Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north

[Max Rockatansky]

Which was largely done in areas affected by the Northridge Earthquake. Besides, a little two lane action on San Francisquito Canyon Road and Angeles Forest Highway never hurt anyone (except those who wrecked, especially on the latter).

[Sub-Urbanite]

America is too cheap to truly harden I-5 for a large earthquake. It's going to be out for weeks to months after a large Cascadia or San Joaquin event.

IMHO the earthquake reason is the biggest reason to complete it - to provide a backup connection from the 10 and 40 corridors in the event I-5 fails.

Not, say, reinforcing overpasses on I-5?

[roadfro]

I live-posted my reactions on the wiki Discord as I delved into this contract. (Sorry, NDOT, this is just what happens when your state gains roadgeeks.) Here's a summary of what I noticed (some observations have already been made in this thread):

<snip>


What's the point of having a state route designation if you're not gonna show it off? This omission, as well as some other signs further on, led Jonathan Winkler to theorize that NDOT was being careful to avoid exceeding the footprint of the existing signage, either to save costs or avoid pushing the old Caltrans-style trusses past their tolerances or both. (More wind loading stuff with these trusses. I gotta say, the Oklahoma standard truss is butt-ugly, but I've seen the damn things make it through EF-5 tornadoes unscathed. Maybe the other DOTs should ask them to share the spec around.) In any case, that would explain some of the weirdness with a few of these layouts, so I'm inclined to agree.

When I first saw this sign when the US 95/Summerlin HOV connector was finished, that it was the most Caltrans sign NDOT ever had installed. Spacing looks even slightly worse on the new panel due to the larger arrow. I do think in most cases they were trying to keep the replacement signage within the existing panel area, which led to wonkiness or poor design decisions.

With these Summerlin Pkwy signs though, there really isn't an excuse. The first sign with the down arrow is installed on a bridge (not a sign truss), and looks like they originally envisioned a wider sign here. The second is on a very wide sign truss, and could accommodate some extra width. So they could have easily have widened the signs to accommodate a SR 613 shield. I can maybe give them a pass on that, since the main exit signs for Summerlin Pkwy don't have SR 613 shields either...but they could've done that replacement in this project too...

The sign truss for the second sign seems to have a slightly shorter depth than normal. But I don't think wind loading is a factor here. Heck, the massive APL sign on I-15 north is installed on a standard truss...

Oh, you know, just your average everyday 70-foot-wide sign. "I've never been to Martin L King, Nevada, but I hear it's lovely this time of year," remarked wiki regular (and occasional forum poster) Moabdave.

Another oddity that is just perpetuated with the new signage. "M L King Blvd" would've been better, or reduce the text size to fit "Blvd" in.

The list of sins one can enjoy in Sin City is very long, but somewhere on there is "reducing character spacing to cheap out on a sign panel."

This is an almost direct copy of the existing sign, sinful character spacing and all. Only difference I see is that they put in the half space between "76" and "A" on the exit tab.

The way they designed the adjacent sign for I-15 south/MLK, it looks like they could have reduced the sign panel width for exit 76 B/C to allow a slightly wider panel width and better character spacing for this 76A sign.

???

All the surface street signing for the Rancho Drive SPUI leaves a lot to be desired...and it's only worse with the new signage.


Part of me wants to email NDOT and suggest fixes...

[roadfro]

Las Vegas' Fox5 News reports on the I-11 signage changeover.

Interstate 11 signs going up in Las Vegas; Mexico-to-Canada interstate plans move forward - 5/21/2024

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico, and it definitely won't come anywhere near the Canadian border. While NV 157 may or may not be 11's permanent northern terminus, the furthest I see it potentially going is Armargosa Valley, and even that may be optimistic (I'm sure the aliens may have something to say about it as well).

[pderocco]

Another oddity that is just perpetuated with the new signage. "M L King Blvd" would've been better, or reduce the text size to fit "Blvd" in.

I think the most common way of writing that, around the country, is "M.L.K. Blvd".

[kkt]

I don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico, and it definitely won't come anywhere near the Canadian border. While NV 157 may or may not be 11's permanent northern terminus, the furthest I see it potentially going is Armargosa Valley, and even that may be optimistic (I'm sure the aliens may have something to say about it as well).

Agreed.  Nevada DOT ought to train their spokesman to think before he speaks.

[KeithE4Phx]

I don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico...

Neither do I.  In fact, I believe it has only a slim chance of being built south of I-40, and almost no chance of being built south of I-8, or even I-10. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  US 93 between I-40 and Wickenburg will be upgraded to 4 lanes the entire way, but as far as upgrading to full Interstate standards... there are too many ranch turnoffs, not enough traffic, and only a few potential interchanges (existing intersections at AZ 89, 71, and 97, plus a new one at Wickieup) to make it worthwhile.

[cl94]

Re: the new signs, Nevada has made some...interesting decisions with signs lately. Many of the replace in kind items along 80 and 580 are disgusting (apart from the new signs along 80 that reference Old US 40 and SR 425, those can stay). Plenty of option lanes that were signed on the old sign, but no longer are despite partial APLs now being allowed. Many of the new signs look quite cramped, as if Caltrans designed them.

And as far as numbers go, do not expect them to be posted along a freeway in developed areas unless the road leads well outside of a developed area, even on new signs. There are plenty of decently-signed routes that lack signs along freeways. See: SRs 427 and 443. Heck, US 395A doesn't get acknowledged from I-580 apart from a few standalone shields, even on signs that went up within the past year. District 1 is a little better than District 2 with posting numbers, but not a ton better.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[vdeane]

Re: the new signs, Nevada has made some...interesting decisions with signs lately. Many of the replace in kind items along 80 and 580 are disgusting (apart from the new signs along 80 that reference Old US 40 and SR 425, those can stay). Plenty of option lanes that were signed on the old sign, but no longer are despite partial APLs now being allowed. Many of the new signs look quite cramped, as if Caltrans designed them.

And as far as numbers go, do not expect them to be posted along a freeway in developed areas unless the road leads well outside of a developed area, even on new signs. There are plenty of decently-signed routes that lack signs along freeways. See: SRs 427 and 443. Heck, US 395A doesn't get acknowledged from I-580 apart from a few standalone shields, even on signs that went up within the past year. District 1 is a little better than District 2 with posting numbers, but not a ton better.

(personal opinion emphasized)

And all this right as CalTrans is starting to learn how to make better signs... it's as if they stole NDOT's mojo!

I find the comparison to Oklahoma earlier interesting too.  Right now my impressions is that they're different flavors of bad.  Oklahoma includes the information they need, but can't get the text size/case/positions right, so the signs look bad, while NDOT signs aesthetically look great, but are missing information, have inconsistent control cities, or exit numbers that used to make sense but no longer do.

[Scott5114]

I think NDOT is more "quirky" than "bad". Most of the stuff that seems weird tends to reflect local usage more closely than the formal completeness most DOTs design toward. I mean, it's kind of silly that NV 613 isn't signed, but on the other hand, it's not like anyone actually calls it NV 613. Going the other direction, it's kinda weird that the combined ramp to Rainbow Blvd. and Summerlin Parkway is just signed as "Rainbow–Summerlin", but people all over the country drop street name suffixes in casual speech, and Summerlin Parkway does go to Summerlin, so...would the line break and two extra words actually help anyone if they were there?

[cl94]

That. NDOT generally sees little use in signing redundant designations if there is a local name already in use because that a) costs more money and b) creates the potential for confusion. In the case of urban arterials, nobody uses the number, so why create more sign clutter along congested urban freeways? The best you'll get is a few standalone shields, which are generally present apart from the shortest routes.

And again, this differs significantly by NDOT district. 1 and 2 are much less likely to post numbers than 3, though all have at least 1 route that isn't acknowledged along a freeway despite being signed on the surface. But since 3 is mostly (all, if you don't count Elko) rural, people will use numbers because there is no name.

[vdeane]

Well, they're certainly not going to use NV 613 if it's not signed.  If things are signed, local parlance will shift eventually.  When I was growing up, nobody used exit numbers around Rochester (it turns out the exit numbers were only assigned ~5-10 years before I was born).  These days, they're much more commonly used.  And what if someone is from out of town and is looking for a number?

And then there's the issues with using different control cities on different signs for the same stretch of road and retaining the US 95 exit numbers on I-11 for no reason.  If they really don't want exit 99 out there on its own, just take the number down.  Don't turn I-11 into the I-87 of Nevada just so that number can be part of a sequence.

[cl94]

Problem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century. Hell, even in more rural areas, there are numbered roads few locals know the number of. NV 207 comes to mind: nobody local apart from NDOT or stuff I write for my employer will ever use the number, and it makes sense to prominently use the name (Kingsbury Grade).

NY will primarily sign number, which confuses the heck out of people who get directions from locals. See western NY 24, which normal people from Nassau County never refer to by number, but signs have only shown the number for decades. A local will say "get off at Hempstead Turnpike", not "get off at NY 24".

[vdeane]

Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item.

That guidance uses "should" and not "shall", so I wouldn't say that one needs to be dropped, especially as the support statement is clearly oriented around rural areas and small towns, not major metro areas.  That could be a justification for listing both anyways.  That said, does destination really need to be included when within a metro area?  The locals already know where they're going, and travelers aren't going to know every random community name, just the major city.  They could also use supplemental signage for the destinations.

This may be the reason why NYSDOT Regions 4-5 avoid destination legends for the most part outside of rural areas and freeways.

Section 2E.15 Amount of Legend on Guide Signs
Guidance:
01 No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Interchange Advance Guide
sign or Exit Direction sign. A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. Where two or three
signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or street names should be limited to one per sign, or to a total
of three in the display. Sign legends should not exceed three lines of copy, exclusive of the exit number and action
or distance information.
Support:
02 Where    only    one    interchange    serves    a    community,    the    intersecting    street    name    is    generally    superfluous    to    the   
city    name    on    the    Interchange    Advance    guide    and    Exit    Direction    signs.    Where    a    community    is    served    by    multiple   
interchanges,    the    city    name    is    typically    displayed    on    either    a    Community    Interchanges    Identification    sign    (see   
Section    2E.52)    or    a    Next    Exits    sign    (see    Section    2E.53)    .    Each    interchange    is    then    identified    by    its    intersecting   
roadway    name    on    the    Interchange    Advance    guide    and    Exit    Direction    signs    rather    than    by    the    city    name.

[ClassicHasClass]

And all this right as CalTrans is starting to learn how to make better signs...

Clearly you and I are not seeing the same sets of signs, he says glumly (*ahem*district 8*ahem*).

[roadfro]

Problem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century.

That guidance uses "should" and not "shall", so I wouldn't say that one needs to be dropped, especially as the support statement is clearly oriented around rural areas and small towns, not major metro areas.  That could be a justification for listing both anyways.  That said, does destination really need to be included when within a metro area?  The locals already know where they're going, and travelers aren't going to know every random community name, just the major city.  They could also use supplemental signage for the destinations.

For Summerlin Pkwy, there is no point along the mainline or intersecting roads/freeways where signage for Summerlin Pkwy includes a destination city—and that makes sense, given how distinctly urban the freeway is (it's entirely in Las Vegas throughout). However, since NDOT took over maintenance of Summerlin Pkwy from City of Las Vegas a few years ago, the state highway number now appears on maps, and recent projects have installed SR 613 reassurance shields on the freeway itself as well as SR 613 references on intersecting side streets (via "freeway entrance" sign packages that did not exist before, as well as on a few recently-replaced side street BGSs).

From that perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable that NDOT could have replaced the main "Summerlin Pkwy" signs on US 95 with signs reading "[SR 613] Summerlin Pkwy"—similar to how SR 146/St Rose Pkwy and SR 564/Lake Mead Pkwy are signed along freeways elsewhere in the Vegas area—as part of the I-11 signing project. This would've achieved an apparent NDOT goal of signing SR 613 in the field at its east end, and would retain the Summerlin Pkwy common name on signing. For the northbound US 95 & I-11 direction, the revised sign legend can easily fit within the existing panel's dimensions—the southbound signs probably would need to be wider, but there's plenty of space for that on the existing sign structures.

[DenverBrian]

Problem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century. Hell, even in more rural areas, there are numbered roads few locals know the number of. NV 207 comes to mind: nobody local apart from NDOT or stuff I write for my employer will ever use the number, and it makes sense to prominently use the name (Kingsbury Grade).

NY will primarily sign number, which confuses the heck out of people who get directions from locals. See western NY 24, which normal people from Nassau County never refer to by number, but signs have only shown the number for decades. A local will say "get off at Hempstead Turnpike", not "get off at NY 24".

A local can say "get off at the puppies and unicorns" if they want. NO ONE is asking a local for directions anymore. It's all in one of several map apps on your phone.

[vdeane]

And all this right as CalTrans is starting to learn how to make better signs...

Clearly you and I are not seeing the same sets of signs, he says glumly (*ahem*district 8*ahem*).

I was thinking of the newer style signs with external exit tabs.  Then again, those aren't universal yet even on new installs.

Problem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century. Hell, even in more rural areas, there are numbered roads few locals know the number of. NV 207 comes to mind: nobody local apart from NDOT or stuff I write for my employer will ever use the number, and it makes sense to prominently use the name (Kingsbury Grade).

NY will primarily sign number, which confuses the heck out of people who get directions from locals. See western NY 24, which normal people from Nassau County never refer to by number, but signs have only shown the number for decades. A local will say "get off at Hempstead Turnpike", not "get off at NY 24".

A local can say "get off at the puppies and unicorns" if they want. NO ONE is asking a local for directions anymore. It's all in one of several map apps on your phone.

If they said "turn right at the cow in the road" and the farmer sold his land, are they obligated to install a cow statue so the directions would still make sense?

[US 395]

Problem is, if the number is what is primarily signed, it will confuse people receiving directions if local convention is to use name. Putting name, number, and destination on one sign isn't kosher anymore, so one needs to be dropped. Makes the most sense to drop the least-used item. Nevada is not the only western state that will minimize the number when it makes sense to, though Nevada is one of the few west of the Plains to have a significant urban arterial network on the system. As with much of the country, numbers are not used in the urban west apart from freeways, even if the number has been signed for a century.

That guidance uses "should" and not "shall", so I wouldn't say that one needs to be dropped, especially as the support statement is clearly oriented around rural areas and small towns, not major metro areas.  That could be a justification for listing both anyways.  That said, does destination really need to be included when within a metro area?  The locals already know where they're going, and travelers aren't going to know every random community name, just the major city.  They could also use supplemental signage for the destinations.

For Summerlin Pkwy, there is no point along the mainline or intersecting roads/freeways where signage for Summerlin Pkwy includes a destination city—and that makes sense, given how distinctly urban the freeway is (it's entirely in Las Vegas throughout). However, since NDOT took over maintenance of Summerlin Pkwy from City of Las Vegas a few years ago, the state highway number now appears on maps, and recent projects have installed SR 613 reassurance shields on the freeway itself as well as SR 613 references on intersecting side streets (via "freeway entrance" sign packages that did not exist before, as well as on a few recently-replaced side street BGSs).

From that perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable that NDOT could have replaced the main "Summerlin Pkwy" signs on US 95 with signs reading "[SR 613] Summerlin Pkwy"—similar to how SR 146/St Rose Pkwy and SR 564/Lake Mead Pkwy are signed along freeways elsewhere in the Vegas area—as part of the I-11 signing project. This would've achieved an apparent NDOT goal of signing SR 613 in the field at its east end, and would retain the Summerlin Pkwy common name on signing. For the northbound US 95 & I-11 direction, the revised sign legend can easily fit within the existing panel's dimensions—the southbound signs probably would need to be wider, but there's plenty of space for that on the existing sign structures.

Just the other day, I did see a freeway entrance sign package for Summerlin Parkway. Saw it on Buffalo. I'm like, about time.
I don't see exit numbers ever going up though.

[US 395]

I don't think Interstate 11 will reach Mexico...

Neither do I.  In fact, I believe it has only a slim chance of being built south of I-40, and almost no chance of being built south of I-8, or even I-10. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  US 93 between I-40 and Wickenburg will be upgraded to 4 lanes the entire way, but as far as upgrading to full Interstate standards... there are too many ranch turnoffs, not enough traffic, and only a few potential interchanges (existing intersections at AZ 89, 71, and 97, plus a new one at Wickieup) to make it worthwhile.

In my personal opinion, I find I-11 pointless. I agree on US 93 being built out as a four lane (divided and/or undivided) highway. Should be more than enough. I'd rather 11 be intrastate and go between Reno and Vegas and even that is essentially impossible to justify. I honestly don't ever see it reaching Mexico, let alone Canada.

[Plutonic Panda]

Local news article on I-11: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/05/22/interstate-11-signs-going-up-las-vegas-mexico-to-canada-interstate-plans-move-forward/

[kkt]

Local news article on I-11: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/05/22/interstate-11-signs-going-up-las-vegas-mexico-to-canada-interstate-plans-move-forward/

Same press release, different day.

[pderocco]

Does NDOT really say that it "will" go all the way to Mexico and Canada? That attitude reminds me of those extravagant developments that daft dreamers launch out in the desert that remain giant webs of little paths scratched in the dirt fifty years later. No, I think I-11 will end up being a respectable road, at best comparable to I-8.

[vdeane]

Does NDOT really say that it "will" go all the way to Mexico and Canada? That attitude reminds me of those extravagant developments that daft dreamers launch out in the desert that remain giant webs of little paths scratched in the dirt fifty years later. No, I think I-11 will end up being a respectable road, at best comparable to I-8.

I don't think so.  I don't think I've ever read any proposal to extend I-11 north of I-80 outside of users here pontificating.  In fact, doesn't the Canada-Mexico corridor often citied with I-11 join I-15 in Vegas and take that to Canada?