AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north  (Read 57462 times)

doorknob60

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 643
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Boise, ID
  • Last Login: October 16, 2018, 06:15:38 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #450 on: October 04, 2018, 07:07:25 PM »

I'm wondering if a hypothetical I-11 between Madras and I-84 head a bit northwest near Warm Springs, then start heading more straight north, effectively splitting the difference between US-197 and OR-35. Hitting I-84 somewhere around Mosier. The terrain may not be the easiest, and the Indian reservation probably makes it a political challenge, but it may be easier than going over the Cascades and routing through western Oregon/greater Portland. Maybe a compromise could meet back up with US-197 around Tygh Valley, avoiding some of the eastern backtrack and Maupin bottleneck (getting across the Deschutes seems easier around Warm Springs than Maupin).

It would also make a great winter route between Bend and Portland at times, avoiding the major mountain passes and sticking to the drier eastern side of the Cascades (until the gorge, but then you're at least at low altitude). Already some traffic takes US-197 to I-84 instead of the more direct US-26, and despite the "Maupin hole" and backtracking a bit to the east from Madras, it's often a good option.

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 09:47:32 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #451 on: October 04, 2018, 07:19:44 PM »

US 97 in Oregon will get upgrades between the current freeway stretches by adding small sections of 4-lane with the eventual goal being to link them all up between Klamath Falls and Bend.  That is ODOT's plan.

Looking at PDX, traffic heading over to central Oregon begins with a section of freeway/expressway before approaching Mt. Hood.  The obvious solution is to 4-lane US 26 to Madras, then 4-lane US 97 south to connect with the freeway segment terminating just north of Redmond.  Given that there is no other way to go than by going out of the way, this will be done if there is the political will, which at this time is not present but it is going to be the eventual way this turns out.

Now that the Oregon-centric portion of east of the Cascades freeway routing is seen, the real dilemma is how to hook it up to I-11.  PDX-Reno traffic is light enough that I believe the current 2-lane routing using SR 31 to US 395 and thence to Reno will suffice.  Adding in 3-lane stretches for grades and also just for passing purposes will handle a moderate increase in traffic over the next 30 years most likely. 

California could help the cause by doing US 395 as expressway all the way to the Nevada border from the south and then making US 97 4-lane from Weed to the Oregon border.  That takes care of the N/S traffic for the Pacific states. 

The Reno region will continue to fill in.  Beltways and improvements will be needed.  Once the development pattern known, then it will become obvious where I-11 needs to land. 

Those are the balls I see that need juggling to determine where new inland western freeways/expressways need to be placed.  Juggling means "balls in the air" and right now that is where we are.  Guess right and I-11 plus US 395 and US 97 will combine together to create a nice network.  Since I have never been to Reno, I wonder what the people over there think about future needs for higher capacity roads?  I would ask the truck drivers as well. 

North from Las Vegas is a given.  Improvements in Oregon and California are also givens.  Growth in the Washoe Valley and east toward Fallon is going to continue.  I wish I was going to live long enough to see what solution is arrived at and how well it works.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #452 on: October 04, 2018, 09:16:49 PM »

I'm wondering if a hypothetical I-11 between Madras and I-84 head a bit northwest near Warm Springs, then start heading more straight north, effectively splitting the difference between US-197 and OR-35. Hitting I-84 somewhere around Mosier. The terrain may not be the easiest, and the Indian reservation probably makes it a political challenge, but it may be easier than going over the Cascades and routing through western Oregon/greater Portland. Maybe a compromise could meet back up with US-197 around Tygh Valley, avoiding some of the eastern backtrack and Maupin bottleneck (getting across the Deschutes seems easier around Warm Springs than Maupin).

It would also make a great winter route between Bend and Portland at times, avoiding the major mountain passes and sticking to the drier eastern side of the Cascades (until the gorge, but then you're at least at low altitude). Already some traffic takes US-197 to I-84 instead of the more direct US-26, and despite the "Maupin hole" and backtracking a bit to the east from Madras, it's often a good option.

If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84.  The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary.  This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX.  Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials).  Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible. 

The one drawback to any singular corridor designed to expedite traffic to PDX is not what it does but what it does not do in terms of service areas.  As I stated earlier, the ideal US 97-based corridor would split into two somewhere around Bend, with a western branch serving PDX and/or the Willamette Valley, and the eastern heading NE toward Washington's Tri-Cities and Spokane; Seattle could be served via the PDX branch then north via I-5.  If you haven't guessed by now, I'm suggesting a regional approach with corridor trajectories optimized to serve as much area as possible rather than serve one specific city ("zone coverage", if you will, as opposed to "man-to-man").  At this moment, most emphasis is on the population centers arrayed along the I-5 corridor -- but if other areas in the country provide any clue as to what will likely happen in the not-too-distant future, housing costs and other economic circumstances will likely make the inland zones such as Bend, the Tri-Cities, and even Spokane more and more attractive for employment and just basic living.  Firms with less than a "high-end" pay scale would likely seek to locate in areas where their personnel won't be constantly clamoring for increased compensation to cover rising costs; while that will inevitably occur in any growth area, the curve becomes less pronounced in areas not already experiencing "hyperinflation" regarding living costs -- there's considerable "breathing room" in terms of time before that occurs in the outlying regions.  This is happening in areas such as Boise, ID currently; while the area is rapidly growing overall, the cost increases for housing and other expenses haven't reached the point where they are slowing the rate of growth; that probably won't happen for at least another 20-25  years; i.e., there's still room to grow!   The challenge is to provide optimal connectivity between these areas as well as the existing population centers while avoiding neglecting the needs of those already established areas -- and do so as efficiently as feasible.  Given the topography and politics in this particular service area, it's a tall order; it'll be intriguing to see if it's within the realm of possibility!
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 252
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: October 16, 2018, 12:41:19 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #453 on: October 05, 2018, 11:00:11 AM »

If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84.  The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary.  This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX.  Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials).  Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible. 


Because AADT counts range from 10,000 at Rhodedendron to 6,100 just south of the OR 35 split.

Because the main currency in Oregon for transportation improvements is safety, not speed or freight mobility, and a divided highway between the state's largest city & its favorite getaway (and a city of 180,000 people in its own right) can be sold as a safety improvement.

Because Government Camp is 55 miles from Portland via 26 and 105 miles via 84/35.

Because direct access to Portland would benefit the Warm Springs confederation and the Madras area as a potential logistics / economic development opportunity.

Because the staging location for Oregon emergency operations for the Cascadia earthquake is Redmond Airport.

a few reasons… 
Logged

Mark68

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 169
  • Location: Parker, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 10:16:03 AM
    • My Travels over the years
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #454 on: October 05, 2018, 11:47:45 AM »

If you're going to do something like that to expedite PDX traffic, why not avoid the Cascade "spine" that exists between OR 35 and US 197 and simply route it straight up OR 35 through the Hood River Valley to I-84.  The passes there are relatively benign (been on both several times), although some winter plowing would periodically be necessary.  This would create freeway access from I-84 to the Mt. Hood ski area (an alternative to US 26 through Sandy) while keeping freeway traffic away from the flatlands of PDX.  Metro might initially still throw a minor shitfit, but when presented with the alternatives, would likely (with some dissenting ideological voices, of course) accede to something like this if presented properly (stressing facility safety, especially in terms to taking traffic away from the eastern PDX arterials).  Of course, care would have to be exercised in routing a corridor down Hood River/OR 35, avoiding the agricultural areas west of the highway as much as feasible. 


Because AADT counts range from 10,000 at Rhodedendron to 6,100 just south of the OR 35 split.

Because the main currency in Oregon for transportation improvements is safety, not speed or freight mobility, and a divided highway between the state's largest city & its favorite getaway (and a city of 180,000 people in its own right) can be sold as a safety improvement.

Because Government Camp is 55 miles from Portland via 26 and 105 miles via 84/35.

Because direct access to Portland would benefit the Warm Springs confederation and the Madras area as a potential logistics / economic development opportunity.

Because the staging location for Oregon emergency operations for the Cascadia earthquake is Redmond Airport.

This is a factor that cannot and should not be overlooked. In the event of a Cascadia earthquake, I-84 as an access point for entry or exit into Portland may not be feasible, due to its proximity to (and lack of elevation above) the Columbia through the Gorge. Not to mention the inevitable rock- and mudslides that such an event would trigger due to the steep terrain on the south side of I-84.

If the Bend and Redmond areas are to serve as staging areas for emergency operations in such an event, it is likely that residents of the northern Willamette Valley will try to make their way across the Cascades in the quickest way possible, and to do so without interrupting the incoming flow of emergency crews and supplies would entail, at the least, a 4-line divided facility between Bend/Redmond and PDX.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 01:21:32 PM by Mark68 »
Logged
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #455 on: October 05, 2018, 12:19:01 PM »

^^^^^^^^
If a limited-access corridor between PDX and the Madras/Redmond/Bend area can be "sold" to ODOT and Metro --and would be completed within greater Portland so as to actually make a connection to the freeway system there (either I-84 or I-205 would be the most likely outlets/termini), that would be an ideal cross-Cascade facility.  But politically, that's one big if!  Framing it as an enhanced recreational route (at least to the ski area), a "safety" corridor, or a natural-disaster egress route might aid with public perception -- but PDX and/or Metro planners might just focus on the underlying fact that despite the sales pitches the bottom line is that a new Interstate is encroaching on their sacred urban enclave (I've worked with iterations of this group before, and for all their predispositions and ideology, they certainly aren't stupid!).  If nothing else, such a project might find itself in "study limbo" for decades. 

When it comes down to situations such as this -- where the optimal solution may not be the feasible one -- a workable strategy might just be to select an alternative approach (in this case, avoid rattling the cage of PDX and Metro) -- don't discard a suboptimal but acceptable plan just because it isn't the ideal one! 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1338
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:09 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #456 on: October 06, 2018, 04:02:34 PM »

Quote from: sparker
I-11 from Vegas to I-80 is, for all intents & purposes, a fait accompli; the state of Nevada wants to do it and appears to be willing to spend the funds to do so (the tourist/gambling revenues must be up considerably from their recession nadir).

The only thing happening so far is just talk. I wouldn't consider anything of this sort a fait accompli until the highway is actually getting built. Gambling/tourist revenue or not, if Nevada tries to build this road on its own the endeavor will take a very long time to complete. A segment of Interstate highway a few hundred miles long doesn't get built without a good bit of federal funding. The big casinos might be a source for road funding revenue. However, those operations are also pretty good at minimizing their tax liabilities.

I can picture modest corridor upgrades in some spots of the Reno-Carson City region, but nothing more than that. Same goes for Future I-11 NW of Vegas.

Quote from: sparker
The Carson City public hearings about the alignment eliminated any Carson Valley routing because of (a) construction costs and (b) the fact that such an alignment would leave out the Fallon Valley, which is positioning itself as a low-cost housing and warehousing area, anchored by Tesla's developments in the vicinity of Fernley -- and which figures prominently in Nevada's long-range economic development plans.

Fallon is not a major destination. If the Fallon Valley experiences a lot of developmental growth in the future then that sounds 100% like a local concern, not something needing to be connected to Las Vegas via a highway that would cost a few billion dollars to build. They can upgrade the local roads and leave it at that.

Regarding Tesla, it's pretty absurd for a major infrastructure project like I-11 to hinge on a company like Tesla. The company only makes things for very rich people, whom make up a very tiny segment of the population. None of their products are affordable to the other 99% of the population. That equals small, niche output in manufacturing. It's not a powerhouse. Stock traders are only finally starting to figure out that one.

Quote
The Carson Valley, teeming with California "refugees", has been deemed to be taking care of itself just fine without depending upon Interstate access to the south part of the state; its economic well-being is derived from residents and the growth of those -- it's not dependent on the sort of tourist income that a long Interstate corridor would supply.  Likewise, Reno doesn't need to be tethered to Las Vegas by a singular direct corridor; that metro area is growing quite well "as is" -- but some sort of efficient (read: freeway) corridor linking it to the state's other attraction has been sought for quite some time both in and out of state government.

That just sounds like yet another reason not to build I-11 North of Vegas. If the folks in Carson City don't want it and the people in Reno don't care about it, then why build it? Especially why build it if it can't be built on a proper alignment?

Quote from: sparker
So one has to take I-80 east 30 miles to reach I-11?  No big whoop -- just do it!

If the end result is a super highway not enough vehicles will use there is no reason to do it.

The drive between Reno-Carson City and Las Vegas is already a pretty long drive. It's long enough that people who travel regularly between those two cities will often do so by air. Traffic counts on US-95 between Las Vegas and the Reno region are not high. Unless I-11 delivers some serious mileage savings over the current US-95 route there very little chance traffic counts will increase significantly. And that would make such an Interstate upgrade a big waste of money.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #457 on: October 07, 2018, 08:23:19 PM »

^^^^^^^^
One thing is obvious with I-11 north of LV -- it is a politically motivated corridor, both at the state and national levels.  But, like it or not, that is the way that such projects are done today!  Since 1973, when designation of additional Interstates was relegated to the individual states, effectively keeping any national effort like the 1968 group of additions from occurring (blame Nixon for that one!),  political considerations, coupled with economic projections, have driven virtually every Interstate addition that has occurred; some efforts have plainly been more speculative in nature than others.  And some have been "reparative" in nature -- an area lacking Interstate service claims historic or even deliberate neglect, and stakes a claim to a corridor intended to remedy the situation.  I'm not going to "laundry list" all the "after-market" Interstates here -- but plainly some that have been built or proposed have more actual value than others in terms of overall system enhancement. 

For the last decade and a half the methodology of choice for those promoting new Interstate corridors has been to either tack an Interstate designation on to an existing high priority corridor, then lobby for funding -- or, if a route is desired that's not on or near on of these corridors, to have one's local congressperson introduce legislation designating a new corridor complete with built-in Interstate status.  The former was utilized in the case of the north of Vegas corridor; HPC #68 had been sitting around for years -- and was actually utilized as a funding conduit for the I-580 Reno-Carson City facility, since its language was deliberately vague, authorizing a potential corridor from LV to northern NV plus a Washoe Valley (Reno-Carson) route.  A couple of years back this corridor definition was changed; it was split into two separate sections -- "Washoe" and "Intermountain"; the latter, specifying LV to I-80 as the principal parameter, was further designated as I-11 -- not the Washoe route, which was previously addressed by the deployment of I-580.  The northern Intermountain corridor terminus was simply defined as I-80 -- which obviously took in a great deal of territory, as well as giving various interest groups quite a bit of latitude to advocate for their choice regarding the northernmost corridor portion, including a western option through the Washoe range to access the US 395 corridor as well as an eastern option for a new-terrain corridor directly connecting Tonopah with Fallon.  NDOT conducted meetings with input from folks affected by the various options presented; what seemed to be the conclusion was this:  The western/Washoe route was plainly the most difficult in terms of construction and corresponding cost; while serving the greatest present population, the CBE was overwhelmingly unfavorable in this case.  And while there were some local advocates for this option, once it was discarded for cost reasons it didn't appear to raise a lot of local complaint about that action -- apparently the growing population of the Carson Valley (Minden, Gardnerville, etc.) had no overwhelming desire to access Las Vegas on a regular basis (why should they; as NV residents they've got plenty of local recreational options).  Objections from the Hawthorne area doomed the eastern "beeline" route north of Tonopah, which would have bypassed the city along US 95.  What was left were two options, basically one along US 95 and the other along Alternate US 95 on both sides of the Fallon Valley.  NDOT had outlined several "options within options" to connect those two central corridors; after the meeting, it was clear that the US 95 option plus the "crossover" skirting Fallon to the southwest and intersecting I-80 just north of Fernley was the preference of most locals plus the NDOT engineers. 

And the Fallon Valley is experiencing growth -- one only has to peruse the real estate ads in Northern California newspapers to see that housing in that area is expanding rapidly -- and is priced to be attractive; for comparable dwellings, the cost is about 25% less than over the Washoes in Reno, Carson City, and the towns south along US 395, about 40% less than Sacramento and environs, and 50-80% less than the Bay Area and its suburbs.  I've had at least a half dozen friends (and a couple of clients) indicate they were either moving or planning to move to Northern Nevada; a couple of them at retirement age are looking at Fallon-area homes.  I would characterize that area as similar to St. George, Utah about 20-25 years ago -- just beginning to exhibit consistent growth patterns. 

The I-11 corridor north of Las Vegas is speculative in nature -- but it appears to be a chance that NDOT and NV commercial interests are willing to take, given the growth the state has experienced over the past years.  It certainly won't be a "beeline" by any means; the "basin & range" nature of the state's topology doesn't render such a concept practicable.  As far as traffic counts go, they'll likely increase incrementally with population; it'll probably be close to that of I-80 across the state, particularly in terms of commercial usage.  Further extension to Oregon or Idaho would certainly add additional traffic to the mix.  But if their congressional delegation is worth their pay, the I-11 corridor will get enough Federal funds, in addition to in-state funding, to complete it, probably over a 15-20-year span.  But expect construction to occur first at both ends (the expressway upgrade at the south, and a Fallon Valley server at the north) in order to bolster support for the project by providing SIU's near the termini.  Bypasses of the various towns along US 95 would be next:  Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, with the interim mileage following. 

One of the benefits NV hopes to reap from I-11 is in provision of a facility connecting its twin tourist attractions (LV and Reno/Tahoe) that doesn't display the characteristics of a lonely 2-lane desert road;  the idea here is to promote tourist movement along the corridor between the south & north regions on a road that doesn't feature speed traps and behind-truck slogging but which does have the type of on-road amenities common to Interstate corridors.  With an Interstate corridor promising relative safety and familiarity, it would be similar to a L.A.-S.F. concept but with different scenery!  Bottom line -- NV interests don't think I-11 is a waste of money -- and they're the ones who count in terms of actual development.
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 234
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: October 14, 2018, 05:55:03 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #458 on: October 10, 2018, 08:08:08 PM »

Here's the October 2018 I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis Draft Report:

https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=15753

I haven't read the full thing yet, but to cut to the chase, B2 and B3 are the alternatives recommended for further study:



They are looking for public comments.  From the press release:

Quote
The public can visit i11study.com to review and comment on the draft document. All comments must be submitted before Nov. 8, 2018 via email to kverre@dot.nv.gov or by mail to 1263 South Stewart Street, Carson City, NV 89712 ATTN: Kevin Verre, room 205.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 11:48:56 AM by gonealookin »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #459 on: October 11, 2018, 01:06:23 AM »

^^^^^^^^
My money's on B2 -- it'll be somewhat easier to construct and serves a larger population base.  Glad to see they're doing the smart thing and bypassing Walker Lake on the east -- the railroad had the right idea to begin with! 
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3044
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:39:20 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #460 on: October 11, 2018, 11:34:13 AM »

Could 'B4' eventually evolve into an 'even' 3DI from this?  I can also see a more major connection between I-580 and US 395 (south) in California developing as part of this.

Mike
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 234
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: October 14, 2018, 05:55:03 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #461 on: October 11, 2018, 11:58:52 AM »

Could 'B4' eventually evolve into an 'even' 3DI from this?  I can also see a more major connection between I-580 and US 395 (south) in California developing as part of this.

Mike

Going through the details of the report, B4 seems pretty unrealistic due to cost and environmental issues.  I'd say upgrades to the existing US 50 between Carson City and Silver Springs (if B3 is chosen) or the Fallon area (B2) are the most likely direct connection between Carson City and I-11.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 09:47:32 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #462 on: October 11, 2018, 01:19:01 PM »

B-4 could become an extended I-580.  B-2/B-3 can then be numbered I-11/I-711 with the numbers going either way.  Of course who knows whether any of these routes make economic sense today or 20 years from now but the lines on the map do look good!

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #463 on: October 11, 2018, 05:46:04 PM »

It's clear that B4 is dead -- although something down US 395 -- maybe all the way to the CA state line -- isn't out of the question.   And although Caltrans hasn't shown much inclination to engage in upgrades of US 395 north of Conway Summit, the best bet for a corridor connecting the Carson Valley to other points is still straight down that existing arterial rather than a new-terrain route through the mountains to the east.  The NV 208/US 95A combination has always seemed out of the way and never an efficient way to effect travel to the southeast (too much backtracking!); and the terrain that 208 traverses would require quite heroic (read outlandishly expensive) construction to achieve an upgrade to Interstate status.  That's likely reasons #1-20 why B4 was rejected. 

If Caltrans and its political handlers can be convinced to upgrade all of US 395 north from metro L.A. to the NV line at Topaz Lake to at least the standards seen in the Owens Valley, that might be more useful/valuable to Carson Valley residents, many of them CA "refugees", than a direct path to Las Vegas.  If they want to get to I-11, it's simply a matter of heading east on US 50 (itself being gradually improved, largely because of growth in the Silver Spring area).       
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 09:47:32 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #464 on: October 11, 2018, 11:05:27 PM »


If Caltrans and its political handlers can be convinced to upgrade all of US 395 north from metro L.A. to the NV line at Topaz Lake to at least the standards seen in the Owens Valley, that might be more useful/valuable to Carson Valley residents, many of them CA "refugees", than a direct path to Las Vegas.  If they want to get to I-11, it's simply a matter of heading east on US 50 (itself being gradually improved, largely because of growth in the Silver Spring area).       

So true regarding US 395. 

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

MantyMadTown

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 249
  • UW-Madison

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:20 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #465 on: October 12, 2018, 02:08:16 AM »

Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.
Logged
I just think that transportation should be improved everywhere

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #466 on: October 12, 2018, 02:13:58 AM »

Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.

I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1649
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: October 16, 2018, 08:43:29 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #467 on: October 12, 2018, 02:58:26 AM »

ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3479
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:48:19 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #468 on: October 12, 2018, 10:22:43 AM »

Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.

I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.

Bout damn time. I reported that error at least twice...  :pan:
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #469 on: October 12, 2018, 05:38:04 PM »

ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf

I perused that document at the PSU library shortly after it was published; ironically, on the way up from CA I used US 97 (97/58 was always my NB route of choice except in winter) and dodged a substantial number of logging trucks (and wishing the damn thing was at least 2+2 divided!).  At the time -- based on projections formulated prior to 2001 -- the conclusions were reasonably valid.  In regard to any US 395 alignment, in all probability they still are.  However, the growth of the Bend/Redmond area in the 17+ years since the release of the document -- while not rivaling in numbers or percentage such "boom" areas like the Boise/Treasure Valley region of Idaho -- is still significant -- and any transportation planning efforts should revisit at least the US 97 corridor concepts if the results of the 2020 census bear out the area's growth rate. 

That being said -- if it is decided to continue the I-11 corridor up into Oregon, aiming it at I-5 in the Rogue Valley, IMO, remains the most feasible way to "shunt" traffic from the main NW population areas over to the I-11 "shortcut" to Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.  The level of commercial traffic on US 97 -- at least as far north as Madras and the US 26 junction -- warrants at least a 4-lane expressway; a fully-Interstate-grade facility might be appropriate in the future; but for the present providing a divided expressway (possibly of the "Midwest" type, with short freeway segments around populated areas) to expedite the mix of commercial and recreational traffic would be sufficient (it could be upgraded if warranted down the line).   
Logged

MantyMadTown

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 249
  • UW-Madison

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:20 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #470 on: October 12, 2018, 07:25:40 PM »

Looks like Google Maps no longer considers the stretch of I-515 through Las Vegas to be part of I-11.

I think we addressed this in another I-11 thread -- someone had simply jumped the gun a bit when actually it'll be at least several months until a through-LV alignment for I-11 is selected; this has finally been addressed & corrected.

Bout damn time. I reported that error at least twice...  :pan:

Aw, I was looking forward to that alignment being part of I-11 :-(
Logged
I just think that transportation should be improved everywhere

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 09:47:32 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #471 on: October 12, 2018, 07:50:27 PM »

ODOT once studied an interstate following US 97 or US 395 through Oregon and found it wouldn't be particularly useful for freight.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf

I perused that document at the PSU library shortly after it was published; ironically, on the way up from CA I used US 97 (97/58 was always my NB route of choice except in winter) and dodged a substantial number of logging trucks (and wishing the damn thing was at least 2+2 divided!).  At the time -- based on projections formulated prior to 2001 -- the conclusions were reasonably valid.  In regard to any US 395 alignment, in all probability they still are.  However, the growth of the Bend/Redmond area in the 17+ years since the release of the document -- while not rivaling in numbers or percentage such "boom" areas like the Boise/Treasure Valley region of Idaho -- is still significant -- and any transportation planning efforts should revisit at least the US 97 corridor concepts if the results of the 2020 census bear out the area's growth rate. 

That being said -- if it is decided to continue the I-11 corridor up into Oregon, aiming it at I-5 in the Rogue Valley, IMO, remains the most feasible way to "shunt" traffic from the main NW population areas over to the I-11 "shortcut" to Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.  The level of commercial traffic on US 97 -- at least as far north as Madras and the US 26 junction -- warrants at least a 4-lane expressway; a fully-Interstate-grade facility might be appropriate in the future; but for the present providing a divided expressway (possibly of the "Midwest" type, with short freeway segments around populated areas) to expedite the mix of commercial and recreational traffic would be sufficient (it could be upgraded if warranted down the line).   

Once again, So True!  Bend's traffic is as congested as the SW PDX suburban traffic is so it seems like Bend itself needs a metro freeway system that is more than US 97.  At least ODOT will do US 97 in chunks by adding in 4-lane segments, then linking them up as the years go by.  62 in Medford got a freeway bypass for a short distance and it will be complete in December if all goes well with interchanges to be added later.  If 140 was an expressway, that would make for a higher volume connection between the Rogue Valley and the Klamath Basin. 

What does our region look like in 2040?  Then we will know what dots to connect.  How much of that works into an I-11?  I would sure love to know!

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Interstate Trav

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 385
  • Age: 31
  • Last Login: October 14, 2018, 02:35:24 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #472 on: October 14, 2018, 02:35:24 PM »

So the B4 option won't happen?

I wonder if Carson City and Reno would prefer to have that so they have a Major Interstate running through both of them.
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 234
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: October 14, 2018, 05:55:03 PM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #473 on: October 14, 2018, 05:49:56 PM »

The "Community Acceptance" section of the report says the comments received in the NDOT meetings were more negative in regard to B4 than to any of the alternatives.

Quote
Route B4

This alternative received a high level of negative public sentiment. Concerns with Route B4 were centered on traffic impacts to the already congested Reno/Sparks and Carson Valley areas. Many respondents felt this alternative would negatively impact the region’s traffic congestion. Another major concern included the difficulty in implementing a connection between Mason Valley and Carson Valley due to topographical constraints.

B4 is considered “not accepted.”

I live in Douglas County, where Minden and Gardnerville are located.  The loudest voices in the community tend to be very anti-growth, wanting to preserve the agricultural character of Carson Valley.  I think there's also an undercurrent of resentment against more Californians moving in, which would be the likely result of growth, especially since Californians tend to be liberal politically and Douglas County has a very high ratio of GOP registered voters to Democrat registered voters.  All local elected officials are Republicans.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4483
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:00 AM
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #474 on: October 14, 2018, 06:51:25 PM »

So the B4 option won't happen?

I wonder if Carson City and Reno would prefer to have that so they have a Major Interstate running through both of them.
The "Community Acceptance" section of the report says the comments received in the NDOT meetings were more negative in regard to B4 than to any of the alternatives.

Quote
Route B4

This alternative received a high level of negative public sentiment. Concerns with Route B4 were centered on traffic impacts to the already congested Reno/Sparks and Carson Valley areas. Many respondents felt this alternative would negatively impact the region’s traffic congestion. Another major concern included the difficulty in implementing a connection between Mason Valley and Carson Valley due to topographical constraints.

B4 is considered “not accepted.”

I live in Douglas County, where Minden and Gardnerville are located.  The loudest voices in the community tend to be very anti-growth, wanting to preserve the agricultural character of Carson Valley.  I think there's also an undercurrent of resentment against more Californians moving in, which would be the likely result of growth, especially since Californians tend to be liberal politically and Douglas County has a very high ratio of GOP registered voters to Democrat registered voters.  All local elected officials are Republicans.

Ironically, many of the California residents seeking new homes in the mountain states (and TX, for that matter) are more conservative types who are looking to relocate in areas that reflect their viewpoints -- although that is more often than not a secondary consideration after the sheer differences in cost of living.  I do know a few folks of the more liberal variety who are moving east, but they're aiming for Reno, which provides a more urban environment.  Since the south end of the Carson Valley (Minden, Gardnerville, etc.) is mostly larger "ranch"-style properties, it's not difficult to see that an Interstate-grade freeway through their midst might evoke mixed reaction -- while there's the NIMBY factor, particularly if it's one's own land that would be appropriated for the corridor, there's also not the generalist "anti-freeway" factor found within urban circles.  If a freeway paralleling US 395 could somehow minimize taking of improved property, it would probably be accepted, if a bit grudgingly.  But the conservative nature of the area likely came into play with the projected fiscal costs of a cross-mountain connection over to Yerington and Walker Lake -- not enough valley residents were willing to spend a huge chunk of their reluctantly-parted-with tax dollars to get to Vegas a couple of hours quicker!  Looks like the value of I-11 is seen as a reasonably regional commercial corridor in addition to its long-distance role; not going directly into Reno and adding to the congestion there may just be seen as a saving grace.  The Fallon/Fernley area is seen as a "close enough to work" connection point; like horseshoes, it's a "leaner" that can amass points!     
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.