News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

US 95 Downtown Access Project, Las Vegas

Started by Kniwt, February 24, 2020, 05:50:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sub-Urbanite

1958 called, it wants its urban planning back

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:27:07 PM
It doesn't need to have balance. It just needs to move cars as quickly as possible and that's exactly what it will accomplish. That is completely appropriate for this area.


SeriesE

Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the Casino Center Blvd exit if close exit spacing is a concern?

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 20, 2023, 10:59:15 PM
1958 called, it wants its urban planning back

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:27:07 PM
It doesn't need to have balance. It just needs to move cars as quickly as possible and that's exactly what it will accomplish. That is completely appropriate for this area.
Nice attempt at a joke that stopped being funny back in the 2000s.

DenverBrian

1958 called, it wants you to know it's 65 years in the past.

roadfro

Quote from: SeriesE on September 21, 2023, 12:59:27 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the Casino Center Blvd exit if close exit spacing is a concern?

Yes, it would be. However, Casino Center is the southbound part of a one-way couplet (4th St being the northbound counterpart) providing one of the most efficient routes through downtown Las Vegas. Without this half interchange, the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is the only direct freeway access to the downtown core. Even the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is probably still too close to I-15 to meet modern recommendations for spacing between a service interchange and a system interchange.

Today's Spaghetti Bowl has C/D roadways in most directions, and this is the only leg lacking any.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

mrsman

Quote from: roadfro on September 23, 2023, 10:22:30 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 21, 2023, 12:59:27 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the Casino Center Blvd exit if close exit spacing is a concern?

Yes, it would be. However, Casino Center is the southbound part of a one-way couplet (4th St being the northbound counterpart) providing one of the most efficient routes through downtown Las Vegas. Without this half interchange, the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is the only direct freeway access to the downtown core. Even the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is probably still too close to I-15 to meet modern recommendations for spacing between a service interchange and a system interchange.

Today's Spaghetti Bowl has C/D roadways in most directions, and this is the only leg lacking any.

Yeah.  Downtown LV is a significant enough location that it simply cannot be bypassed.  There may be ways to construct the interchange better to handle the weaving, but access to these exits in some way or fashion is critical.

Plutonic Panda

Well, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.

https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395

Great Lakes Roads

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.

https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395

Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
-Jay Seaburg

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2024, 05:57:53 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.

https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395

Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
Yeah, I saw that so it's gonna be interesting to see what their plan is. I guess nothing's gonna change with this highway. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth explanation as to exactly how impacts to the adjacent community were too significant for construction to proceeded.

Henry

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 07:50:35 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2024, 05:57:53 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.

https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395

Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
Yeah, I saw that so it's gonna be interesting to see what their plan is. I guess nothing's gonna change with this highway. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth explanation as to exactly how impacts to the adjacent community were too significant for construction to proceeded.
My guess is, it will not be revisited until more of I-11 is completed, especially towards Reno. But this comes as no surprise that the project is too expensive to undertake, and there has to be a way to build something similar, though smaller in scale and therefore lower cost.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

roadfro

This is a bummer. 

Even if they don't go through with the grand plans they presented, that section of I-515 I-11 near downtown Las Vegas needs some serious revitalization. The viaduct has been sagging for years (the undulations just southeast of downtown are almost roller coaster-like), and will need replacing. And the section right in downtown is functionally inadequate with narrow roadway, no/minimal shoulders, and ramp geometrics that are substandard to current criteria...it's the only quadrant leading to the Spaghetti Bowl interchange that is still essentially in its original configuration, without a revamp in the last 25 years to address growth.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Sub-Urbanite

This is one of those rare moments when I feel like NEPA did its job.

Building Project Neon - which in itself is jaw-droppingly massive - adjacent to one of Las Vegas' wealthiest neighborhoods is one thing. That's a community of means that has chosen to wall itself off.

But plunking its equivalent on I-11 through one of Las Vegas' poorest neighborhoods – literally tearing down affordable housing in order to build a wider freeway – is totally different.

Yes, the viaduct needs to be replaced. But this is probably the most "urban" segment of freeway in the Las Vegas Valley and if it's going to be rebuilt, it must put the needs of the community it's in at the same level of the needs of the commuters it serves. That's ... a really expensive undertaking.

I'm glad NEPA tripped this up and hope NDOT goes back to the drawing board. The downside is you don't often see Legislatures ponying up for making freeway projects more expensive for community justice purposes.

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2024, 05:57:53 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.

https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395

Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."

Plutonic Panda

I have a suspicion. This is just more to do with money. When I saw the initial video render, I thought wow this is gonna be a very expensive project. I mean they're taking several decades to do a simple interchange in Reno. They could've went with the depressed option and added a park cap over it if they really cared about improving traffic conditions alongside concerns of nearby impacts to lower income neighborhoods. And it's not like eminent domain hasn't been used before. I think it's just more to do with money.

Scott5114

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:37:22 PMI have a suspicion. This is just more to do with money. When I saw the initial video render, I thought wow this is gonna be a very expensive project. I mean they're taking several decades to do a simple interchange in Reno. They could've went with the depressed option and added a park cap over it if they really cared about improving traffic conditions alongside concerns of nearby impacts to lower income neighborhoods. And it's not like eminent domain hasn't been used before. I think it's just more to do with money.

I don't want to say money is really no object to Nevada, because that's not quite true. But this is the state where a couple years back we had the emergency situation of the rainy day fund having more money in it than was constitutionally allowed, and the Legislature had to quickly find something to do with the excess. We are not a poor state.

If NDOT really thought this project was necessary and proper they would have just asked the Legislature for the money next month and probably would have got it.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

cl94

I mean, the initial proposal was just bad politics. Tearing down public housing projects and low-income neighborhoods will attract a lot of scrutiny, especially given who controls the legislature. Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done here, but the last thing NDOT needs is a PR nightmare, and public housing is basically untouchable in most states in 2024. I don't know enough about the local political situation to do a full analysis, but this is the type of thing that will cause an uproar.

Since the 80/580 project was mentioned above, that's another case of "right next to poor neighborhoods and low-income housing". The reason that's going to take forever is so they can keep land taking as minimal as possible and, well, they need to replace a public housing development in the NW quadrant. Even with the precautions, it's going to take out Butler Street because the current ROW has been maxed out.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

SeriesE

#90
I guess it's time to try my cheaper proposal of closing the Casino Center exit, and extending the aux lane to Las Vegas Blvd (at least as a band-aid solution) for the time being until the full improvement project can be redone.  :colorful:

roadfro

Quote from: SeriesE on December 09, 2024, 12:35:08 PMI guess it's time to try my cheaper proposal of closing the Casino Center exit, and extending the aux lane to Las Vegas Blvd (at least as a band-aid solution) for the time being until the full improvement project can be redone.  :colorful:
No room to do that on the existing viaduct, unless you have a short distance with 0 shoulders and possibly narrowed lanes. (And this is after NDOT recently reconfigured the viaduct to get an extra lane southbound from the Bowl.)

Arguably, the Casino Center exit carries more of the downtown traffic than Las Vegas Blvd because, ya' know, it goes to the center of the casino district of downtown...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

SeriesE

Quote from: roadfro on December 11, 2024, 11:31:53 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on December 09, 2024, 12:35:08 PMI guess it's time to try my cheaper proposal of closing the Casino Center exit, and extending the aux lane to Las Vegas Blvd (at least as a band-aid solution) for the time being until the full improvement project can be redone.  :colorful:
No room to do that on the existing viaduct, unless you have a short distance with 0 shoulders and possibly narrowed lanes. (And this is after NDOT recently reconfigured the viaduct to get an extra lane southbound from the Bowl.)

Arguably, the Casino Center exit carries more of the downtown traffic than Las Vegas Blvd because, ya' know, it goes to the center of the casino district of downtown...


Not as restriping, but a short physical 2 lane widening, that doesn't require tearing down any structures as it's only parking lots between the two interchanges



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.