Las Vegas: Another proposal to reduce northbound airport exit congestion

[roadfro]

Back in early 2016, a proposal was publicized that suggested building an elevated expressway network into and out of McCarran Airport in order to reduce congestion and improve travel time connections between the airport and the resort corridor. (We discussed it a bit in this thread.) By the end of 2107, that concept was scrapped.

Still looking to reduce congestion exiting the airport northbound along Swenson Street, a much more scaled down version has been proposed.

Plan to build flyover to Las Vegas airport irks UNLV officials, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/19/2018

During a Nevada System of Higher Education's Board of Regents meeting Friday, county staff proposed constructing a flyover that would sit at the southwest border of the Paradise Campus of UNLV. The plan drew concern from Acting UNLV President Marta Meana and Regent Trevor Hayes because it could block views of UNLV's Thomas &Mack Center, Cox Pavilion and Mendenhall Center.
...
The flyover would allow northbound drivers leaving the airport to bypass the intersection's traffic signal and exit either northbound onto Swenson or westbound onto Tropicana. The westbound path would take traffic under Paradise Road, allowing drivers to skip a second stoplight.

Some 51,000 vehicles would use the flyover each day, County Public Works Director Denis Cederburg said. That's about half the traffic that the intersection sees.
...
The project would cost about $77 million, Cederburg said. That's considerably less than the $200 million for the previous proposal to build a 3-mile expressway over existing roads to and from the airport.
...
Meana on Friday presented a letter from County Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak stating the county will not move forward with the project without more input from UNLV.

The college has hired CSL Consulting, JABarrett Company and Kimley-Horn and Associates to study the elevated roadway's potential impact on its campus. Results are expected by the end of this month.

"We want to see and agree with improving traffic,"  said David Frommer, UNLV's executive director for planning and construction. "We'd like to maintain the visibility of the campus, the event center, the marquees and the billboards that we have. And we want to make sure the campus access is not negatively impacted or diminished."

I think this revised proposal is a good one. That Tropicana/Swenson intersection can be quite the beast when there's heavy traffic coming out of the airport–if you happen to also have an event at the Thomas & Mack or Cox Pavillion at the same time, it can be an outright nightmare. This could be a good thing.

At the same time, I understand UNLV's position here. They've got some prime visibility on that corner when you're coming out of the airport on Swenson, so they certainly don't want that diminished in any way.

[jakeroot]

Would there be any plans to improve the signalized junctions beyond the slip ramp, such as at Koval, Harmon, or even the Strip? I feel like removing that bottleneck at Tropicana will move the bulk of traffic somewhere else. For example, creating really large backups at Koval or Harmon due to the near-constant flow of traffic from McCarran that was previously "metered" by Tropicana.

I'm not suggesting a "do nothing" alternative, but perhaps they could add a fourth left turn lane between the Connector and Tropicana (widening Tropicana in the process), or convert that left turn from Tropicana to Swenson into a Median U-turn somewhere up the road, making that Tropicana/Connector intersection a two-phase light. Not exactly kosher, but converting that double left from Tropicana to Swenson into a pro/per light might also improve timing.

I've always gotten the impression that surface streets work better as a team. Basically, I prefer smaller corridor-wide improvements, rather than massive changes at one node, and doing nothing anywhere else.

[roadfro]

Would there be any plans to improve the signalized junctions beyond the slip ramp, such as at Koval, Harmon, or even the Strip? I feel like removing that bottleneck at Tropicana will move the bulk of traffic somewhere else. For example, creating really large backups at Koval or Harmon due to the near-constant flow of traffic from McCarran that was previously "metered" by Tropicana.

I'm not suggesting a "do nothing" alternative, but perhaps they could add a fourth left turn lane between the Connector and Tropicana (widening Tropicana in the process), or convert that left turn from Tropicana to Swenson into a Median U-turn somewhere up the road, making that Tropicana/Connector intersection a two-phase light. Not exactly kosher, but converting that double left from Tropicana to Swenson into a pro/per light might also improve timing.

I've always gotten the impression that surface streets work better as a team. Basically, I prefer smaller corridor-wide improvements, rather than massive changes at one node, and doing nothing anywhere else.

I don't know of any additional plans downstream...the article above is the only info I am aware of.

While the traffic exiting the airport on Swenson is somewhat metered at Tropicana, the metered platoons that discharge there now will turn into more of a steady stream with the overpass proposal. Given the coordination that exists, I don't know if this will negatively impact downstream or not.

I don't think we'll be seeing many of your other suggestions implemented. Tropicana is already four lanes each way in this area (which is wider than most streets in Vegas), so I don't see a widening happening. Las Vegas/Nevada doesn't do dual permitted lefts, so that's unlikely (especially across four lanes, which Trop is here). And a median U turn doesn't really seem likely either...

You are right in that, typically, spot improvements aren't super effective without consideration of the surrounding system. So if this proposal moves forward, they'll definitely have to look at the downstream effects. Vegas does a pretty decent job with coordinating signals (and Tropicana is one of the better east-west arterials in the valley), but they'll have to see if more than retiming will be needed.

[roadfro]

The study result is in. This ramp proposal will be good for traffic but have a negative economic impact on UNLV.

Elevated expressway would prove costly to UNLV, study says, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/16/2018

A proposed elevated expressway near the UNLV campus would cost the school between $11.5 million and $14.5 million in adverse economic impact, according to a study carried out by the university.

Acting UNLV President Marta Meana said the "grave concerns"  she and the school had about the proposed $77 million project were confirmed in the impact study carried out by Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., JABarrett Co. and CSL International.

The proposed project includes constructing two sections of elevated roads over the intersection of Tropicana Avenue and Swenson Street. The study found that would result in a loss of land value and a loss of advertising from the UNLV marquee sign and a digital billboard located on adjacent corners of Tropicana Avenue and Swenson Street.
...
The study carried out by Kimley-Horn and Associates revealed there would be no traffic impact to [athletic and special] events [at the Thomas & Mack].

Kimley-Horn's study also stated the elevated expressway would provide significant benefits in moving traffic through Tropicana Avenue and Swenson Street, with the bulk of the motorists using the expressways being non-UNLV bound traffic. In turn, the congestion that occurs at the intersection for UNLV related traffic would also improve.

The study also said any upgrades to the intersection should consider a third left turn lane from Tropicana eastbound to northbound Swenson.
...
Estimated economic impacts of expressway on UNLV

Land value/ function: $10-13 million
Advertising loss: $1.5 million
UNLV brand: $270,000

A bit of a conundrum. Easing congestion out of the airport is certainly a priority.

I also recognize the issue from the UNLV perspective. The first thing people see coming out the north exit of the airport is the southwest corner of the UNLV campus, which is a huge visual impact. Not to mention that digital billboard sign on the northwest corner of the intersection (which is on land owned by UNLV) probably has the most captive audience in town for a billboard, and likely brings in top-dollar advertising revenue for its owner (which also likely allows UNLV to charge a premium price for placement of said billboard).

[Sub-Urbanite]

If only there was some other way to move masses of people in transit from an airport to a discrete set of nearby destinations...

[jakeroot]

If only there was some other way to move masses of people in transit from an airport to a discrete set of nearby destinations...

Trust me, we both have asked that question. For a city so focused on alcohol, you'd think there'd be an easier way to get around without a car. The strip is plenty walkable, but it's hard to deny that the car is well accommodated for.

[roadfro]

BUMP

The county has been reevaluating this project, and now has a couple other alternatives that they are looking at further.

Proposed Las Vegas underpass could cut down traffic near UNLV, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/5/2019

The latest redesign proposal for a major intersection near UNLV and McCarran International Airport would send drivers underground.

It's one of three options officials now have on the table to revamp Tropicana Avenue and Swenson Street, which sees surges of drivers traveling to and from the university, airport and Strip that put a burden on local traffic, Clark County public works director Denis Cederburg said at a county commission meeting Tuesday.

The new proposal would send all Tropicana drivers underground between just west of Maryland Parkway and just west of Paradise Road, with diversion points in each direction to access the Thomas & Mack.
<...>
But officials also said it could cost an estimated $150 million, because multiple gas, sewer and water lines lie beneath Tropicana.
<...>
A second alternative presented Tuesday could cost $90 million. The plan reconfigures the first redesign proposal initially presented last year, which UNLV officials and Nevada System of Higher Education board members contested.

That original $78 million plan called for an elevated expressway leading from Swenson over Tropicana. But the higher education officials argued it would obstruct views of the Thomas & Mack Center and a pair of digital advertising signs, which stood to cost the university between $11.5 and $14.5 million in land value and advertising revenue.

In the $90 million version, the raised portion of the elevated expressway would be moved further to the south to minimize the visual impact at Tropicana.

The university is pleased with the $90 million version, but the alternative underpass is more attractive, UNLV Executive Director of Planning and Construction David Frommer.
<...>
Cederburg said funding sources and timeline for whichever alternative is chosen still are being identified. The next meeting where the project will be discussed has not been scheduled.

I went and took a look at the county's video recording of the meeting to hear about the discussion and see if I could glean additional details.

The depressed option is labeled as a "DDI" option. It's not a DDI in the sense of what you see at a typical freeway interchange, but does draw the design inspiration from DDIs. It's rather complex, but does seem like it would be a more free-flowing option–interestingly, this option probably has the most impact on UNLV from the prospective of land acquisition, but does greatly reduce the visual impacts.

The county will continue to look at this, and especially for the depressed DDI option, to find ways to shrink down the cost.

[roadfro]

BUMP

It's been four years since this was last discussed on this forum. "McCarran Int'l Airport" is now "Harry Reid Int'l Airport", "Swenson St" is now "University Center Dr", and the proposal to reduce traffic congestion at the Tropicana exit to the airport is now a partially underground DDI.

Tropicana set to go partially underground near UNLV, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/08/2023

An updated alternative to a proposed traffic improvement project for Tropicana Avenue near UNLV resulted in millions of dollars of savings for Clark County.

Once proposed in 2018 as a $200 million elevated expressway at Tropicana Avenue and University Center Drive, which some UNLV officials at the time worried would be an eyesore, it's now been scaled down to a $115 million, partially below-grade road project, according to Denis Cederburg, Clark County Public Works director.

That $115 million price tag is also a reduction from the original reworking of the planned road configuration that leads to and from Harry Reid International Airport and the Resort Corridor. That $195 million model discussed in 2019 featured all traffic on Tropicana underground between Maryland Parkway and Paradise Road.
<...>
The heightened price was due to having more utility lines that would need to be relocated and the projected price increased since the estimate for that project was made at the time.

"Recent construction costs have led us to take a look at cost saving measures to reduce the costs of the project,"  Cederburg said.

Now just westbound traffic will be moved underground, between Maryland Parkway and Paradise, in a diverging diamond interchange design. Eastbound traffic on Tropicana will remain above ground and will feature traffic lights at the intersections of Paradise and University Center, where one-way traffic flows to the south and north, respectively.
<...>
"We've eliminated a lot of the complicated access that we had to the TNC (ride hailing lot),"  Cederburg said. "We eliminated four of the eight bridges that we had proposed in the original concept."

The underground setup came after UNLV raised concerns with the previous elevated expressway option being an eyesore and would also block branding of the school and the T&M.

The benefits of the revised partially underground choice as opposed to the fully underground one include lower cost; better transit access; improved pedestrian and bicycle access; less impact on the airport during construction; and shorter construction time, Cederburg noted.

The cons of the reduced project include more traffic signals, more points of conflict at intersections and more at-grade roadway in the airport's area.

There's also an image in the article of what this will look like:



Looks like the current plan will be mostly free-flowing, save for the two intersections along eastbound Tropicana which will now be two-phase signals and should be a lot easier to get through.

Also looks like UNLV is going to have to relocate the sign they've been so worried about on the northeast corner, and they're going to lose some surface parking for the Thomas & Mack (but they just expanded their parking garage nearby, so they should be fine there).

[The Ghostbuster]

Will this proposal be like the Paradise Rd. tunnel that goes underneath the runways at the Harry Reid International Airport?

[roadfro]

Will this proposal be like the Paradise Rd. tunnel that goes underneath the runways at the Harry Reid International Airport?

No, it's not a tunnel and not nearly as long. They are moving half of Tropicana below grade to introduce grade separation, which will allow for more free-flow turn movements and less signalized delay at the Tropicana intersections with Paradise and University Center.

Currently, when things are busy at the airport with arrivals (and especially if that coincides with commute times when people are heavily using the airport bypass), you can wait two or three cycles on northbound University Center to make the left turn onto Tropicana (and that signal likely has a 180-second cycle length already).

[jakeroot]

BUMP

It's been four years since this was last discussed on this forum. "McCarran Int'l Airport" is now "Harry Reid Int'l Airport", "Swenson St" is now "University Center Dr", and the proposal to reduce traffic congestion at the Tropicana exit to the airport is now a partially underground DDI.
...
There's also an image in the article of what this will look like:

Seems like a very clever solution. Almost seems Japanese to me, grade-separation is very common here, and it's not always because it's part of a dozen-mile long expressway project. Just piecemeal grade-separation can really make a huge difference.

I'd much rather a project like this than, say, a CFI or something overly complicated.

[Plutonic Panda]

Great news. Now all they need to do is add subterranean heavy rail from the airport through the strip to Fremont.

[SeriesE]

They're really trying everything to not build a train along Las Vegas Blvd.

(I prefer an elevated train except near the airport as the road is wide enough and it's great to look out the window and see the various casino buildings)

[roadfro]

Great news. Now all they need to do is add subterranean heavy rail from the airport through the strip to Fremont.

They're really trying everything to not build a train along Las Vegas Blvd.

(I prefer an elevated train except near the airport as the road is wide enough and it's great to look out the window and see the various casino buildings)

Not going to happen.

Note that an early concept for the Las Vegas Monorail was to have it running down Las Vegas Blvd (mostly in the center, IIRC). The casinos nixed that idea as they thought it would be a detriment to the views of the Strip and their properties. They would have been right, but such a concept would have been a far better and more accessible mass transit option for the Strip resorts (and likely would have had better ridership numbers that maybe would have avoided a bankruptcy or two...).

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ could be an opportunity to have the worlds first transit station with slot machines lol

[skluth]

Great news. Now all they need to do is add subterranean heavy rail from the airport through the strip to Fremont.

They're really trying everything to not build a train along Las Vegas Blvd.

(I prefer an elevated train except near the airport as the road is wide enough and it's great to look out the window and see the various casino buildings)

Not going to happen.

Note that an early concept for the Las Vegas Monorail was to have it running down Las Vegas Blvd (mostly in the center, IIRC). The casinos nixed that idea as they thought it would be a detriment to the views of the Strip and their properties. They would have been right, but such a concept would have been a far better and more accessible mass transit option for the Strip resorts (and likely would have had better ridership numbers that maybe would have avoided a bankruptcy or two...).

It would be a detriment to their properties economically because guests could easily hop on that transit to get to other casinos and other attractions like Fremont St. However, it wouldn't be a detriment to their views because the whole point of the Strip is to be garish and distracting. If anything, it would allow tourists to better see their properties and an elevated light metro would be just another sight and probably not as visually distracting as a miniature NYC skyline, pirate battle, dancing fountains, an erupting volcano, or a giant black pyramid.

[SeriesE]

Great news. Now all they need to do is add subterranean heavy rail from the airport through the strip to Fremont.

They're really trying everything to not build a train along Las Vegas Blvd.

(I prefer an elevated train except near the airport as the road is wide enough and it's great to look out the window and see the various casino buildings)

Not going to happen.

Note that an early concept for the Las Vegas Monorail was to have it running down Las Vegas Blvd (mostly in the center, IIRC). The casinos nixed that idea as they thought it would be a detriment to the views of the Strip and their properties. They would have been right, but such a concept would have been a far better and more accessible mass transit option for the Strip resorts (and likely would have had better ridership numbers that maybe would have avoided a bankruptcy or two...).

It would be a detriment to their properties economically because guests could easily hop on that transit to get to other casinos and other attractions like Fremont St. However, it wouldn't be a detriment to their views because the whole point of the Strip is to be garish and distracting. If anything, it would allow tourists to better see their properties and an elevated light metro would be just another sight and probably not as visually distracting as a miniature NYC skyline, pirate battle, dancing fountains, an erupting volcano, or a giant black pyramid.

The casinos are pretty much operated by either MGM or Caesars Entertainment, so odds are the tourists will end up going to another casino operated by the same company.

I guess the casinos don't want to lose out on parking fees. Other factors: rental car companies don't want to lose revenue from car rentals, or (less so now) taxi lobby don't want the train as people will stop taking taxis.

[abefroman329]

Note that an early concept for the Las Vegas Monorail was to have it running down Las Vegas Blvd (mostly in the center, IIRC). The casinos nixed that idea as they thought it would be a detriment to the views of the Strip and their properties.

But then they couldn't have leveraged the existing monorail track between the MGM Grand and Bally's.

The monorail is a failure for the same reason there will never be a passenger rail line from Vegas to LA: The casinos only support the idea if there's a stop at their front door.  That's how they ended up with a half-assed system where the stops are between various casinos and the whole system is a long walk from the Strip.

[Plutonic Panda]

Then the cities need to step up and remove the insane power these casinos have. Are there mobs running the show? If not how hard can it be to get this done?

[Rothman]

Then the cities need to step up and remove the insane power these casinos have. Are there mobs running the show? If not how hard can it be to get this done?

<.<

>.>

You know this is Vegas, right?

[kphoger]

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

[roadfro]

I guess the casinos don't want to lose out on parking fees. Other factors: rental car companies don't want to lose revenue from car rentals, or (less so now) taxi lobby don't want the train as people will stop taking taxis.

Note the monorail was planned and built before any of the Strip casinos actually started to charge for parking... Although the taxi companies may have been vocal in opposition, I don't really think they lost much revenue in the long run.

Uber/Lyft have been much more detrimental than the monorail ever was, and now with The Boring Company's tunnel plans for Vegas Loop and automated Tesla transit situation, the taxi and rideshare crowd is likely to take further hits in the future. (Note the LVCVA taking over the monorail was a plan to gain control of the monorail's exclusive franchise agreement, allowing the Vegas Loop project to proceed beyond the initial Convention Center loop.)


ETA:

The monorail is a failure for the same reason there will never be a passenger rail line from Vegas to LA: The casinos only support the idea if there's a stop at their front door.  That's how they ended up with a half-assed system where the stops are between various casinos and the whole system is a long walk from the Strip.

The Brightline project is proceeding, although granted that won't make it all the way into LA...

I still maintain the monorail would have gained traction had they connected it to the airport. The system could also have been somewhat resuscitated if more recent plans came to fruition, i.e. adding a stop near the Sands Expo Center (now also near where the MSG Sphere is being constructed) and extending to Mandalay Bay (which also would have been close to Allegiant Stadium) thus connecting all the major convention spaces in town–and that could have set up for an extension along the back side of the west strip (which could have made a station near T-Mobile Arena a reality). Yeah, that still doesn't get prime ridership that a rail directly along the Strip would've achieved, but I think it would have elicited more ridership (especially during stadium events and big conventions like CES).

[abefroman329]

The Brightline project is proceeding, although granted that won't make it all the way into LA...

And the Las Vegas station will be just south of the airport, nowhere near any of the casinos.  Although it's possible the station will spur extension of the monorail to the station, and possibly the airport along the way.

I still maintain the monorail would have gained traction had they connected it to the airport.

It doesn't seem like there was ever a time where the idea had that much support.  Yes, it was opposed by taxi and limo drivers, but it also didn't have support from any of the casinos that are on the current line.

The system could also have been somewhat resuscitated if more recent plans came to fruition, i.e. adding a stop near the Sands Expo Center (now also near where the MSG Sphere is being constructed) and extending to Mandalay Bay (which also would have been close to Allegiant Stadium) thus connecting all the major convention spaces in town–and that could have set up for an extension along the back side of the west strip (which could have made a station near T-Mobile Arena a reality). Yeah, that still doesn't get prime ridership that a rail directly along the Strip would've achieved, but I think it would have elicited more ridership (especially during stadium events and big conventions like CES).

The current location of the line doesn't make sense, and I wonder if the proposal to use what was then the existing Bally's-MGM Grand monorail was the only one where they were able to get the support they needed.

[johndoe]

"We've eliminated a lot of the complicated access that we had to the TNC (ride hailing lot),"  Cederburg said. "We eliminated four of the eight bridges that we had proposed in the original concept."

There's also an image in the article of what this will look like:

Interesting, reminds me of the "DCMI" (which I figured we'd never see really built!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diverging_diamond_interchange#Double_crossover_merging_interchange

Does anyone have a better rendering of the proposal?  How about the older version?