Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AZDude]

Many of us here would like to see the freeway section of U.S. 95 extended further south to the California state line (and possibly as far as I-40).  How many here think the north end of the freeway should be extended further north?  There is a very long section of U.S. 95 that is four lane divided between North Las Vegas and Mercury that has been around since the 1980's (maybe before that).  How about upgrading this entire corridor into a freeway?  It doesn't need to have an "I" designation.  Just leave it as U.S. 95.

What do you think?  I for one like this idea.

[njroadhorse]

I think it would be a waste of money after N. Las Vegas.  There's really not a whole lot out there meriting a freeway.

[Chris]

I think it's not really necessary either... It's mostly mountainous desert land with no towns of significance all the way to the Carson City / Reno area. I'd rather invest that kind of money in Las Vegas itself or Socal.

[Sykotyk]

After driving in western state often, I'd have to say that as long as you put a few bypasses around towns and generous use of passing lanes, there's really no need for a freeway.

Sykotyk

[roadfro]

First, a note: US 95 never enters the city of North Las Vegas.  It goes through the northwest part of Las Vegas though.

There are long-range plans to add a few more interchanges to US 95 in the northwest to extend the freeway.  That would take the freeway to SR 157 (Kyle Canyon Road). With the existing interchange at Snow Mountain in the LV Paiute Indian Reservation, that will take freeway to SR 156 (Lee Canyon Rd). By the time you get out there, US 95 traffic thins out so much that interchanges are hardly necessary (heck, the divided highway is hardly needed out there).

[V'Ger]

I could see it being useful, would possibly help out with the traffic on 15 heading to Las Vegas.

[roadfro]

Here's some 2007 AADT data, to give some perspective on how dramatically traffic drops off in the divided section of US 95 northwest of Las Vegas (from Las Vegas northward out of town):

• 41,000 - 0.8 mi south of Durango Dr (last major interchange in Las Vegas)
  
• 11,500 - junction SR 157/Kyle Canyon Rd (northern city limits of Las Vegas; first turn-off for Mt. Charleston)
• 7,800 - 0.5 mi north of the Snow Mountain interchange (access to Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation)
• 6,000 - 5.9 mi north of SR 156/Lee Canyon Rd (the second turn-off for Mt. Charleston)
• 4,000 - 9.2 mi north of Indian Springs
• 3,100 - 4.0 mi north of Mercury interchange (divided highway ends at Mercury)

I think this data makes it pretty evident that a freeway construction would be unwarranted, as there is just not that much traffic out there.

I could see it being useful, would possibly help out with the traffic on 15 heading to Las Vegas.

Such a US 95 freeway would not alleviate I-15 from the north.  US 95 traffic comes from rural areas in northern and western Nevada, with some from the Death Valley region and Sierra Nevada regions of eastern California; I-15 traffic from the north is almost exclusively from Utah.

[roadfro]

Again, there is not enough traffic to justify a freeway on US 95 (let alone an Interstate) anywhere north of Las Vegas/Clark County.

Besides, using the unlucky number "I-13" would never fly with Nevada officials... Even if an I-13 interstate highway were built in Nevada, I doubt any officials would ever let the number itself be signed...

[Fcexpress80]

Many here have commented about the "waste" of money to build future Interstates in desert and low populated regions in the intermountain west.  My contention is you build them now to fill future needs.  Far too many people are not forward looking enough to see that many corridors of proposed and fictional Interstates some of us would like to see built would make sense as population growth occurs over the next 50 years. 

If attitudes towards wasting money on "Interstates in desert regions" existed in the 1950s, much of the current Interstate system in the western US would still be two lane US-xx highways.

[mrivera1]

I'm against further reducing the number of US Routes in the West.  They are a rare and dying breed out here.  Upgrade as you will, but please don't take the US Route signage down.

[AZDude]

I think some here have miss understood what I was saying here.  First I only meant upgrading the existing expressway into a freeway.  After Mercury (where it currently ends) the road would continue as a two lane highway like it does now.  And the road would be still be signed as U.S. 95.

[roadfro]

I understood what you were saying AZDude.

I would still argue that any new interchanges north of SR 156/Lee Canyon Rd would be highly unnecessary as the traffic volumes don't justify it.  Also, converting the existing divided highway to a freeway would require bypasses to be built around Indian Springs and Cactus Springs since the divide highway runs right through the middle of these small towns.

[brad2971]

"If attitudes towards wasting money on "Interstates in desert regions" existed in the 1950s, much of the current Interstate system in the western US would still be two lane US-xx highway

The environmentalism and anti-tax sentiments that started in the 1970's, working in concert with each other (though both sides are loathe to admit it), served a beneficial purpose. Those two widely-reviled philosophies forced planners to consider limits (economic, environmental, and cultural) to available resources in their planning.

This is why even in Texas, you are seeing considerable resistance to big footprints for transporation corridors (i.e. the newly-killed off Trans-Texas Corridor).  Right now, the only new Interstate that has new terrain factored into planning is the extension of I-69, and that's a dead project walking.  In fact, the one thing that's going to kill off I-69 before anything else is the developing lack of justification, on economic grounds, for the extension.

Be careful about making statements like "forward-thinking," as you don't know how forward-thinking has gone through great changes over time. Take it from this "Native Roadgeeking Son of the Great Plains:" Cost-Benefit Analysis is good for you, and for everyone.

[corco]

Many here have commented about the "waste" of money to build future Interstates in desert and low populated regions in the intermountain west.  My contention is you build them now to fill future needs.  Far too many people are not forward looking enough to see that many corridors of proposed and fictional Interstates some of us would like to see built would make sense as population growth occurs over the next 50 years.

Frankly the Great Basin doesn't have the water resources to sustain a population boom in central Nevada- it's probably not ever going to happen

[roadfro]

Frankly the Great Basin doesn't have the water resources to sustain a population boom in central Nevada- it's probably not ever going to happen

Yeah, and the Great Basin definitely doesn't have the water resources to supplement Las Vegas' water problems either...but they're planning a pipeline anyway.  But that discussion is diverging from the original topic.