridors as they are improved is sufficient.

[Rover_0]

I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.

That's not direct enough by a long shot.  As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix.  Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities.  If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.

And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*

*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.

[jakeroot]

Just to throw fuel onto this fire, isn't that what an Interstate designation is for? To advertise freeways? From that perspective, the Interstate 11 designation makes perfect sense. US 93 made sense while that connection was via two-lane highways. But as that corridor increases in importance with its expansion and sees commercial traffic increase as part of the intention to expand trade corridors beyond Interstates 5 and 15, Interstate 11 makes perfect sense.

I'm not intrinsically against interstate designations, but freeways that are mostly alone in the middle of nowhere, without any connection to another interstate, need to have an option other than an interstate designation. If you consider the number of freeway bypasses in this country, there are far more than we could possibly handle with interstates. Thus, an alternative system should be considered.

[J N Winkler]

Not to mention that the I-11 project as currently proposed would connect to three on the major Interstate Routes in I-10, I-40 and I-15.  Something that I never understood about the freeways in Phoenix why ADOT has not been more aggressive in obtaining Interstate designations for the Loop Freeways that can serve as bypasses that would merit dipping into the FHWA fund.

In regard to funding, there are a couple of points to keep in mind.

*  There is a soft ceiling on the amount of federal aid a state can receive for its highways because each state is guaranteed a minimum recovery (above 90% for most states) of the federal fuel taxes it sends to Washington.  Nearly all states obligate at least this percentage on projects that are eligible for federal aid, which means that an individual state can get additional funding for projects that are similarly eligible only if some other state "screws up" and has to release part of its federal aid.  Any new capital construction that cannot be funded through the federal-aid program has to receive money from alternate state or local sources.  In Arizona, the primary funding source for the Loops is a local sales tax increment.

*  Newly designated Interstates have not been eligible for Interstate Maintenance funds (which pay for anything up to full-depth reconstruction, but not widening) since 2003.  As a result, federal funding forms part of the justification for few, if any, of the Interstate designations that have been created in the last decade.

I support I-11 as a signed Interstate in the US 93 corridor, but I don't feel there is any added navigational benefit to designating SR 51, US 60, or any of the Loops in greater Phoenix as Interstates, despite their eligibility.  The Loop system as it currently exists is pretty easy to understand:  Loop 303 as a shortcut from I-10 to I-17, Loop 202 as a far East Valley loop off I-10, and Loop 101 as a North Valley loop off I-10 with the connection at the bottom being made via Loop 202.  Interstate shields would increase sign message load (making them harder to read) unless the underlying Loop designations were suppressed, which in turn would complicate navigation unless an Interstate designation was applied to the entirety of each Loop.

Also, it is my understanding that the Loop freeways are primarily commuter facilities, with few if any freight terminals that might be cited as a justification for an Interstate designation.  Has this changed?

[Rover_0]

I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.

That's not direct enough by a long shot.  As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix.  Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities.  If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.

And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*

*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.

If nobody even mentions a peep about with US 89 being rebuilt near Page I don't see it happening anywhere in the near future.  That terrain right there at the US 89/US 89 A split is going to be awful to try to built a freeway of Interstate Standards through.  Talk about lack of traffic though, I almost never ran into any past Page on US 89 or any US 89 A at all.

But yes I could see I-17/I-19 being consolidated into one route in the future if somehow AZ 79 and AZ 77 from Florence Junction to Tucson ever received an upgrade.  There is plans on the ADOT logs to at least build AZ 24 as a freeway all the way to at least the AZ 79/US 60 Junction.  I don't see that happening for decades though, there is nobody living in that gap between Gold Canyon/San Tan and Florence.

I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't call an I-17 north extension dead. If I'm not mistaken, the landslide repair plans showed that the US-89 roadway would only take up about half (maybe less) than the entire repaired section. So it's possible that US-89 could be widened to accomodate another set of lanes should an upgrade be needed. Of course, if ADOT could get around ROWs and the Navajo Nation approved, I've long thought that US-89T/N-20 would be better served as a route for an I-17 extension.

As for the traffic counts, it definitely is seasonal, but there are (or at least have been plans) to widen US-89 as far north as about US-160, so while I see it as unlikely, I can hypothetically see I-17 making it to the US-89/US-160 junction in the foreseeable future.

As for I-11 and the Phoenix loops, I would see Loop 101 and some of Loop 202 (mainly its South Mountain extension) comprising of a Phoenix Beltway:



The number is up to debate (I-x11 or I-x17), but this is about the only thing I'd change with the Phoenix loops.

[Brandon]

Also, it is my understanding that the Loop freeways are primarily commuter facilities, with few if any freight terminals that might be cited as a justification for an Interstate designation.  Has this changed?

When did that ever stop a freeway (or tollway) from getting an interstate designation?  I cite I-355 as an example.

[Sonic99]

I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.

That's not direct enough by a long shot.  As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix.  Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities.  If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.

And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*

*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.

If nobody even mentions a peep about with US 89 being rebuilt near Page I don't see it happening anywhere in the near future.  That terrain right there at the US 89/US 89 A split is going to be awful to try to built a freeway of Interstate Standards through.  Talk about lack of traffic though, I almost never ran into any past Page on US 89 or any US 89 A at all.

But yes I could see I-17/I-19 being consolidated into one route in the future if somehow AZ 79 and AZ 77 from Florence Junction to Tucson ever received an upgrade.  There is plans on the ADOT logs to at least build AZ 24 as a freeway all the way to at least the AZ 79/US 60 Junction.  I don't see that happening for decades though, there is nobody living in that gap between Gold Canyon/San Tan and Florence.

I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't call an I-17 north extension dead. If I'm not mistaken, the landslide repair plans showed that the US-89 roadway would only take up about half (maybe less) than the entire repaired section. So it's possible that US-89 could be widened to accomodate another set of lanes should an upgrade be needed. Of course, if ADOT could get around ROWs and the Navajo Nation approved, I've long thought that US-89T/N-20 would be better served as a route for an I-17 extension.

As for the traffic counts, it definitely is seasonal, but there are (or at least have been plans) to widen US-89 as far north as about US-160, so while I see it as unlikely, I can hypothetically see I-17 making it to the US-89/US-160 junction in the foreseeable future.

As for I-11 and the Phoenix loops, I would see Loop 101 and some of Loop 202 (mainly its South Mountain extension) comprising of a Phoenix Beltway:



The number is up to debate (I-x11 or I-x17), but this is about the only thing I'd change with the Phoenix loops.

Unfortunately common sense isn't going too far with the 202 South Mountain and just connecting it at the West Valley 101 interchange. I've had a long time opinion that connecting at the 101 was the best option. Once that 202 actually gets done, if you're heading into Phoenix, you will have the 85 interchange, then a few miles the 303, then 9 miles later the 101, then 5 miles later the 202, then 4 miles later the 17, then 3 miles later the 51/202, then 2 miles later 17 again, then 4 miles later the 143, then 2 miles later the 60, then 5 miles later the 202 yet again. I know you can't do anything about ones that already exist, but that cluster from the 101 through downtown and out to the 60 does not need any more interchanges, way too much crossover traffic with cars merging in from one interchange and others trying to work out to ramps for the next. 202 should have connected at the 101.

[I94RoadRunner]

I found it interesting that even Google Maps is already showing the future Boulder City Bypass as I-11:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9721987,-114.9137884,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0084904,-114.7823057,17z

So does this mean that once the Railroad Pass bypass and Boulder City bypass both get built that I-11 will be signed replacing I-515 to the Hoover Dam bypass .....?

[I94RoadRunner]

I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.

That's not direct enough by a long shot.  As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix.  Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities.  If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.

And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*

*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.

If nobody even mentions a peep about with US 89 being rebuilt near Page I don't see it happening anywhere in the near future.  That terrain right there at the US 89/US 89 A split is going to be awful to try to built a freeway of Interstate Standards through.  Talk about lack of traffic though, I almost never ran into any past Page on US 89 or any US 89 A at all.

But yes I could see I-17/I-19 being consolidated into one route in the future if somehow AZ 79 and AZ 77 from Florence Junction to Tucson ever received an upgrade.  There is plans on the ADOT logs to at least build AZ 24 as a freeway all the way to at least the AZ 79/US 60 Junction.  I don't see that happening for decades though, there is nobody living in that gap between Gold Canyon/San Tan and Florence.

I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't call an I-17 north extension dead. If I'm not mistaken, the landslide repair plans showed that the US-89 roadway would only take up about half (maybe less) than the entire repaired section. So it's possible that US-89 could be widened to accomodate another set of lanes should an upgrade be needed. Of course, if ADOT could get around ROWs and the Navajo Nation approved, I've long thought that US-89T/N-20 would be better served as a route for an I-17 extension.

As for the traffic counts, it definitely is seasonal, but there are (or at least have been plans) to widen US-89 as far north as about US-160, so while I see it as unlikely, I can hypothetically see I-17 making it to the US-89/US-160 junction in the foreseeable future.

As for I-11 and the Phoenix loops, I would see Loop 101 and some of Loop 202 (mainly its South Mountain extension) comprising of a Phoenix Beltway:



The number is up to debate (I-x11 or I-x17), but this is about the only thing I'd change with the Phoenix loops.

Unfortunately common sense isn't going too far with the 202 South Mountain and just connecting it at the West Valley 101 interchange. I've had a long time opinion that connecting at the 101 was the best option. Once that 202 actually gets done, if you're heading into Phoenix, you will have the 85 interchange, then a few miles the 303, then 9 miles later the 101, then 5 miles later the 202, then 4 miles later the 17, then 3 miles later the 51/202, then 2 miles later 17 again, then 4 miles later the 143, then 2 miles later the 60, then 5 miles later the 202 yet again. I know you can't do anything about ones that already exist, but that cluster from the 101 through downtown and out to the 60 does not need any more interchanges, way too much crossover traffic with cars merging in from one interchange and others trying to work out to ramps for the next. 202 should have connected at the 101.

Wouldn't it make the most sense for the inner loops to be the smaller numbers and then get bigger as you get to loop 303 .....? For example: AZ-143 --> I-110 to serve the airport; AZ 101 --> I-210; AZ 202 --> I-410; AZ 303 --> I-610 or I-217 ..... AZ 51 should probably be an I-X17 since it parallels I-17 though the northern connection to I-17 would have to be completed and US 60 Superstition I-310 since there are so many I-110 routes already ..... Well, that is only my two cents for what it is worth. However If AZDOT has not sought out interstate designations for its loop freeways yet, chances are that they will not for a very long time if ever .....

[NE2]

I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix

distant 6 to never) get rid of the little-used at-grades

[roadfro]

I found it interesting that even Google Maps is already showing the future Boulder City Bypass as I-11:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9721987,-114.9137884,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0084904,-114.7823057,17z

So does this mean that once the Railroad Pass bypass and Boulder City bypass both get built that I-11 will be signed replacing I-515 to the Hoover Dam bypass .....?

I-11 will not necessarily completely replace I-515. The routing of I-11 in the Las Vegas area has not been finalized, and 2 of the 3 options under consideration are not overlapping with I-515. I-11 will be designated along the Boulder City Bypass when completed though--it has AASHTO approval from the Arizona state line to the I-215 beltway interchange (the designation between I-215 and Railroad Pass could be temporary, depending on final routing of I-11).

FYI: There is no "Railroad Pass Bypass" project. The highway will be slightly realigned in the vicinity of Railroad Pass (both the pass and the eponymous casino), but will still traverse the pass. This is part of Boulder City Bypass project Phase 1 (end of I-515 freeway to new US 95 junction).

[I94RoadRunner]

Any anticipation of when construction is scheduled to begin on the I-11 Boulder City bypass .....? And I assume I-11 will be signed as well over the Hoover Dam bypass at the same time .....?

[vdeane]

I wouldn't expect the eastern bypass route along Vegas to be chosen for I-11 now that the routing on US 93 north of Vegas has been rejected.  Honestly, the I-215/US 95 routing would be the easiest (personally, I'd just route up I-515 and kill off the plans to extend I-11 north of Vegas, but Nevada is gung ho about building an interstate to nowhere).  A LOT of construction would be needed to bring NV 215 up to interstate standards and eliminate the breezewood with US 95.

[roadfro]

Any anticipation of when construction is scheduled to begin on the I-11 Boulder City bypass .....? And I assume I-11 will be signed as well over the Hoover Dam bypass at the same time .....?

NDOT is planning to advertise Phase 1 (current end of I-515 to new US 95 junction) this fall. So potential start of construction in early-mid 2015.

The remainder is in Phase 2. This project is going to be a design-build contract administered by the Southern Nevada RTC (and subsequently turned over to NDOT). Not sure on the timeline for this part.


I-11 can be signed along the Hoover Dam bypass. That was included in the part of AASHTO approving the designation down to the AZ state line.

I wouldn't expect the eastern bypass route along Vegas to be chosen for I-11 now that the routing on US 93 north of Vegas has been rejected.  Honestly, the I-215/US 95 routing would be the easiest (personally, I'd just route up I-515 and kill off the plans to extend I-11 north of Vegas, but Nevada is gung ho about building an interstate to nowhere).  A LOT of construction would be needed to bring NV 215 up to interstate standards and eliminate the breezewood with US 95.

That eastern bypass is still an alternative--it would include a routing along the northern CR 215 to reach US 95.

There's not that much needed to bring the 215 beltway up to Interstate standards. All freeway sections are currently constructed to Interstate standards. The interchange with US 95 has plans in motion to convert that to a system interchange, with the first phase starting construction within the next year or so.

[Interstate Trav]

Any anticipation of when construction is scheduled to begin on the I-11 Boulder City bypass .....? And I assume I-11 will be signed as well over the Hoover Dam bypass at the same time .....?

NDOT is planning to advertise Phase 1 (current end of I-515 to new US 95 junction) this fall. So potential start of construction in early-mid 2015.

The remainder is in Phase 2. This project is going to be a design-build contract administered by the Southern Nevada RTC (and subsequently turned over to NDOT). Not sure on the timeline for this part.


I-11 can be signed along the Hoover Dam bypass. That was included in the part of AASHTO approving the designation down to the AZ state line.

I wouldn't expect the eastern bypass route along Vegas to be chosen for I-11 now that the routing on US 93 north of Vegas has been rejected.  Honestly, the I-215/US 95 routing would be the easiest (personally, I'd just route up I-515 and kill off the plans to extend I-11 north of Vegas, but Nevada is gung ho about building an interstate to nowhere).  A LOT of construction would be needed to bring NV 215 up to interstate standards and eliminate the breezewood with US 95.

That eastern bypass is still an alternative--it would include a routing along the northern CR 215 to reach US 95.

There's not that much needed to bring the 215 beltway up to Interstate standards. All freeway sections are currently constructed to Interstate standards. The interchange with US 95 has plans in motion to convert that to a system interchange, with the first phase starting construction within the next year or so.

Even if they do desgnate I-11 along the 215 Beltway, if it is going to go north of Las Vegas, won't thru traffic still use US 95 since it really is shorter in distance?

[I94RoadRunner]

IMHO I-11 should just replace I-515 and keep going SE from there until it hits Phoenix .....

[mgk920]

My assumption is that I-515, at least the part southeast of I-15, will be renumbered to 'I-11' once things towards Phoenix are complete.

Mike

[Rover_0]

So when can we expect I-11 to come into existence from the Arizona line to I-215?

IMO I'd just renumber I-515 and be done with it when that day comes, because 515/95 is the quickest route through Las Vegas.

[kurumi]

I found it interesting that even Google Maps is already showing the future Boulder City Bypass as I-11:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9721987,-114.9137884,17z

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0084904,-114.7823057,17z

So does this mean that once the Railroad Pass bypass and Boulder City bypass both get built that I-11 will be signed replacing I-515 to the Hoover Dam bypass .....?

(blink) I've never seen proposed alignments on Google Maps before. I-11 is shown only at close zoom levels.

Are any other proposed routes shown like this?

[I94RoadRunner]

Yes. I have seen a few:

CA 58 (possible I-40 extension) in Bakersfield: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.369308,-119.0561263,17z

WA 167 freeway extension in Tacoma, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2424006,-122.3378917,17z

WA 509 freeway extension in Des Moines, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4120252,-122.2921216,17z

These are just a few I have noticed .....

[roadfro]

My assumption is that I-515, at least the part southeast of I-15, will be renumbered to 'I-11' once things towards Phoenix are complete.

*All* of I-515 is south of I-15... So again, it is dependent on the routing selected.

IMO I'd just renumber I-515 and be done with it when that day comes, because 515/95 is the quickest route through Las Vegas.

Part of me agrees with you. However, that could introduce capacity problems in the viaduct section between the I-15/Spaghetti Bowl interchange and Eastern Avenue, especially around downtown where ramp merges are insufficient. NDOT was examining the idea of significantly widening I-515 (and replacing the viaduct) in the mid 2000s--this plan has been relatively dormant for several years (it was going to cost a lot of money that the state doesn't really have, and there are higher priority projects). If I-11 were to supplant I-515, that project would need to be revised.

I think NDOT wants to seriously consider trying to route some of the I-11 through traffic around, to lessen the congestion on the Spaghetti Bowl interchange and on the freeway system in the middle of town.

So when can we expect I-11 to come into existence from the Arizona line to I-215?

It is still several years off. At the earliest, we will likely not see I-11 posted in Nevada until the Boulder City Bypass is completed.

We're talking at least 2-3 years from now for Boulder City Bypass Phase 1 (expected to go to bid this fall). I don't know the proposed timeline for Phase 2, and that phase will be much more complex construction-wise since it goes through some rugged terrain and is about 2-3 times the distance of the first phase.

[vdeane]

Part of me agrees with you. However, that could introduce capacity problems in the viaduct section between the I-15/Spaghetti Bowl interchange and Eastern Avenue, especially around downtown where ramp merges are insufficient. NDOT was examining the idea of significantly widening I-515 (and replacing the viaduct) in the mid 2000s--this plan has been relatively dormant for several years (it was going to cost a lot of money that the state doesn't really have, and there are higher priority projects). If I-11 were to supplant I-515, that project would need to be revised.

That project would probably be both cheaper and more beneficial than building a road to nowhere along US 95.

[billtm]

Yes. I have seen a few:

CA 58 (possible I-40 extension) in Bakersfield: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.369308,-119.0561263,17z

WA 167 freeway extension in Tacoma, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2424006,-122.3378917,17z

WA 509 freeway extension in Des Moines, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4120252,-122.2921216,17z

These are just a few I have noticed .....

I have seen many proposed alignments on Google Maps before they were built, but mostly in Indiana at close zoom levels.

From memory there was
US 31 Kokomo Bypass
US 31 Plymouth - South Bend
SR 25 Hoosier Heartland
US 231 West Lafayette Bypass
US 24 Fort to Port

and is

US 31 Carmel Bypass
I-69
SR 641

This is just Indiana. So I bet there are many many more in other states.

[dfwmapper]

Anyone with enough patience to learn how to do things right (and fight with the percentage of people Google places in power who don't know what they're doing) can map things via Map Maker. Some areas have more active people than others, so they'll get things mapped before or during construction. Some of them are mapped by Google people based off documents from the state. The rest get mapped when they get GPS data from nav users, satellite imagery updates, and street view finding new things.