Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[splashflash]

It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown.  Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/

[sparker]

It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown.  Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/

Watch out for the paywall -- the article flashes on for about 3 seconds, then a subscription request appears in its place.  But from what I could see, this principally concerns replacing or rebuilding the sections adjacent to the "Spaghetti Bowl"/I-15 interchange from Rancho Road west of the interchange to Mojave Road east of it, including the viaduct over M.L. King Blvd which, AFAIK, is part of the original US 95/I-515 construction.  Wonder if this foreshadows the alignment choice for I-11 -- would NDOT undertake a project of this magnitude unless there was a reasonable level of certitude that US 95 was the clear front-runner, if not the obvious selection. 

[Sub-Urbanite]

It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown.  Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/

Watch out for the paywall -- the article flashes on for about 3 seconds, then a subscription request appears in its place.  But from what I could see, this principally concerns replacing or rebuilding the sections adjacent to the "Spaghetti Bowl"/I-15 interchange from Rancho Road west of the interchange to Mojave Road east of it, including the viaduct over M.L. King Blvd which, AFAIK, is part of the original US 95/I-515 construction.  Wonder if this foreshadows the alignment choice for I-11 -- would NDOT undertake a project of this magnitude unless there was a reasonable level of certitude that US 95 was the clear front-runner, if not the obvious selection.

NDOT has been studying this for some time, dating back to the late 1990s. The downtown viaduct is particularly problematic — that thing freaking heaves when you're driving it because of the amount of heat expansion built into it. And, to be honest, the viaduct itself was probably unnecessary for more than about a half mile through the core of downtown.

[rte66man]

It looks like US 95 will have more major work done on it, but in downtown.  Once finished innfour or five years, maybe it will be ready to be branded I-11.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/plans-advance-for-major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-2102284/

Watch out for the paywall -- the article flashes on for about 3 seconds, then a subscription request appears in its place.  But from what I could see, this principally concerns replacing or rebuilding the sections adjacent to the "Spaghetti Bowl"/I-15 interchange from Rancho Road west of the interchange to Mojave Road east of it, including the viaduct over M.L. King Blvd which, AFAIK, is part of the original US 95/I-515 construction.  Wonder if this foreshadows the alignment choice for I-11 -- would NDOT undertake a project of this magnitude unless there was a reasonable level of certitude that US 95 was the clear front-runner, if not the obvious selection.

NDOT has been studying this for some time, dating back to the late 1990s. The downtown viaduct is particularly problematic — that thing freaking heaves when you're driving it because of the amount of heat expansion built into it. And, to be honest, the viaduct itself was probably unnecessary for more than about a half mile through the core of downtown.

Probably true but that was the style when it was designed. I would say they didn't know any better but.......

[andy3175]

Update on the public process for possible Interstate 11 alignments east of Las Vegas, should the highway go on that direction:

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2020/09/09/i-11-through-lake-mead-rec-area-no-please-say-residents-conservationists/

Environmental groups and City of Henderson residents are fighting a proposal to build a freeway through the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and eastern Henderson.

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is moving forward with the development of the Interstate 11 Corridor Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement meant to study the impact of a planned freeway that would travel through the Las Vegas metropolitan area.

The project is in the scoping phase, a period used to identify and develop corridor alternatives. One of the current proposed alternatives, the "eastern alternative corridor"  would potentially run through either the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Clark County Wetlands Park, or along the border of the City of Henderson. ...

Conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and the National Parks Conservation Association, say NDOT's proposed eastern alignments of the highway would harm more than just Henderson neighborhoods, but also endanger protected public lands and the habitat of imperiled wildlife.

Many of the proposed eastern alignments cross Lake Mead National Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park Service that includes habitat for desert bighorn sheep and the Las Vegas bearpoppy, a rare native desert flower that has disappeared across much of the Mojave Desert. ...

Other proposed eastern alignments for the planned freeway go through Rainbow Gardens east of the Las Vegas Valley, a region classified by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as an "area of critical environmental concern,"  largely due to the presence of the poppy. 

Map of the various corridors under study for Interstate 11 in and around Las Vegas:

[sprjus4]

Not necessarily against the construction of an eastern loop independent of I-11 (perhaps an I-x11), though it seems logical the I-11 designation should simply follow the I-515 / US-95 freeway through Las Vegas.

[Plutonic Panda]

I am a big supporter of I-11 taking the route of 515 through DTLV but if I-11 gets us an eastern LV loop I'd support that in a heartbeat!

[michravera]

I am a big supporter of I-11 taking the route of 515 through DTLV but if I-11 gets us an eastern LV loop I'd support that in a heartbeat!

What I need from I-11 is Reno to Vegas in 5 hours in safety. The route near Las Vegas is of secondary importance to me.

[Plutonic Panda]

I am a big supporter of I-11 taking the route of 515 through DTLV but if I-11 gets us an eastern LV loop I'd support that in a heartbeat!

What I need from I-11 is Reno to Vegas in 5 hours in safety. The route near Las Vegas is of secondary importance to me.

I hear you but regardless the direct route of 515 will be available whether signed I-11 or not. If political will to build an eastern belt in Vegas is motivated by an I-11 designation then that literally changed nothing for you but a route number.

With that being said, I will be extremely, albeit pleasantly, surprised if an eastern LV loop freeway is constructed.

[sparker]

The simplest solution -- and the most rational, IMO, is to simply overlay US 95/I-515 with I-11 through town.  An eastern bypass, if built (and there's ample reason to not build it, much of which is outlined in the cited article), would be best designated as an extension of I-215  -- if it directly connects to the 215 corridor at one end -- or another x11 or x15 if not.  Now I can understand the principal rationale for not going directly through the center of town, particularly if I-11 even comes close to its backers' projected commercial truck flow -- but to consider an environmentally precarious route to avoid that seems an overreaction compounded by bad judgment.  There's a reason why the 215 bypass is configured as a 3/4 loop -- there's no good way to deploy an east-side connector in this venue. 

[roadfro]

Many of the green lines on this map I have not seen before in reference to eastern I-11 alternatives. The most intriguing to me is a path that starts either near the southern 215 terminus or near the east side of Henderson, goes north through Wetlands Park (I had no idea the Wetlands Park was that big...), and hugs the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains through the Sunrise Manor area, then curves to the northern terminus of CC 215 just north of Nellis AFB. That seems semi-feasible as a potential eastern beltway/US 93 reroute (remember the CANAMEX corridor?), concerns of Henderson residents and impacts to Wetlands Park not withstanding–it's too bad this wasn't studied as an eastern beltway alternative years ago, cause it may have had a better shot of actually happening.

That said, the US 95 or south/west 215 alignment still seems like a better choice for I-11.

[michravera]

Many of the green lines on this map I have not seen before in reference to eastern I-11 alternatives. The most intriguing to me is a path that starts either near the southern 215 terminus or near the east side of Henderson, goes north through Wetlands Park (I had no idea the Wetlands Park was that big...), and hugs the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains through the Sunrise Manor area, then curves to the northern terminus of CC 215 just north of Nellis AFB. That seems semi-feasible as a potential eastern beltway/US 93 reroute (remember the CANAMEX corridor?), concerns of Henderson residents and impacts to Wetlands Park not withstanding–it's too bad this wasn't studied as an eastern beltway alternative years ago, cause it may have had a better shot of actually happening.

That said, the US 95 or south/west 215 alignment still seems like a better choice for I-11.

As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing  the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.

That said, I would suggest that I-11 be used to get traffic as far from Vegas as soon as possible and as far from Vegas into Vegas as soon as possible. I don't see why we should run it through downtown, but, if it gets the rest of the road built, fine.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Many of the green lines on this map I have not seen before in reference to eastern I-11 alternatives. The most intriguing to me is a path that starts either near the southern 215 terminus or near the east side of Henderson, goes north through Wetlands Park (I had no idea the Wetlands Park was that big...), and hugs the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains through the Sunrise Manor area, then curves to the northern terminus of CC 215 just north of Nellis AFB. That seems semi-feasible as a potential eastern beltway/US 93 reroute (remember the CANAMEX corridor?), concerns of Henderson residents and impacts to Wetlands Park not withstanding–it's too bad this wasn't studied as an eastern beltway alternative years ago, cause it may have had a better shot of actually happening.

That said, the US 95 or south/west 215 alignment still seems like a better choice for I-11.

As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing  the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.

That said, I would suggest that I-11 be used to get traffic as far from Vegas as soon as possible and as far from Vegas into Vegas as soon as possible. I don't see why we should run it through downtown, but, if it gets the rest of the road built, fine.

Yes, I think this is right. I also think, in the case of I-11 — the through-route is already there. US 95 / I-515 isn't going anywhere. So it's a net-neutral to put I-11 through the city rather than use I-215.

[kkt]

As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing  the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.

Yes, but there might be a better example of what you're saying since I-5 does miss San Jose, Oakland, S.F., and Fresno.  Routing too far west of Stockton would call for going through a lot of the wetlands of the Delta, a cost and environmental problem.  There is a good case that it should have gone west of West Sacramento, maybe through Davis or Webster.

[US 89]

I just don't see the benefit in signing I-11 over the west half of the I/CC 215 beltway, because all that does is it results in more numbers to worry about. The average driver may have a hard time with the idea that following the same NW/SE freeway will take them on I-11, then I-515, then US 95, then back to I-11. Just seems like unnecessary confusion to me. Plus 215 is already a very well-known designation for the entire belt route.

From a numbering standpoint, it would be far simpler to just give each of the three major LV freeways its own number, keeping the entire beltway as 215 and designating the entire NW-SE corridor as I-11.

[nexus73]

As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing  the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.

Yes, but there might be a better example of what you're saying since I-5 does miss San Jose, Oakland, S.F., and Fresno.  Routing too far west of Stockton would call for going through a lot of the wetlands of the Delta, a cost and environmental problem.  There is a good case that it should have gone west of West Sacramento, maybe through Davis or Webster.

That's a great idea!

Rick

[sparker]

As I have said in other threads on this forum, knowing what we know now, if we had been designing  the Interstate system today, especially in the West, we would have had most of the new construction completely bypass cities and run a wide (probably 3di) into the cities. I-5, for instance, would have run considerably west of its current align north of Stockton (approximately where I-505 is) and used 3dis to get to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento. Nevermind running the Interstate though poor neighborhoods, we'd have run it through no neighborhoods and let the locals argue about the local spur.

Yes, but there might be a better example of what you're saying since I-5 does miss San Jose, Oakland, S.F., and Fresno.  Routing too far west of Stockton would call for going through a lot of the wetlands of the Delta, a cost and environmental problem.  There is a good case that it should have gone west of West Sacramento, maybe through Davis or Webster.

The original I-5 plans had it crossing the Sacramento River south of William Land Park, near the current Fruitridge interchange, crossing the original I-80 approximately at the I-80/US 50 interchange, following the east side of the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility up to just south of where CA 16 crossed the Bypass at ground level (it flooded when the bypass was in use), where it would turn west to follow CA 16 to Woodland.  That plan was stymied when the Ship Channel expansion was proposed, which would have necessitated a high-level bridge over that waterway as well as one over the Sacramento River.  Of course, the downtown Sacramento alignment now in use was eventually selected, abetted by the city of Sacramento's desire to make their waterfront district a tourist attraction, with I-5 for immediate access.  But if the aim were to avoid city centers, the proximity of the Delta to Stockton may well have driven I-5 eastward, possibly coinciding with US/CA 99 until somewhere between Stockton and Lodi. 

But back to the matter at hand -- US 95 is an Interstate (or close)-standard facility for its entire length between the two interchanges with the 215 loop; there's nothing to be lost regarding interface with the local community by simply running I-11 on it.  Some LV tourist interests may prefer running it over the western portion of the 215 loop to get it nearer the Strip hotel/casinos, but the chances are that the entire loop as currently planned will eventually be I-215. 

[kkt]

The original I-5 plans had it crossing the Sacramento River south of William Land Park, near the current Fruitridge interchange, crossing the original I-80 approximately at the I-80/US 50 interchange, following the east side of the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility up to just south of where CA 16 crossed the Bypass at ground level (it flooded when the bypass was in use), where it would turn west to follow CA 16 to Woodland.  That plan was stymied when the Ship Channel expansion was proposed, which would have necessitated a high-level bridge over that waterway as well as one over the Sacramento River.  Of course, the downtown Sacramento alignment now in use was eventually selected, abetted by the city of Sacramento's desire to make their waterfront district a tourist attraction, with I-5 for immediate access.  But if the aim were to avoid city centers, the proximity of the Delta to Stockton may well have driven I-5 eastward, possibly coinciding with US/CA 99 until somewhere between Stockton and Lodi. 

Thank you for this!  Not for the first time, I curse how few water features Google Maps labels.  But it is what it is, I've got it worked out now.

[roadfro]

But back to the matter at hand -- US 95 is an Interstate (or close)-standard facility for its entire length between the two interchanges with the 215 loop; there's nothing to be lost regarding interface with the local community by simply running I-11 on it.  Some LV tourist interests may prefer running it over the western portion of the 215 loop to get it nearer the Strip hotel/casinos, but the chances are that the entire loop as currently planned will eventually be I-215.

Yes, US 95 is mostly Interstate standard. There's some short stretches with minimal shoulder widths (mostly through interchanges), and a couple less-than-optimal ramps near downtown (which with NDOT's Downtown Access Project in early stages are planned to be addressed), but otherwise it hits all the marks.

The plan has always been for the entire CC 215 to become I-215, and for the county to turn it over to NDOT (likely in exchange for NDOT offloading more arterial roadway mileage to the county), once the whole loop is built to freeway standards. Finishing all phases of the US 95 interchange is going to be the final upgrade hurdle.

[silverback1065]

why would they choose any of the green routes? also when will 215 be done?

[sparker]

why would they choose any of the green routes? also when will 215 be done?

My guess regarding why the "green" east side routes were in consideration to begin with is (a) a simple desire for a full beltway around LV (albeit one that partially multiplexes with the existing I-11), and (b) the fact that I-11 to the southeast and I-15 to the northeast are part of the "Canamax" corridor (HPC #26, the "vehicle" for the original I-11 designation), and someone thought it would be a good idea to expedite movement between the two corridor sections by providing a more direct connection, which an eastside routing would do.  Of course, the fact that it would intersect I-11 out near Boulder City is due to the near-saturation development on the east side of LV and Henderson that occupies much of the easily traversable land -- and most DOT's avoid employing eminent domain like the plague these days, particularly with relatively new housing. 

As far as the 215 schedule -- that's something that roadfro might have some insight into!     

[roadfro]

why would they choose any of the green routes? also when will 215 be done?

My guess regarding why the "green" east side routes were in consideration to begin with is (a) a simple desire for a full beltway around LV (albeit one that partially multiplexes with the existing I-11), and (b) the fact that I-11 to the southeast and I-15 to the northeast are part of the "Canamax" corridor (HPC #26, the "vehicle" for the original I-11 designation), and someone thought it would be a good idea to expedite movement between the two corridor sections by providing a more direct connection, which an eastside routing would do.  Of course, the fact that it would intersect I-11 out near Boulder City is due to the near-saturation development on the east side of LV and Henderson that occupies much of the easily traversable land -- and most DOT's avoid employing eminent domain like the plague these days, particularly with relatively new housing.

The original high-level I-11 corridor study looked at several possible route corridors through/around the Vegas area, based on alignments of existing roadways and existing development. There were many potential east side routes as well, many of which were eliminated early on as problematic environmentally (impacts to Lake Mead NRA) or difficultly for construction through mountainous terrain. I don't recall in the original study any east side lines actually traversing the interior/Vegas side of Sunrise & Frenchman Mountains–first glimpse I recall of something like that being this map.

I believe some entity (I think NDOT, but could have been Clark County) did a feasibility study in the mid-2000s for an eastern beltway leg. That was not studied further as the concepts were coming with a billion-dollar price tag and exorbitant right-of-way acquisition costs through the more densely developed parts of town (note that the I-215 between its south end and SR 146 was built on old SR 146 alignment and virtually all of the CC 215 portion was built in areas that were undeveloped in the mid 1990s, so right of way costs for the whole facility were relatively low). So there hasn't ever really been any significant talk of an eastern beltway.

Sparker mentioned the CANAMEX Corridor as a potential rationale. I haven't heard any mentions of that corridor from NDOT in some time. But the I-11 study I believe makes reference to it–and while the study recommends I-11 follow the US 95 corridor through Nevada, also makes mention that the US 93 Nevada corridor through the state is another important north-south corridor that may need attention.

With those two ideas in consideration, these east side concepts become very intriguing. The alignments that go east of the mountains and outside of the valley through Lake Mead NRA don't have much utility for transportation in the urban area, and would only really be beneficial for through traffic utilizing US 93 or the CANAMEX corridor from Arizona to points north–through traffic on I-11 from Arizona northward to northwestern Nevada would face more miles this way as opposed to going through Vegas. But the east side lines in the valley are further east than what I remember seeing in the eastern beltway feasibility report, and hugging the foothills along the east valley could provide utility for both US 93/CANAMEX and local freeway access while also being somewhat comparable in mileage to the other through-town I-11 options.

also when will 215 be done?

As far as the 215 schedule -- that's something that roadfro might have some insight into!   

The entire 215 loop is now freeway standard with the exception of two areas:
(1) The vicinity through the US 95 interchange. There are direct access ramps under construction now, which is the third phase of a four phase NDOT project for upgrading the junction to a system interchange. The fourth phase, which will complete the 215 freeway mainline through the interchange, just began and is expected to be completed in early 2024.
(2) The north terminus at the northern I-15 interchange. Conversion to a system interchange is under construction now with scheduled completion near the end of 2022.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
If my understanding of the situation is correct, when these projects are completed and the 215 loop is a continuous 3/4 loop around LV -- and barring an I-11 reroute over a portion of it -- that loop will be submitted, and if approved, subsequently signed, as I-215. 

[The Ghostbuster]

The Bruce Woodbury Beltway, when fully completed, should be solely signed as Interstate 215. Interstate 11 should follow Interstate 515 and US 95 throughout the Las Vegas area.

[sparker]

The Bruce Woodbury Beltway, when fully completed, should be solely signed as Interstate 215. Interstate 11 should follow Interstate 515 and US 95 throughout the Las Vegas area.

That would, IMO, be the optimal situation -- and save NDOT some bucks constructing a connector from the NW corner of the beltway to US 95 north of there.  But if for some reason the western beltway is selected, then the portion hosting I-11 should be just that: solely I-11, with I-215 signed on the northern leg between I-11 and I-15.