Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[sparker]

If we can get this thread off the subject of hookers, escorts, and strippers (welcome to NV!) for a bit it might be useful to speculate on if and where this corridor might extend north of I-80 -- not as a fictional exercise, but to address where the already designated I-11/HPC 68 corridor actually would intersect the E-W route.  I've already forwarded the guess that Fernley (via somewhere near Fallon) would be a "compromise" intersection location because it would allow egress northeast or west along I-80 toward either Winnemucca/Boise or Reno/Oregon.  Still others have suggested turning the corridor west via Yerington and Dayton to Carson City before subsuming I-580 north to Reno.  Looking at this option, one would need to weigh the positive aspects of this routing (attracting more local traffic, placing the corridor nearer to the Virginia City and Lake Tahoe recreational areas, putting the growing Carson City area on a through corridor) versus the negative (increased cost of deploying a freeway through the mountains east of Carson City -- although it would be closely paralleling US 50 for a large portion of its alignment, the "backtracking" trajectory that takes a northbound route WSW into Carson City -- and the likely added expenses and hassles of property takings along US 50).   However, a Fallon/Fernley option isn't a piece of cake either; the housing growth in & around Fallon would require a bypass route to the southwest, as most of that growth is west of the town center.  And if eventually Boise is selected as the corridor's ultimate aim, it's likely that a direct connection from the Fallon area north along US 95 to I-80 will be considered, along with a spur to Fernley to mollify Reno interests; arranging such a network around what's on the ground in that area won't be simple. 

Legislatively, the Vegas-to-I-80 corridor is a done deal; whether it ever gets built is a matter of conjecture.  Right now, anything north of I-80 is simply fictional speculation -- if I address it, it'll be in a thread there.  But the beyond-vague nature of the HPC 68/I-11 legislation within its current language does make the northern terminus of that corridor up for grabs, so to speak.  If anyone here has any other "best guesses" as to corridor and/or terminus location (and please, something thoughtful; not simple dismissal of the corridor itself), please contribute!       

[kkt]

The mountainous route to get to the south end of Carson City would be a problem.  Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, occassional winter closures.  I'd look at bypassing Fallon on the east side, between the warehouses and big box stores.  It'd probably hit I-84 around Caldwell, Idaho.

However, still doubtful that building north of Las Vegas will be undertaken in the next 40 years or so.  Arizona is enthusiastic about building new interstates, Nevada wants to see a favorable cost-benefit analysis first.

[jwolfer]

Can't be 100% sure from satellite view, but it looks like a lot of US 95 between Summerlin Parkway and CC 215 has substandard shoulder widths and might be tough to get approved as I-11.

It might not be modern Interstate standards for shoulder width, but I'm fairly certain it meets at least AASHTO minimum shoulder widths for freeway settings along most of that stretch (and, honestly, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, if any). Most of that has been reconstructed/widened (again) within the last 5-10 years and sits on plenty of ROW, so there's no good reason why it wouldn't meet minimums.

Keep in mind that the most recent widening was designed before I-11 was officially designated. Even if the I-11 concept was in discussion when the last widening was being designed, that original I-11 concept was Phoenix-to-Vegas only–talks of northward extension only really gained traction after the number was signed into law.

IIRC current Interstate standards require 10 foot inside shoulders if there are 3 or more lanes in each direction, and 10 foot outside shoulders always. A lot of the shoulders look like they're only about 8', and some of the underpasses have no shoulder at all. It's fine in its current condition for what it is, but getting approval for that blue sign beyond Vegas (which is what that discussion was about) might be tough, at least without demolishing a bunch of bridges.

I'm amazed they could ever get any "talent" to work and live in such a desolate and likely very boring place. Young ladies prefer being near cities where there are lots of things to do, places to shop, big parties, etc.

As I understand it from some reading on the subject, they typically aren't allowed to leave during their shifts, which can be up to 3 weeks long. Part of the whole public health aspect of legalized brothels is that they are required to get medical testing (including an STD test) before each shift, and if they could just leave and do anything with anyone it would undermine that. And as for jwolfer's comment, the whole point of doing it legally is to do it legally. Stripping, sure, or serving cocktails, waiting tables, dealing blackjack, going to class at UNLV to become a research scientist, whatever, but not working as an escort.

Escorts dont have sex

LGMS428

[jwolfer]

The mountainous route to get to the south end of Carson City would be a problem.  Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, occassional winter closures.  I'd look at bypassing Fallon on the east side, between the warehouses and big box stores.  It'd probably hit I-84 around Caldwell, Idaho.

However, still doubtful that building north of Las Vegas will be undertaken in the next 40 years or so.  Arizona is enthusiastic about building new interstates, Nevada wants to see a favorable cost-benefit analysis first.

Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects

LGMS428

[kkt]

Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects

Reno.

Low tax state, so they're not rolling in money for projects that aren't clearly necessary.

[jwolfer]

Nevada has all the touris dollars and aside from Las Vegas no big metro areas. One would think they would have money for lots of projects

Reno.

Low tax state, so they're not rolling in money for projects that aren't clearly necessary.

No disrespect to Reno but i am talking metro areas over 1 million..

Florida has no income tax but other taxes and fees are high compared to other states.  Florida makes the most of tourists spending money here

LGMS428

[Henry]

Reno and Vegas could use an Interstate connection between them, cost be damned.

[kkt]

Reno and Vegas could use an Interstate connection between them, cost be damned.

Based on what?  The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic.  Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what?  Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements.  Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?

LV would be helped more by additional lanes on I-15 so weekenders from LA could get there quicker.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Based on what?  The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic.  Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what?  Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements.  Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?

I'm usually the first to say "Let's be careful spending what limited transportation funding we have right now," but I disagree with you on I-11, for a few reasons:

• West Coast freight needs an I-5 reliever route. If you think of I-11 as a phased approach to providing that, then the Vegas to Reno segment is the second phase with an eventual connection to the Northwest ports as a third phase.
• Induced demand. People will make the trip because they can do it at 80 mph when they couldn't at 70 mph. It may only be a few hundred a day, but it will happen.
• The most expensive part of the project would be coupling — which is probably justified anyway — not the interchanges. We're talking, what, two-dozen interchanges needed between Las Vegas and Fernley?
  
• Depending on route selection, NDOT could cut considerable mileage off the Vegas to Reno drive by realigning I-11 off US 95 — depending on how aggressive they wanted to be with re-routing (and bypassing existing communities), up to 75 miles.

Now, would I rather see Vegas and Reno connected by true high speed rail, that blazed past US 95 motorists at 200 mph and connected the two cities in two hours w/ no airport hassle? Sure. But that's not a political reality we live in. The next best option to cut pollution, save time and make the corridor safer is a coupling with the option of building the limited number of interchanges needed to justify an 80 mph speed limit.

[kkt]

Based on what?  The roads between them are excellent 2 and 4 lane roads rarely encountering heavy traffic.  Spend billions doubling them or widening shoulders, for what?  Not shorter travel times, and only marginal safety improvements.  Just because some people like blue, red, and white shields instead of white and black?

I'm usually the first to say "Let's be careful spending what limited transportation funding we have right now," but I disagree with you on I-11, for a few reasons:

• West Coast freight needs an I-5 reliever route. If you think of I-11 as a phased approach to providing that, then the Vegas to Reno segment is the second phase with an eventual connection to the Northwest ports as a third phase.

I-5 does get crowded, but where do you see freight origins and destinations that would use the LV-Reno segment?  The natural reliever routes would be CA 99 through the Central Valley, US 395 from greater LA to Reno, US 97 from Weed to the Dalles.  For that matter, widening I-5 would probably save more traveler-minutes for less money than an entirely new freeway route.

Reno isn't a big industrial city and neither produces nor consumes a lot of freight.  Tesla isn't going to be big enough to change this for many years, if ever.

• Induced demand. People will make the trip because they can do it at 80 mph when they couldn't at 70 mph. It may only be a few hundred a day, but it will happen.

Very few.  The casinos and shows attract people from outside Nevada to come in:  L.A. residents to Las Vegas, San Francisco and Bay Area residents to Reno.  Once you're in one of those cities, tourists do their gambling and go to shows and such, and then go home.  They don't need to go from one to the other much.

• The most expensive part of the project would be coupling — which is probably justified anyway — not the interchanges. We're talking, what, two-dozen interchanges needed between Las Vegas and Fernley?
  
• Depending on route selection, NDOT could cut considerable mileage off the Vegas to Reno drive by realigning I-11 off US 95 — depending on how aggressive they wanted to be with re-routing (and bypassing existing communities), up to 75 miles.

True, but we're talking about low traffic here.  By bypassing what towns there are and raising the speed limit they might save as much as an hour off an almost 7 hour trip.  How much is that hour worth for a low traffic route?  That's still pretty far to do just for fun or to go there and back in a single day and not be thoroughly sick of driving by the end.

Now, would I rather see Vegas and Reno connected by true high speed rail, that blazed past US 95 motorists at 200 mph and connected the two cities in two hours w/ no airport hassle? Sure. But that's not a political reality we live in. The next best option to cut pollution, save time and make the corridor safer is a coupling with the option of building the limited number of interchanges needed to justify an 80 mph speed limit.

LV-Reno would be a really bad choice of route for HSR.  You need big cities at both ends with existing high traffic.  Also, you'd have two bad choices for route:  either lots of turns to go around mountain ranges, or lots of mountain climbing and/or tunnels.
Now, LV-LA could be a good choice.  I-15 gets pretty backed up sometimes and there is a lot of tourist traffic, and it's possible to get around LV pretty decently without a car I'm told.

[The Ghostbuster]

I reckon it will be a while before sizable portions of Interstate 11 are constructed in Nevada and Arizona. If anyone disagrees, let me know.

[Bobby5280]

The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.

For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.

[Plutonic Panda]

The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.

For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.

I agree and as much as I love interstates and freeways, I'm not so keen on the portion between Reno and LV.  I rather like the two lane roads out there.

[vdeane]

If NDOT isn't raising I-80 to 80 mph, I'm not sure if they would for I-11.

[michravera]

The Phoenix to Las Vegas leg of I-11 is the only part of the corridor that warrants building now. By the way, I think it's good enough to just build I-11 into the metro Phoenix area. These concepts of extending I-11 down to Casa Grande, Tucson and Nogales are a whole lot of wishful thinking. There's certainly no justifiable reason to build a 2nd Interstate highway between Tucson and Nogales. It's not the Philadelphia-New York City corridor.

For points North of Las Vegas I can only see I-11 getting extended up to Indian Springs and the Air Force Base there within the next 10 or so years. And such a freeway might only be signed as US-95 there since there are no major intersections where the Interstate designation can terminate.

Don't get too hung up on "Interstates have to start and end at other important roads" I-11 could just run from Phoenix to NV-375 "The Extraterrestrial Highway" and, thus technically, right off the face of the earth!

[Bobby5280]

I'm personally not hung up on making Interstate highways only terminate at another major intersection, such as another Interstate highway or at least an intersection with a US highway. I'm under the impression that's a current government rule regarding how such roads are signed.

I've looked closely at mountains around the Carson City area. The most difficult thing standing in the way of a reasonable I-11 route to Vegas is the Pine Nut Mountains just East of Carson City. If a highway could somehow be built through that range over to Yerington it would open possibilities for a somewhat direct path down to Tonopah (far more direct than what is available now via US-95 and US-50).

Sunrise Pass Road goes through the Pine Nut Mountains cutting between Bismark Peak and Mineral Peak and around Mount Como. The road comes out near Artesia Lake and a wildlife refuge there. Yerington is just East of that. A super highway cutting through this mountain range would probably have to follow near this route, and possibly have to tunnel through parts of it due to steeper grades and sharp turns. Nevertheless a highway connection between Carson City and Yerintgon could open a lot of development possibilities in the Walker River valley.

If I-11 could be built from Carson City direct to Yertington the road could then follow Alt US-95 to Schurz and then continue ESE across fairly open territory until meeting up with the junction of NV-361 and NV-89 and then follow NV-89 right down to US-95 just outside Tonopah. The only downside of this route is it would cut through the Walker River Reservation. There's no telling whether the tribe would welcome such a highway and the potential business it brings or block it for any destructive effect it would have on their lands.

It would cost a shit-ton of money to build an Interstate quality freeway through the mountains East of Carson City. There's no way to justify the cost for local and regional use. But the concept could fly as part of a larger "big picture" corridor for the Mountain West.

Still, I think the Vegas to Phoenix part needs to be built first.

[coatimundi]

I'm going to pull in traffic counts here for the demonstration of the bogusness of this idea of a critical need for an interstate connection between the Nevada metros (or I-11 to I-80, for that matter).

Assuming that traffic from the south destined for Reno will follow US 95 to US 50 to I-80, we can look at the Wadsworth interchange, just west of Fernley: 24,500 in 2015.
https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2015Washoe.pdf

Compare that with just west of the US 95 interchange, north of Fallon: 7,900 in 2015.
https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2015Churchill.pdf

So, by that measure, you have a liberal estimate of 16,600 that would be directed on I-11, provided it go through Fallon and Fernley.
Conversely, look at the traffic counts for US 95 north of Schurz, where I-11 would likely cut off if it were to follow a route west to Carson City: 2,700.
https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2015Mineral.pdf

Even at its most liberal estimate, you're well below what even the existing I-80 corridor can handle. I'm not an expert on this stuff though, so feel free to correct me if I'm not understanding these numbers.

Every time I've driven east of Reno though, the traffic has been sparse, to say the least. And it's even sparser on US 95. Add some road improvements, including some widening and intersection improvements, and you have all you need. You don't need an interstate.

[Quillz]

I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.

Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.

[coatimundi]

I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.

Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.

US 395 is very different. Like you mention, it's already almost completely 4-lane and divided. Additionally, the freeway bypass of Olancha is already under construction. For comparison's sake, the traffic counts for 395 also show a very different roadway in comparison to US 95 in Nevada: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d9/planning/docs/d9_aadt_count_data_1992to2015.pdf

There are always vulnerable towns that will be easily killed by any sort of change in the roadway. The "town" of Little Lake was killed off by a bypass of 395 around the middle of the last century. But places like Bishop, Lone Pine and Independence I think have a low chance of dying. The fact is that they're more reliant on the tourist traffic that comes through as opposed to the actual long-distance highway traffic, and them offering the few services that they do will keep them around. Plus, 395 is almost a freeway right now anyway, so you're not looking at significant speed limit changes so the story of the interstate killing the small town when it bypassed the two-lane blue highway would not really be repeated.

[Quillz]

I don't know how it would be routed, but you could maybe, MAYBE make the argument upgrading US-395 from roughly CA-14 to Mammoth could be upgraded to interstate standards. Most of the highway is at least expressway standards, and Mammoth probably generates enough traffic to warrant it.

Of course, those small towns that rely on US-395 going directly through it wouldn't like it, and the highway itself already has a high speed limit, good shoulders, and seems like a pretty safe routing overall.

US 395 is very different. Like you mention, it's already almost completely 4-lane and divided. Additionally, the freeway bypass of Olancha is already under construction. For comparison's sake, the traffic counts for 395 also show a very different roadway in comparison to US 95 in Nevada: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d9/planning/docs/d9_aadt_count_data_1992to2015.pdf

There are always vulnerable towns that will be easily killed by any sort of change in the roadway. The "town" of Little Lake was killed off by a bypass of 395 around the middle of the last century. But places like Bishop, Lone Pine and Independence I think have a low chance of dying. The fact is that they're more reliant on the tourist traffic that comes through as opposed to the actual long-distance highway traffic, and them offering the few services that they do will keep them around. Plus, 395 is almost a freeway right now anyway, so you're not looking at significant speed limit changes so the story of the interstate killing the small town when it bypassed the two-lane blue highway would not really be repeated.

A freeway would kill those speed traps through Lone Pine and Independence, though. The cops love those towns.

[coatimundi]

A freeway would kill those speed traps through Lone Pine and Independence, though. The cops love those towns.

I don't think it's the cops so much loving the speed traps as the Angelenos loving to speed through them. It's a town. There are houses. There are schools. Slow the fuck down.
It does underscore the need for bypasses though. Personally, I think Bishop is the worst. The town is a slog during the summer or when Mammoth is open. Too much local traffic combined with the long-distance drivers on a narrow, congested business strip with street parking. It's just a bad scene. There are existing streets that could be upgraded to be used as a bypass, but they mostly lead to the Paiute, and I would guess that they want nothing to do with it. But I don't think it's totally far-fetched or that far away from happening.

And this segues into a return to I-11. I think the most practical way to improve the Vegas-Reno corridor would be to just do these sort of selected bypasses. I'd say Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne.

[sparker]

And this segues into a return to I-11. I think the most practical way to improve the Vegas-Reno corridor would be to just do these sort of selected bypasses. I'd say Beatty, Tonopah and Hawthorne.

Actually, it may be a damn good idea to deploy 4-lane expressway bypasses (with access control) around the towns cited (I'd add Goldfield, Schurz, and Fallon to the mix) as a near-term appropriate use of any funds available for the HPC 68 corridor; any upgrades (grade separations, interchanges, etc.) could come if & when the full I-11 is developed.  In the meanwhile, you have locally beneficial "SIU's". 

[Bobby5280]

Every time I've driven east of Reno though, the traffic has been sparse, to say the least. And it's even sparser on US 95. Add some road improvements, including some widening and intersection improvements, and you have all you need. You don't need an interstate.

You're observing existing traffic counts on existing roads, none of which provide any sort of easy, direct route between Las Vegas and Reno. The current counts may be primarily local traffic. A route that is much more friendly to long distance drivers and commercial vehicles might attract quite a few vehicles. But that's only going to happen if the route serves a much bigger picture purpose, at least something bigger than merely providing a better link between Reno and Vegas. One bigger purpose would be giving traffic coming from the Phoenix area and Mexico another route to the Pacific Northwest that bypasses the traffic in Southern California.

As it stands there isn't enough national interest in building a new Interstate corridor from far Northern California or Oregon down the Phoenix area or even Nogales (especially now with all the anti-Mexico and anti-NAFTA furor coming from the new administration). So in the near term Vegas to Phoenix is the only part of I-11 that has a shot of getting traction.

[kkt]

Yes, pretty sure traffic on I-80 in Nevada once you get east of the Reno suburbs is mostly long-haul truckers and occasional cars heading for SLC and the northern midwest and NE via Wyoming.  I-80 through Wyoming is faster and has gentler grades than I-70 through the Rockies.

I am very skeptical there's a huge demand for freight traffic from Phoenix or Nogales or Vegas to/from the Pacific Northwest that's unwilling to take low-traffic US routes but would take a direct interstate.

[coatimundi]

In spite of its failings, I-10 to I-5 is generally the preferred long-haul truck and trailer route from the Southwest to the Northwest, especially in the winter, simply because it avoids a lot of the problematic mountainous terrain. This is why most on this board seem to understand the importance of completing the SR 58 segment west of Barstow to I-5: Tehachapi Pass is annoying, but it's got nothing on Donner, so its viability as an alternative to the LA routing becomes all the more important if you think about that sort of inter-regional traffic.

And I don't know that bringing I-11 to I-80 would necessarily bring any of that traffic away. Not solely due to Donner, but also the routings involved in getting back to I-5. I-80 into Sacramento is a pretty big detour. The shortest route is SR 20, but that's in no condition to be used as a regional thoroughfare. Everything north of that closes regularly in the winter and has some serious mountainous terrain.

I understand the "if you build it, they will come" thinking in general on interstates (that's part of how I-69 is justified), but I don't think it applies here. The only way it would apply is if they could get it up to I-5, and I just don't see that happening. Ever.

That said, I think this sort of thing lends credence to the idea of routing I-11 to Boise instead of to Reno. That would provide a good cut-off where surface highways, I-15, I-5, or a combination of one or more are used for this travel pattern now.