Talk:Interstate 11/Archive 1

Archive 1

Description

This entire article is dubious at best. There is no empirical, independant sourced information that supports the claims of this article, as opposed to the articles on other proposed interstates. I am very close to bringing this up as an AfD for that very reason. --Mhking 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

categories

I removed the categories "Interstate highways in Arizona" and "Interstate highways in Nevada" from the article. Inclusion within such categories implies that the I-11 exists currently, which it does not. --LJ (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

what about other preposed corridors

interstate 11 would be beter to be routed from Yuma ,arizona to las vegas,nevade and run parrall to US 95 becasue odd number routes usally run north and south routes. the corridor from wickenburg ,arizona to las vegas along US 93 would be better routed with a preposed intertate 12 becasue thats more of a east to west kind of route and interstate 12 would be a even number . so i cant see why this articale is only looking at one of the preposed corridors 69.221.168.185 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Interstate 12 already exists in Louisiana, so I doubt that another I-12 would be put into the Nevada/Arizona area.

I hope my fellow roadgeeks will help back me on this.

Allen (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Interstate highways can run for hundreds of miles, then stop, then continue again a thousand miles later. This is the case of I-84, which starts at Portland, OR, runs E. to Salt Lake City, where it (apparently) ends. Actually, I-84 begins again at Scranton, PA, then runs through New York state. I always thought I-84 ended at SLC until I talked to a guy from the east coast, who was just as surprised that there was an I-84 in the west. Also, (if anyone cares,) I edited the distance from Hoover Dam to Kingman. The article said the distance is 17 miles, when in fact it is 71. Someone may have transposed the numbers. FooeyDooey837 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)FooeyDooey837

Removed incorrect info

I've removed the following paragraph:

News accounts indicate that the Congressional designation include an Interstate 11 segment between Buckeye and Casa Grande. The Arizona Department of Transportation does not have such a freeway on its master plans ^[1].

There is a freeway in the Arizona Department of Transportation's master plans in the Buckeye-Casa Grande segment: the Hassayampa Freeway. The article currently mentions only the portion of the Hassayampa that was covered by the I-10 Hassayampa Valley Study (see Figure 7.1 in [2]). In the I-8/I-10 Hidden Valley Framework Study, the freeway is planned to continue south of the Estrella Mountains, gradually turning into a east-west direction to connect with I-10 in Casa Grande (see page 3 in [3]). Both of these studies were part of the bqAZ Statewide Framework (see Figure 2 in [4]), which is the basis of the state's 2010–20135 Long-Range Transportation Plan ([5]). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Future Interstate Corridor

Now that the I-11 signs are up, should we upload a picture of the sign and put it into the article just like you guys did in Interstate 69#History and on Interstate 99#Future? I got some good pictures of the sign that I found on Google Giggett (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The only signs that are up, from what I can tell, are "Future I-11 Corridor" signs in Arizona...which is not enough to say that I-11 is currently signed. Any pictures of the sign found on Google would need the appropriate license in order for us to use them here (ideally uploaded to Commons). -- LJ ↗ 03:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Exact alignment of route

The article currently says that I-11 will use I-515/US 95 to travel through the Las Vegas Valley. This is incorrect, as the route of I-11 in Nevada has not been decided beyond the end of the Boulder City Bypass project. There are currently three routing alternatives under study by the I-11 team for the route going through/around Las Vegas (with the I-515/US 95 route being one of those options). Similarly, I don't think the exact route has been determined on the Phoenix end either. -- LJ ↗ 02:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well looking at this image, it's pretty clear that I-11 will use I-515 into Las Vegas, especially since I-515 is the only freeway from the Boulder Dam Bypass that goes into the Vegas metro area. Giggett (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You've linked to an image created by a Arizona newspaper for illustrative purposes. The I-11 study website would be more reliable. The exact alignment is not yet finalized as they are still in the feasibility study stage. -- LJ ↗ 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The evaluation study (start on page 80) shows that I-515 is only one of the alternatives being considered for the Las Vegas metro area, and that the exact alignment will be determined in future studies. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

One IP sais that the Bypass will be a toll road. I believe this is false.

Do you think this is true or false?68.224.116.208 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether it is true or false. It's only really important that it is verifiable to a reliable source. –Fredddie™ 21:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a news article where it said it might be a toll road, but that was years ago. It doesn't seem like it will be a toll road anymore by looking at the official Bourder Bypass website. Either way, no one knows for sure until we see toll gates get built. Giggett (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, Nevada DOT proposed constructing this as a toll road for a brief time. This was during a legislative cycle (2011 or 2013?) in which a bill was under consideration that would change state law to allow a toll road demonstration project (Nevada law prohibits toll roads), and the Boulder City Bypass would have been the demo project. It would have been one way to help pay for the bypass to get constructed sooner. That bill did not pass, so the toll concept fizzled.

Since then, fuel revenue indexing in Clark County has been in place that has helped finance and accelerate construction of several road projects in the Las Vegas metro area. The Boulder City Bypass has benefited from this, as it's a major source of the construction funding for phase 2 (US 95 to US 93 at Hoover Dam). -- LJ ↗ 13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I-11 Terminus

I just wanted to clarify the length of I-11, one user stated that the section of I-515 from I-11 to I-215 was now part of I-11. Is it technically part of I-11 yet or not? TextClick (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevada DOT has already received approval to resign that stretch of I-515 as I-11. As of September 29, 2017, it is not yet signed. I would not anticipate resigning to take place until after NDOT has at least completed construction on phase 1 of the Boulder City Bypass in late 2017 (and probably more likely that resigning will wait until RTC completes phase 2 in 2018). -- LJ ↗ 16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Boulder City Bypass opened as far as... where?

According to NDOT, Phase One was opened, which runs from I-515 to US 95, PAST the US 93-Railroad Pass interchange. Some sources disagree. Can anyone confirm where the Bypass ends? EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The ENTIRE bypass was NOT opened. A 2-mile section of the southbound lanes only was opened from the present end of I-515 down to where US 93 Business will branch off from southbound US 93/95 (and really it's not even two miles because it's counting the flyover which isn't part of the ultimate I-11 alignment). What's open is marked on this Google Map, which shows the extent actually open (highlighted) in comparison to some of the ultimate Phase 1 bypass construction visible on satellite imagery. The map accompanying this Las Vegas Review-Journal article confirms the above. I've surmised the southbound lanes were shifted onto this brief stretch of permanent alignment in order to accommodate other construction activities.

So it's really not accurate to say I-11 is "open" at this point... The LVRJ article confirms the entirety of Phase 1 (down to the new US 95 interchange) will open by December 20182017, with the remainder of the bypass (US 95 to the Hoover Dam interchange) will open June 20192018. -- LJ ↗ 13:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Edited to correct dates. -- LJ ↗ 17:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they even approved the I-11 designation EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The I-11 designation is approved. NDOT has sought and received approval to post I-11 from the AZ state line to the I-215/I-515 interchange. -- LJ ↗ 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203035710/http://www.hooverdambypass.org/Project%20Updates/Hoover%20Dam%20Update%20July%2013%202009.pdf to http://www.hooverdambypass.org/Project%20Updates/Hoover%20Dam%20Update%20July%2013%202009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129211705/http://www.nevadadot.com/Micro-Sites/BoulderCityBypass/The_Boulder_City_Bypass.aspx to http://www.nevadadot.com/Micro-Sites/BoulderCityBypass/The_Boulder_City_Bypass.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Checked. -- LJ ↗ 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Asbestos debate on I-11

It's bizarre that there were years and years of studies and debates concerning the construction of I-11, yet nothing is present in the article.

The debate was so hot and widely discussed from local, state, and federal level, that I can only assume censorship on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.132.179 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't know the "debate" to which the unsigned IP poster is referring. Naturally occurring asbestos was discovered when completing environmental studies on the Boulder City Bypass portion, and extra time was taken to study this and determine best way to construct the highway without disturbing it. Likely, contributors to the article thus far were unaware or haven't thought to include a mention of this. LJ ↗ 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources for corridor north of Las Vegas

Some articles mentioning the potential future corridor:

• [6]
• [7], the proposals are on pages 20-24 of the linked pdf.

I think of note here is only one of the proposed corridors actually connects to Reno, the rest just extend the freeway "towards Reno". The corridor that does connect to Reno essentially has the freeway follow I-95 to US-50 connecting to the existing I-580 corridor in Carson City. Also of note, there is a curious mistake on several of the maps on the PDF where the cities of Fallon and Reno are confused on the maps. Several corridor options are listed as passing through Reno, when in truth the city in that location is Fallon. Dave (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I-11 Questions

Upon the completion of the Boulder City Bypass on August 9, 2018, I must ask a few questions regarding the highway:

1. Is the northern terminus of I-11 at Railroad Pass or is it at the interchange between I-215/I-515/US 93/US 95?

2. Is the southern terminus at the interchange with SR 172 or at the Arizona State Line on the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge?

3. Is there enough evidence that suggests the existence of a SR 173 that exists along the former alignment of US 95?

4. Is there evidence in detail about the new US 93 Business?

TextClick (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

1. I believe the northern terminus is currently at Railroad Pass. NDOT previously received AASHTO/FHWA approval to extend I-11 to the I-215/SR 564 interchange, but I do not believe this has taken place. NDOT has planned for a resigning project to accomplish this, but I haven't heard when this will take place.

2. The southern terminus of signage is at the AZ state line.

3. NDOT's 2018 state maintained highways book indicates that SR 173 is the new designation of that US 95 stretch. I do not believe it is signed from I-11 or US 93 Bus.

4. There is no evidence in detail about US 93 Business in NDOT's SMH book, but the route was approved by AASHTO at their spring 2017 meeting.

-- LJ ↗ 16:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I-11 northern terminus

I've reverted some edits that indicate Interstate 11 has been extended to the I-215/SR 564 interchange in Henderson. Despite NDOT planning to renumber a section of I-515 as I-11 (and having previous AASHTO and/or FHWA approval to do so), I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this has been carried out. None of the media articles I've read make any mention of the I-11 designation existing anywhere other than on the newly-constructed Boulder City Bypass segments in and around Boulder City.

If anyone has sources that indicate that the I-11 designation has been signed along I-515 between Railroad Pass and I-215/SR 564, I'd appreciate seeing them. Otherwise, I think it is still premature to make such related changes to the article. -- LJ ↗ 23:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Exact Length/Mileage

With the release of the updated SMHN index, NDOT now lists I-11's northern terminus at the I-215/SR 564 interchange in Henderson and its total mileage as 22.845 miles. Would it be appropriate to edit this article and the I-515 article to reflect this information? TextClick (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to make this change in the articles at this moment. I saw the SMH changes a week or two ago and thought about adding them in here. But while NDOT has updated the SMH document, to my knowledge there has not yet been any change to signage on the actual freeway.

For another similar situation: NDOT changed the entries for US 395 & US 50 in Carson City to reflect the proposed Carson City Bypass alignment (now I-580) in a mid-to-late 1990s SMH book (I think it was the 1995 version, concurrent with the creation of SR 529 & 530 along the actual 395/50 alignments which may have happened in late 1994). The first phase of that bypass started construction circa 2004 and opened in 2006... -- LJ ↗ 16:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: An anonymous user recently made the edits to the respective pages, providing the SMH document as his source. Would it be best to keep these changes, or would it be better to undo them? TextClick (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My original thoughts still stand. I do not believe NDOT has made changes on the freeway itself yet... LJ ↗ 14:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with LJ's reasoning, and his example is a perfect one. The SMHN is a great resource; I've used it myself. But it has it's limitations. The example LJ used is a great one. The SMHN used milage figures for the US Highways in Carson City (US 50, 395) using the I-580 freeway alignment, long before that alignment was constructed. Were we to use this standard (use the SMHN even if it is using an alignment that doesn't yet exist) we'd have been directing readers into dirt piles in Carson City. No doubt I-11 will extend further north someday, but NDOT's budget is subject to being cut just as much as everybody elses and just because NDOT thought the Carson City freeway would have been done by 2002 didn't make it so. Dave (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I was through this area a couple of weeks ago, the signed northern terminus is ambiguous. Driving north on the I-11 right of way, it's clearly signed up to Railroad Pass (Nevada), but beyond that I didn't see any reassurance signs (of either I-515 or I-11) until the I-215 junction. It's possible I missed one, but I was looking and didn't see any. As it has been re-added using the same paper sources that I-11 extends up to the I-215 junction, is there anybody in the Vegas area that can confirm that NDOT has in fact signed I-11 to that junction? Dave (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not yet confirmed with my own eyes. However, there was an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in February or March 2019 that indicated that I-515 would be resigned as I-11 south of the 215/564 interchange throughout April 2019. With that news article published (and appropriately cited), I felt it appropriate to update the article. It sounds like the resigning was likely in progress when you were in the area—a discussion thread on the AARoads forum has some photos of new I-11 shields signed at the split from I-215. LJ ↗ 15:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Highway map

I uploaded a map of the proposed I-11 routing to Commons. At this point would it be too early to add such a map to the article, considering the project is essentially still in the planning stage? Or would it be useful as reference? Thanks. Shannon 22:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is too early to include this map, as it is still too early in the planning process to be sure whether the dotted line portions represent a reasonable approximation of the future alignment. For example, on the image description, it indicates the Reno extension following US 95, 395 and SR 208—that description leaves out the connecting piece of US 95 Alt, and is seemingly unlikely as following SR 208 would make the Vegas-to-Reno aspect much more circuitous than desired (not to mention the unlikelihood of putting an interstate through Wilson Canyon on SR 208). -- LJ ↗ 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

On second thought the NV 208 connection does seem strange, I remember seeing it in one of the sources I used to make the map but I can't find it now. A routing through Fallon to join I-80 near Fernley seems more logical to me. Though do you think it would be fine to include a map with just the Phoenix-Las Vegas segment drawn? As a reader I'd find that useful; also the corridor following 93 and 515 is essentially set. Shannon 04:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The smaller Phoenix–Vegas extent might be acceptable on a map with this scale at the present time. Keep in mind that the exact paths through Phoenix and Vegas are not set yet. (e.g.: I-11 will likely use the current path of I-515 where it enters the Las Vegas Valley from the southeast. But it is not yet decided whether I-11 will follow I-515/US 95 through downtown, I-215/CC-215 around the south/west side of the valley, or the Lake Mead & northern CC-215 route to connect with US 95 heading northwest out of Las Vegas.) -- LJ ↗ 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll make a map with the possible alignments drawn out and see how it goes. Thanks! Shannon 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not until overt deeds are made for building a new highway or upgrading it to Interstate status -- such as construction itself or at least property acquisition -- is the addition of a route in full or part be accepted as a future Interstate. I have seen plenty of proposed routes vanish. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Legislation can be overturned, and anyone can draw a line on a map. Pbrower2a (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

the two largest adjacent American cities lacking a direct freeway link

This needs some justification/explanation. There are a number of city pairs that can be construed as 'adjacent', yet not connected directly by interstate -- Des Moines and St. Louis, Jackson and Little Rock, Houston and Austin, Albuquerque and Phoenix... What distinguishes Phoenix - Las Vegas from those (and other) situations? Size alone? 98.161.252.207 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Population and growth, I believe Giggett (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Add "Chicago and Columbus (Ohio)" if you wish.

It's a problematic claim to be sure, and probably should be removed unless a source or better definition of terms can be found. In the examples listed, there is at least an indirect freeway connection. Take Albuquerque and Phoenix; even though there is no direct freeway connection between those two cities, the most likely route taken by motorists would still be I-40 and I-17. Whereas for Phoenix and Las Vegas it's US-93 which still has a non-trivial amount of 2 lane sections. There is no reasonable route between those two cities using only Interstate Highways; to try would take one close to 100 miles out of the way. So I understand the claim, but it's a challenge to state it in a verifiable, objective way. Dave (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Original Research?

The only source actually mentioning "Interstate 11" is this one. Everything else IMO is pure speculation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs)

Even then the article is speculation. IMO the only discussion is should this be deleted on the grounds of hoax, or original research.Dave (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's this one, even if they get their sources from the Las Vegas Sun as well. ----DanTD (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that the Southern Nevada RTC (encompassing Clark County, NV) wrote a resolution supporting this proposed Interstate corridor which specifically mentioned "Interstate 11". I can't find it right now, but will link it when I find it. --LJ (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the AFD went nowhere; however, this is still an issue. I see two options: merge this article with US 93 or rename this article to something else and strip out all references to the I-11 designation. The latter approach was taken with Interstate 92, a designation that was tossed around by the media and project backers for a "Rooftop Highway" through New York and New England. – TMF 08:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum the article needs to be renamed. The people who propose the name I-11 have no authority to assign interstate designations. If this road is even built (which itself is not certain), it could just as easily be numbered I-7,9,11,13,21,23,315,715,915,110,310,510,710,910,117,317,517,717,917 or even as an extension of I-19 (which is actually the most logical choice) and still reasonably follow the Interstate numbering pattern. In any case, until the interstate designation is approved, the factual content of this article (the 40% of it left after removing the speculation) will be entirely redundant to the U.S. Route 93 family of articles. Apparently we didn't make this case at AfD, but this article has serious issues regardless.Dave (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I could have made a case that it would have made as much sense to renumber Interstate 15 to the south and west of Las Vegas and number the corridor as interstate 15... but redesignating Interstate highways is done rarely. The 1956 plan is what we have, and there is no odd number between 15 and 17. It is a long route even as a Las Vegas-Phoenix route alone, so it should be a two-digit route. The only alternative would have been an even-numbered route, as it is a diagonal (see Interstates 24, 26, 30, and 44 from the 1956 plan...). Renumbering a route that connects Las Vegas to San Diego would lead to pointless confusion. Heck, L-15 once was not planned to fo south of San Bernardino to San Diego. If it continues northward to Reno or Boise, then it is not out of place because it would be partly to the west of Interstate 15. Few saw Las Vegas-to-Phoenix as a potential Interstate corridor in 1956.

In any event, the section from Las Vegas to the Arizona state line is already Interstate 11, and so might it as well be. Maybe "13" would be more logical, but Las Vegas is a gamblers' destination and it brings up a superstition. Eleven it is... and so shall it stay. Pbrower2a (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Renumbering existing I-17 from I-10 (downtown Phoenix) to Flagstaff as I-19, as well as double designation of the stretch from Tucson to Phoenix as I-10/I-19 is the most logical solution. The I-17 moniker would then be free to use on the Phoenix - Las Vegas Interstate grade corridor (US 93). Confusion? Yes, but the most sensible solution without creating non conforming route numbers, as seen in Pennsylvania with Bud Shusters' Appalachian Thruway. (US 220 / I-99) (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.214.36 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that there's talk in Nevada of supporting a wider-reaching Interstate 11. This would incorporate the existing Phoenix-to-Vegas segment along US 93 all the way to the Mexican border, and extend the proposed designation up along US 95 all the way to the Canadian border. If the interstate were so routed, the I-11 numbering would be much less egregious, as the majority of the highway would be west of I-15 and align to the original grid. -- LJ ↗ 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The real question is whether any long-distance concurrency with Interstates 8, 10, or 19 would make any sense. It would make more sense to redesignate AZ-189 as I-19 and the segment that does not quite reach the Mexican border as I-119... whatever. Pbrower2a (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I-11 in Las Vegas

Apparently, the preferred route for I-11 through Las Vegas has been chosen.

Here’s my source: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/highway-officials-identify-i-11s-preferred-las-vegas-route-2598718/amp/

Is this good enough evidence to add to the article? KevinML (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Not only that Nevada DOT has announced essentially the same on their website at [8]. Between the two concurring reports, yeah I'd say that's pretty good evidence. The only thing to be careful about is the DOT's website has the report as "preliminary" but it also sounds like they are confident this will be the final decision. Dave (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Interactive map

Is it possible to edit the interactive map to include the now former I-515 and the portion of the route west of I-15? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I just drove it yesterday. It's still 1-515. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Same here. We've got some overly anxious roadgeeks. I drove it last week, I-515 is still alive and well.Dave (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then should the Northern terminus be changed back? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That should be reverted, as I-11 termini have not yet officially changed even though NDOT has AASHTO approval to do so. (Yes, there is a one-off shield on I-515 and overhead signage recently replaced along I-15 southbound now shows I-11 instead of I-515...) Per a local newspaper article in mid-December, NDOT intends to change out signage sometime in 2024. LJ ↗ 00:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that accurate though? The state maintained highway index for 2024 says the transition is underway; the signs are clearly being replaced on an ongoing basis; the federal index hasn't been updated since 2021 so it's unclear where the feds stand. It's not like all of the 515 signs are going to disappear overnight. MojaveNC (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not worth edit warring over, and I'd advise all to stop this reverting back and forth. Yes, until the changeover is complete it is debatable which mileage figure is the "official" figure. This is hardly new, and thank goodness Wikipedia didn't exist in the 1970s when new sections of interstate were opening every week. However, with that said, while I'm not going to revert, I agree with LJ and not MojaveNC. Nevada DOT does mass signage changeovers and not "let's see if the old signs will last another 30 years even if outdated, we'll just patch 'em" as Caltrans is famous for. Exhibit A. the portion of former I-515 that has already been resigned I-11 was done in short order. Exhibit B, the 2012 changeover of signs from US-395 to Interstate 580 was done practically overnight. And I suspect similar will happen with this next phase of the I-515->I-11 changeover. We'll wake up one morning and the roadgeek websites will be full of pictures of shiny new I-11 signs. But until then, Wikipedia is intended for a general audience for whom roads are just a means of getting from point a to point b and doesn't understand the concept of an unsigned highway, not a roadgeek audience who lives for the unsigned designations.Dave (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure they won't 'change over night' but as of the 1st there's literally zero on the entirety of the highway, at least North/Westbound (and the westbound section of 95). Granted I'm not a reliable source but it still seems like jumping the gun as it stands, right now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I-695 is still signed in DC despite already being decommissioned by the FHWA; I-195 isn't signed in DC yet either despite being approved (just talking about examples here). As far as I'm concerned, until the FHWA updates their table and the signs replace I-515 signs, I-11 is still the same ~23 miles then that it is now. The YouTube video that was presented to me on my talk page shows 1 shield on 1 sign and it's on I-15, not I-515, so that, in my opinion, is not sufficient to say I-11 has been signed yet. Plus, I'd doubt that NDOT would do a piecemeal project to replace I-515 signage with I-11 signage unless they want everyone who uses the route to be confused. Plus, the first source provided to me on my talk page, which I had read already to begin with, said the signing would be done in 2024; the second source didn't even give a date for signage replacement; it just said that I-11 was replacing I-515. Show me where signage started to be replaced in December 2023 and I'll admit I was wrong, but until then, I'm going to go by what the source provided to me says, which says 2024. ChessEric 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)