I-11 Nevada northern extension

[cl94]

As of April 30, Nevada DOT has made the internal changes to redesignate I-515 as I-11. In addition, I-11 has been extended internally up to NV 157. I'm currently on the road, but I will make the change in TM later this week. I-515 will be deprecated, but it will remain a valid label. As of now, there are no imminent exit number changes, so I should be able to do this without breaking list files.

That being said, there's gonna be a little time required to change all of the exit and intersecting road waypoints to reflect that I-11 is the primary designation. Existing waypoint labels should be kept as alternates.

Practice on TM is to include unsigned interstates, so I plan to include the entire thing at this time despite no reported signs north/west of I-15. If signs aren't up yet, they will be soon, as NDOT plans to have the re-signing done this spring. AASHTO approved a while back.

[SSOWorld]

There are no plans to add 344 and 335 in OK until they're signed. FYI.

[rickmastfan67]

Same thing with I-69 in TN in the Memphis area.  Has full AASHTO & FHWA approval, but we only have it as a 'future' Interstate due to 0 signage.

[vdeane]

In those cases, though, isn't it that the state hasn't changed the designation yet?  In the case of I-11, NDOT has, and there are already reports of signage going up, just piecemeal before NDOT does the full roll-out.

[cl94]

And that's the thing- part of the extension is already signed. Sure, NDOT is taking their sweet time, but signs are going up along the extension. Signs have been going up for a while. If "signed" was the only thing I was using, I'd have made the change months ago.

I can certainly hold off if there's a clear concensus, but the extension is signed to some degree.

[Duke87]

Most notably, nonzero signs for I-11 in NV already exist. The other examples cited have no signs within the given state.

I think it's fine to go ahead with.

[SSOWorld]

Most notably, nonzero signs for I-11 in NV already exist. The other examples cited have no signs within the given state.

I think it's fine to go ahead with.

Light I-444 in OK, I-345 in TX, I-105 going past I-605, etc...

TM - where we include unsigned US Interstates because traditions, exclude unsigned everything else because....

[Duke87]

There is a distinction between "this interstate is unsigned intentionally" and "this interstate will be signed but isn't yet".

An arbitrary distinction, perhaps, but it's why 444 is in and 344 is not.

[neroute2]

One thing to note is that 11 is partly a renumbering. We do include signed but unofficial Interstates (695 over the Key Collapse, 895 south of 695, 80 west of 101), so we would still need to keep 515 until we determine enough signs have changed that it's gone.

[vdeane]

One thing to note is that 11 is partly a renumbering. We do include signed but unofficial Interstates (695 over the Key Collapse, 895 south of 695, 80 west of 101), so we would still need to keep 515 until we determine enough signs have changed that it's gone.

I feel like that hits the distinction between "not recognized by FHWA but signed as part of the interstate by the DOT" and "no longer an interstate, but the signs haven't yet been removed/changed".

[cl94]

One thing to note is that 11 is partly a renumbering. We do include signed but unofficial Interstates (695 over the Key Collapse, 895 south of 695, 80 west of 101), so we would still need to keep 515 until we determine enough signs have changed that it's gone.

And this is why I haven't yet pushed the update. "Does 515 still exist?" is a real question. How many cases of something like this have we had in the history of TM? I'm fine holding off on pulling the trigger because we're not adding any mileage, just changing a number and extending an overlay. I could also do the intermediate step of extending 11 but keeping 515 because 11 now has multiple tangible signs of extending beyond AASHTO approvals and 1 interchange.

On the NDOT side, nearly everything internal has made the switch, though there are still public-facing items that refer to I-515. Signs, from what I can tell on the forum, are nearing 50-50.

[vdeane]

^ In that case, when NDOT stops publicly referring to I-515 and signs are majority I-11 (sounds like we'll hit the latter soon) would seem to be a good time for the switch.

[Jim]

It's not like we're a navigational tool so it's not worth going to too much trouble to find exactly the right time.  I wouldn't get too worried about either making the switch before all the signs have caught up or letting it linger as I-515 a bit longer.

[pderocco]

For people obsessed with clinching, anyone who had clinched I-11 as far as I-215, but hadn't clinched I-515 or driven US-95 out to NV-157 will properly lose I-11 from their clinch stats when the switch is made.

[rickmastfan67]