Make the casinos pay for I-11

[bugo]

The main beneficiaries of a completed I-11 would be the Las Vegas casinos.  Residents of Phoenix would be able to travel on 4 continuous lanes with no roundabouts or driveways or 2 lane sections or slowdowns for towns like the current US 60/93 corridor does.  Phoenix residents then would be more open to taking a trip that is faster and much less stressful than they are now.  It would more than pay for itself.

[hotdogPi]

What if there was a casino that didn't agree with I-11? Would they still have to pay?

[Zeffy]

What if there was a casino that didn't agree with I-11? Would they still have to pay?

I don't think any casino would object to a highway that would bring in more paying customers, especially in the Las Vegas area. Well, that's provided they aren't in the way of I-11...

[corco]

I wonder how much of a traffic generator I-11 would actually be- in my time living in Arizona, I sure never once heard somebody say "Gosh, I'd like to go to Vegas but I hate that US 93 isn't a freeway for its entire length," especially now that the dam bypass is done - people either fly (tickets from PHX or TUS to Las Vegas are way, way cheap) or they say "it's such a boring drive"  and drive anyway, but I doubt an interstate would fix that.

I feel like any additional traffic that would start using I-11 would be Phoenix->Salt Lake traffic, especially trucks between those two destinations, which doesn't really care about Vegas.

The thing is that 93 right now is a pretty darn good road- Boulder City is annoying, and then there's a few miles left of two lane road, but it's mostly a four lane highway. I don't know that an interstate designation is really going to change anybody's perception of the road, beyond maybe encouraging trucks headed to Salt Lake to go that way.

To me, the benefit to I 11 is making it easier to move freight from AZ to NV. The casinos are strong enough destinations on their own that I don't believe people are turned off by the existing road.

[bugo]

What if there was a casino that didn't agree with I-11? Would they still have to pay?

Yes.  They would benefit from the extra business, so they would.  I don't agree with some toll roads but I still have to pay.

[jeffandnicole]

Wouldn't Phoenix benefit from increased traffic from people in Vegas? Wouldn't other destinations along the way benefit as well?

Besides, the last thing Vegas would want to be is an Atlantic City-type destination, where people just come for the day...or maybe overnight.   They would much rather invest in (well, they have) an airport that makes it convenient for people to fly in from distant areas, intending to stay for several days.

[Alps]

I imagine the casinos pay taxes... taxes fund roads...

[roadfro]

Nevada already heavily taxes the casinos for a lot of things, so this doesn't really make sense. Besides, the casinos didn't pay to build I-15 between SoCal and Vegas.

Lets not forget that the greater chunk of I-11 is in Arizona, so that makes this proposal even less fair.

[Scott5114]

Good luck getting this passed. Supporting this would probably be political suicide.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

[ARMOURERERIC]

Ask Ben Aflek about the willingness of casinos to part with $$

[SP Cook]

I imagine the casinos pay taxes... taxes fund roads...

/thread.

[swbrotha100]

Even if the casinos were willing to pay for I-11, I couldn't see them wanting to pay for the Arizona portion.

[J N Winkler]

The thing is that 93 right now is a pretty darn good road--Boulder City is annoying, and then there's a few miles left of two lane road, but it's mostly a four lane highway. I don't know that an interstate designation is really going to change anybody's perception of the road, beyond maybe encouraging trucks headed to Salt Lake to go that way.

To me, the benefit to I-11 is making it easier to move freight from AZ to NV. The casinos are strong enough destinations on their own that I don't believe people are turned off by the existing road.

Looking at Bugo's claim about the US 60/US 93 itinerary in terms of the additional upgrades that would be required to convert it to a "low-friction" corridor (i.e., one that essentially functions as a freeway without necessarily having full control of access on every section), it seems that aside from the Boulder City Bypass (which Nevada DOT currently has in final design), most of the "need to spend" is south of I-40 in Arizona and includes two fairly lengthy two-lane sections:  one of about 37 miles between Wickenburg and just before the SR 97 turnoff that includes the SR 71 grade-separated interchange, and another of about 8 miles between Wikieup and the southern end of the four-lane divided length immediately south of I-40.

This is a total of about 45 miles in 142 between Phoenix (Loop 303/US 60 grade separation) and I-40.  The nearest endpoint of this segment to Las Vegas is a solid 111 miles (eastern US 93/I-40 junction to US 93/I-215).

Let us now ask whether Las Vegas might draw enough visitors to create a need to widen the segments of US 93 in Arizona that are still two-lane.  Last year about 40 million people visited Vegas, 60% of whom arrived by automobile.  That gives us 24 million car-borne visitors.  Let us say additionally that almost all of these car-borne visitors come from metropolitan or combined statistical areas that have extent within 300 miles of Vegas, in proportion to the population in each metropolitan area.  That gives us Los Angeles (18.3 million), Phoenix (4.2 million), and San Diego (5 million).  This is 3.7 million visitors from Phoenix who generate 7.4 million trips annually which we can attribute to US 93.  The usual warrant for widening a two-lane road to four-lane divided is about 10,000 VPD.  Over a 365-day year that is 3.65 million trips, so in principle Vegas-bound Phoenix residents by themselves should be responsible for about 20,000 AADT on US 93.

I don't know if traffic volumes are that heavy on the two-lane sections (indeed, I rather suspect they are not), but this back-of-the-envelope calculation makes it difficult to dismiss out of hand the proposition that the casinos are responsible for the bulk of traffic between Phoenix and Vegas.

[corco]

I agree that casinos ate already responsible for the bulk of the traffic, which is why I'm not sure they have much to gain by having I 11 built- the market is already more or less saturated and to my knowledge people aren't deterred by a few miles of two lane roads- the Vegas casinos are strong destinations, not fringe destinations where a small amount of traffic will deter traffic. An interstate designation, might, however, encourage non casino traffic such as freight to use the roads, so it's those folks that stand to benefit more than the casinos.

Certainly existing traffic volumes are about half that, because few casino related trips would have fewer than two people per car.

[J N Winkler]

I agree that casinos ate already responsible for the bulk of the traffic, which is why I'm not sure they have much to gain by having I 11 built- the market is already more or less saturated and to my knowledge people aren't deterred by a few miles of two lane roads- the Vegas casinos are strong destinations, not fringe destinations where a small amount of traffic will deter traffic. An interstate designation, might, however, encourage non casino traffic such as freight to use the roads, so it's those folks that stand to benefit more than the casinos.

It certainly does seem reasonable to hypothesize that the freight operators have the greatest potential for growth in volume and revenue if the corridor is upgraded to I-11.  However, it can also be argued that the casinos should be required to pay for the traffic that they already get via US 93, especially if that traffic gives rise to a need for further widenings.  I can't imagine that the casinos would support this (would a turkey vote for Thanksgiving?) and I can't imagine Arizona having enough political leverage to force them to contribute.

However, given that Arizona DOT is looking at I-11 as a toll road and Nevada DOT has proposed tolling the Boulder City Bypass, the casinos may in any case be looking at resource transfers that operate to their direct disadvantage, since money spent on tolls is less money the punters have available to gamble.  At the margin, the tolls themselves (depending on how high they are) would also make Vegas a less attractive destination.

[jeffandnicole]

Casinos - any business, really - are generally required to pay (at least partially) for improvements that directly benefit them or to offset potental congestion issues caused by them...within reason.  Widening a road in front of their business...addtional traffic lights...a road leading into their business, etc.

To pay for hundreds of miles of interstate highway between two cities? Laughable.

[roadfro]

Let us now ask whether Las Vegas might draw enough visitors to create a need to widen the segments of US 93 in Arizona that are still two-lane.  Last year about 40 million people visited Vegas, 60% of whom arrived by automobile.  That gives us 24 million car-borne visitors.  Let us say additionally that almost all of these car-borne visitors come from metropolitan or combined statistical areas that have extent within 300 miles of Vegas, in proportion to the population in each metropolitan area.  That gives us Los Angeles (18.3 million), Phoenix (4.2 million), and San Diego (5 million).  This is 3.7 million visitors from Phoenix who generate 7.4 million trips annually which we can attribute to US 93.  The usual warrant for widening a two-lane road to four-lane divided is about 10,000 VPD.  Over a 365-day year that is 3.65 million trips, so in principle Vegas-bound Phoenix residents by themselves should be responsible for about 20,000 AADT on US 93.

I don't know if traffic volumes are that heavy on the two-lane sections (indeed, I rather suspect they are not), but this back-of-the-envelope calculation makes it difficult to dismiss out of hand the proposition that the casinos are responsible for the bulk of traffic between Phoenix and Vegas.

I agree that casinos ate already responsible for the bulk of the traffic, which is why I'm not sure they have much to gain by having I 11 built- the market is already more or less saturated and to my knowledge people aren't deterred by a few miles of two lane roads- the Vegas casinos are strong destinations, not fringe destinations where a small amount of traffic will deter traffic. An interstate designation, might, however, encourage non casino traffic such as freight to use the roads, so it's those folks that stand to benefit more than the casinos.

This analysis assumes that there isn't already other uses within the Phoenix to Vegas corridor. This is also part of the CANAMEX Corridor, part of a high priority freight/trade route. More than the Vegas casinos benefit.

How many trucks and heavy vehicles are already part of the traffic counts?

It certainly does seem reasonable to hypothesize that the freight operators have the greatest potential for growth in volume and revenue if the corridor is upgraded to I-11.  However, it can also be argued that the casinos should be required to pay for the traffic that they already get via US 93, especially if that traffic gives rise to a need for further widenings.  I can't imagine that the casinos would support this (would a turkey vote for Thanksgiving?) and I can't imagine Arizona having enough political leverage to force them to contribute.

However, given that Arizona DOT is looking at I-11 as a toll road and Nevada DOT has proposed tolling the Boulder City Bypass, the casinos may in any case be looking at resource transfers that operate to their direct disadvantage, since money spent on tolls is less money the punters have available to gamble.  At the margin, the tolls themselves (depending on how high they are) would also make Vegas a less attractive destination.

How would one measure how much traffic the casinos already generate on US 93 though? You can't assume that every passenger vehicle making that drive is going to a casino.


BTW: The concept of tolling the Boulder City Bypass is pretty much dead. A bill was introduced in the legislature to get around legal prohibitions on tolling by using this project as a demonstration–NDOT supported this (as did Southern Nevada RTC, which is actually pushing harder on the Phase 2 of the bypass and is leading the funding/construction of that phase now) but it didn't really get any backing.

[J N Winkler]

This analysis assumes that there isn't already other uses within the Phoenix to Vegas corridor. This is also part of the CANAMEX Corridor, part of a high priority freight/trade route. More than the Vegas casinos benefit.

How many trucks and heavy vehicles are already part of the traffic counts?

I haven't checked.  The analysis calculates an AADT that is attributable to the casinos and compares it to typical warrants for widening from two-lane to four-lane divided, to see whether it is plausible that casino traffic alone could drive a need for further upgrades in the US 93/I-11 corridor.  There is certainly some residue of the traffic that is not related to the casinos, but numbers for it are harder to come by (for the casino data, I had to rely on the Las Vegas CVB website, which tracks annual visitation to Vegas as well as mode of arrival).

How would one measure how much traffic the casinos already generate on US 93 though? You can't assume that every passenger vehicle making that drive is going to a casino.

The analysis doesn't require that assumption.  It requires only four, all of which are questionable, but greatly simplify calculations:  nearly all car-borne visitors come from metropolitan areas within 300 miles of Vegas; car-borne Vegas visitors from a given metropolitan area are in proportion to that metropolitan area's share of the total population of metropolitan areas within 300 miles of Vegas; and each Vegas trip is a simple deadhead run (to Vegas and back with no stops at third cities off the shortest route) which, in the case of visitors from Phoenix, lies along the US 93 corridor; and, finally, each visitor corresponds to one pair of trips (one to Vegas from origin city, another from Vegas back to origin city).

The motivation for proceeding on the basis of admittedly suspect assumptions is to get an idea as to whether casino traffic is dismissable as a justification for expanding existing two-lane segments along the route to four-lane divided.  My finding is that it is not (null result), but this is not the same as finding that casinos do justify widening or other upgrades.  Such a conclusion would entail a more detailed study, including an origin-destination survey and possibly an appraisal of the growth opportunities for logistics in the US 93 corridor.

BTW: The concept of tolling the Boulder City Bypass is pretty much dead. A bill was introduced in the legislature to get around legal prohibitions on tolling by using this project as a demonstration–NDOT supported this (as did Southern Nevada RTC, which is actually pushing harder on the Phase 2 of the bypass and is leading the funding/construction of that phase now) but it didn't really get any backing.

Thanks for this update--I knew Nevada DOT had compiled a feasibility study for tolling the BCB, but wasn't sure the tolling plan had actually gotten off the ground.

Casinos - any business, really - are generally required to pay (at least partially) for improvements that directly benefit them or to offset potental congestion issues caused by them...within reason.  Widening a road in front of their business...addtional traffic lights...a road leading into their business, etc.

To pay for hundreds of miles of interstate highway between two cities? Laughable.

There is certainly no easy institutional mechanism for compelling such payments.  However, casino traffic was cited as one reason for upgrading US 93 between the Hoover Dam and I-40 from two-lane to four-lane divided, for safety as well as level-of-service reasons, since casino-bound gamblers were routinely undertaking marginal passing maneuvers that often ended badly.

It is also not like there is a huge pot of money from the casinos.  Per Las Vegas CVB data, the casinos are responsible for about $10 billion worth of local economic activity.  Profitability is harder to get a handle of, but I don't think it can be very good given the amount of turnover there has been in the noughties.  Per Wikipedia's article on the Las Vegas Strip, which has a surprising amount of statistical data, hotel room count has increased slightly (about 10% between 2003 and 2007, if memory serves), but only because several large-profile casino closures have been narrowly overbalanced by equally large-profile casino openings.

[jeffandnicole]

I think there was quite an issue with congestion in the Hoover Dam area.  Some of this can be blamed directly or indirectly on the casinos...either people visiting Vegas, or people already visiting Vegas and are making a side trip to Hoover Dam.  But there's also other issues, such as the truck traffic going thru the area, and the sharp hairpin turns one must navigate, along with the pedestrian activity at the Dam itself. 

Vegas went into family mode in the 80's, and has successfully shaken away that image.  "What Happens Here, Stays Here" hasn't been their theme for over 10 years now, but yet nearly everyone that goes to Vegas will say it, hear it, think it, or live it.  It may be one of the tourism best slogans ever anywhere, simply because it was so memorable.  And honestly, the casinos were more than happy to portray that image as well.

Today, gambling revenue makes up less than half of Vegas's total tourism revenue, because so much emphasis is places on restaurants, bars, night clubs, shopping, and other non-gambling options.  While gambling has gone down (and favorable odds and payouts have gone down as well), hotel rooms stay filled because of the emphasis on everything else.

Side note...if you are in the Vegas area and visiting Hoover Damn, you can walk on the new bridge high above Hoover Dam.  Do it!

[vdeane]

This is also part of the CANAMEX Corridor, part of a high priority freight/trade route. More than the Vegas casinos benefit.

I can't imagine there is a lot of demand to ship goods from the Sonora Desert to the Canadian Rockies.  Is something wrong with I-5 and I-15?

[corco]

This is also part of the CANAMEX Corridor, part of a high priority freight/trade route. More than the Vegas casinos benefit.

I can't imagine there is a lot of demand to ship goods from the Sonora Desert to the Canadian Rockies.  Is something wrong with I-5 and I-15?

The idea is to improve that- Hermosillo is a solid industrial town, and then there's talk of building a large port down there. Guadalajara would also benefit from such a trade route.

[Scott5114]

However, given that Arizona DOT is looking at I-11 as a toll road and Nevada DOT has proposed tolling the Boulder City Bypass, the casinos may in any case be looking at resource transfers that operate to their direct disadvantage, since money spent on tolls is less money the punters have available to gamble.  At the margin, the tolls themselves (depending on how high they are) would also make Vegas a less attractive destination.

As a part of the gaming industry, I can state with reasonable confidence that the loss of ~$5 worth of coin-in per patron will scarcely be noticed. (That is, if it happens at all; the vast majority of gamblers are responsible enough to not blow every dollar they bring, and reserve some money for living expenses.) If a high roller were seriously put off coming to Vegas by the tolls, a savvy casino host would offer to comp the toll for them. ("Well, if you make it in anyway, we can put $25 in free play on your card...") High rollers of the sort the casino truly worries about would be unlikely to care about the toll anyway, since players in that tier will drop $100 on a hand of blackjack or push of a button on a slot machine. (At the furthest extreme, the Wynn's high limit room has a slot machine that costs $5,000 per spin; a toll would be line noise to someone coming to play it.)

This presumes that most people drive to Vegas, anyway. I suspect most frequent travelers to Vegas fly in. Those that drive are probably coming from the nearest metropolitan area to Vegas, namely, Los Angeles—San Diego, so they wouldn't be using I-11 anyway.

[english si]

Those that drive are probably coming from the nearest metropolitan area to Vegas, namely, Los Angeles—San Diego, so they wouldn't be using I-11 anyway.

Everything makes sense until here. The idea that Phoenix people won't drive to Vegas because LA-SA is slightly closer and only people from the nearest Met area would drive.

Totally agree with you on high rollers and $5 being small change to them, in the unlikely event that they drive in, just don't get the logic of the last sentence.

---

I'd imagine that quite a bit of traffic on the Hoover Dam bypass is tourists going to visit the Grand Canyon on a day trip from Vegas (certainly that is the best of 8 days I have spent in Vegas, despite an awful lunch). While Vegas gets hire car fees, coach trip costs, etc I'm sure that the area doesn't feel that it they have got enough out of people that do that. Ironically I believe that was the most expensive day of my time there, despite leaving the commercialism of the Theme Park The Strip.

[J N Winkler]

As a part of the gaming industry, I can state with reasonable confidence that the loss of ~$5 worth of coin-in per patron will scarcely be noticed. (That is, if it happens at all; the vast majority of gamblers are responsible enough to not blow every dollar they bring, and reserve some money for living expenses.) If a high roller were seriously put off coming to Vegas by the tolls, a savvy casino host would offer to comp the toll for them. ("Well, if you make it in anyway, we can put $25 in free play on your card...") High rollers of the sort the casino truly worries about would be unlikely to care about the toll anyway, since players in that tier will drop $100 on a hand of blackjack or push of a button on a slot machine. (At the furthest extreme, the Wynn's high limit room has a slot machine that costs $5,000 per spin; a toll would be line noise to someone coming to play it.)

Actually, to make the toll a matter of 100% indifference to gamblers coming from Phoenix by road, the casinos would likely have to comp about $50.  This is based on the proposed toll rate of 13.5c/mile for the Boulder City Bypass (chosen on the basis of its being the median per-mile toll rate for recently opened toll roads) being applied to the total 292 miles between Phoenix and Las Vegas.  From the casinos' standpoint this is about $200 million tops out of total annual turnover of about $10 billion, which admittedly is not much (no more than 2%), though the effect on overall profitability is unclear.

Legalities aside, I don't think tolling will happen on the Boulder City Bypass, let alone the entire Phoenix-Vegas corridor.  The preliminary feasibility study conducted in 2007 (which I dug up a couple of days ago) found that tolling would reduce projected traffic by two-thirds.

This presumes that most people drive to Vegas, anyway. I suspect most frequent travelers to Vegas fly in. Those that drive are probably coming from the nearest metropolitan area to Vegas, namely, Los Angeles—San Diego, so they wouldn't be using I-11 anyway.

This is true, but the back-of-the-envelope analysis spelled out above is limited to visitors coming from Phoenix, for which driving the I-11 corridor is the logical means of arriving in Vegas.

The real test of gamblers' sensitivity to the cost of travelling to Vegas is airfares, which have been on an upward trend owing to unbundling of services (no free checked luggage allowance anymore for all-domestic travel), capacity reductions, and the high cost of fuel.

[Brandon]

The real test of gamblers' sensitivity to the cost of travelling to Vegas is airfares, which have been on an upward trend owing to unbundling of services (no free checked luggage allowance anymore for all-domestic travel), capacity reductions, and the high cost of fuel.

All?  I take you haven't flown Southwest recently.  Two bags up to 50 pounds to with you, included in the fare.