News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Las Vegas Blvd

Started by kernals12, September 07, 2024, 05:38:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JayhawkCO

Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>


Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.


Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>


The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

I'm pretty sure Vegas has the cash.


kernals12

So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?


kernals12

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?



So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:57:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?



So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard? 

You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.   

kernals12

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 01:03:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:57:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?



So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard? 

You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.   

Whenever I'm the one making suggestions, you happily invite yourself in.

Scott5114

The whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.

Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 01:37:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 01:03:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:57:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel

Why?  You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?



So you admit it's only me you have it in for?

Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard? 

You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.   

Whenever I'm the one making suggestions, you happily invite yourself in.

Maybe point the mirror at yourself and ask why that is?  You're the one demanding vindication and respect in a thread which you really haven't been in mix of the conversation.  If you had really looked into this topic you would have found that I have questioned the logic of many assumptions/things.

I'm willing to give you a you a fair shake.  The problem is you keep doing weird shit like this every time I think you are going to grow up a little.   

hobsini2

Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>


Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.


Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>


The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

PColumbus73

I guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.

The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.

If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).

Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.

dbz77

Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 11, 2024, 10:51:48 AMI guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.

The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.

If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).

Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.
there already is a transit line known as the Deuce.

vdeane

Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
I suspect you'd get a better reception if you put all your fantastical stuff in Fictional.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

pderocco

Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>


Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.


Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>


The Big Dig cost $20 billion.

And it leaked.

Rothman

Big Dig finally turned out okay.  Signage didn't work out as well as they thought, but overall, the concept worked.

Oh wait, this is a thread about I-11.

Forum's a mess.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kernals12

Quote from: hobsini2 on September 11, 2024, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>


Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.


Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>


The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?

I lived near Boston until 3 months ago. I'm glad they built it, from what I've heard it's eased congestion from what it was before. But I'm not sure it would've penciled out in a cost-benefit analysis if they had known beforehand how much it would cost. Anyways, an interstate highway is one thing, but a city street is another.

kernals12

Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 11, 2024, 10:51:48 AMI guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.

The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.

If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).

Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.

I-15 already serves as an effective super arterial.

And they've tried transit with the monorail and people movers that connect a handful of resorts. The problem with transit is it has to accelerate and decelerate slowly enough so that standing passengers don't get knocked over, that makes them slow.

The only way out of this is probably going to be electronically connecting cars into trains that can more efficiently use current road space.

PColumbus73

The discussions here seem to make it a 50/50 between I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd on which one is the least congested. It also sounds like the general perception is that there are only 2 (semi-)reliable north-south arterials to get through the Strip. Making modifications or encouraging people to use a third or fourth might not be a bad idea, maybe Paradise Road or Frank Sinatra, et al.

Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 09:25:08 PMAnd they've tried transit with the monorail and people movers that connect a handful of resorts. The problem with transit is it has to accelerate and decelerate slowly enough so that standing passengers don't get knocked over, that makes them slow.

The downside of the monorail is that it's lack of visibility, and the fact that people have to navigate through the casinos to get to it from Las Vegas Blvd, the east half of the Blvd at that. Naturally, the casinos have an incentive to try and capture that foot traffic and thus it's not in their interest to make it easier to get to the stations. The individual people-movers are more geared to move people between properties, not provide a general mass transit service, again, they would prefer to keep potential customers within their properties.

Since they already have The Deuce, they could convert a lane of Las Vegas Blvd into bus only to allow BRT service.


QuoteThe only way out of this is probably going to be electronically connecting cars into trains that can more efficiently use current road space.

So, no to trains, but yes to having cars behave like trains? Isn't that what the Hyperloop is trying to be? The Deuce already carries more passengers than two cars attached end-to-end.

hobsini2

Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 09:11:29 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 11, 2024, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)

Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.

Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.

In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>


Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.

And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.


Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>


The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?

I lived near Boston until 3 months ago. I'm glad they built it, from what I've heard it's eased congestion from what it was before. But I'm not sure it would've penciled out in a cost-benefit analysis if they had known beforehand how much it would cost. Anyways, an interstate highway is one thing, but a city street is another.
But Las Vegas Blvd is as wide as I-93 was in Boston. It probably would cost in the neighborhood of 15 billion to put it underground from Russell Rd to St Louis Ave. So while technically it is not an interstate, it is going to cost as much as if it were an interstate.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

hobsini2

Actually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

JayhawkCO

I really don't think anything needs to get fixed with Las Vegas Blvd, the road. It's fine to drive on. Walking on the sidewalks next to it? If you're a person that enjoys walking faster than a sloth, it's an exercise in restraint.

DenverBrian

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2024, 03:19:40 AMThe whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.

Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.
Um, you don't have to be in a vehicle to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Plenty of people do that while walking.

Y'all are so blinders-on to the effects of the road that you can't see the after effects. Putting LV Blvd underground opens up land - valuable land - at the surface. Land upon which could be built restaurants and shops, touristy stuff, etc. Las Vegas has proven time and time again that rubes will spend boatloads of cash on things that are shiny and flashy.

If Hard Rock can spend $1B to acquire The Mirage and then another $1-3B to renovate and add a 700-foot guitar hotel building where the volcano used to be...then I posit the combined casinos have $20B or more to put The Strip underground if they knew they'd make $60B or more on new retail in a a pedestrian mall ala Fremont Street. Just sayin'.

Scott5114

The main thing that Frank Sinatra (and its sort-of-eastern-counterpart Koval Lane) accomplishes is being a backdoor to the Strip properties for the employees. So if you're going to improve Frank Sinatra, you need to improve Koval too, for the benefit of the properties on the east side of the Strip. Unfortunately, Koval tees out at Twain, and it also is part of the stupid Formula One track. (Said stupid Formula One track is also another reason LVB isn't going to get removed or buried anytime soon. Maybe after their contract with Uncle Clark is up.)

You could maybe improve Paradise Road, but that'd really only be useful north of Twain. South of there, it's far enough away that you may as well take Maryland Parkway or Valley View or what have you.

Also, since someone mentioned Desert Inn...I'm a little pissed that this amazing "super-arterial" is basically useless because it takes longer to get through the DI/Paradise intersection than it does any of the intersections with LVB. (Yesterday I lost 20 minutes to it because it turns out the damn thing was closed, so I had to go up to Sahara anyway.)

Quote from: hobsini2 on September 12, 2024, 10:54:16 AMActually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.

This would be a neat way to handle the service traffic currently handled by Frank Sinatra and Koval, but... 

...it would be incredibly disruptive to build since you'd basically have to tear up the entire Strip all at once. Some businesses sued the county over lost revenue because the street they were on was closed for a few days due to Formula One. I can just imagine Bill Hornbuckle and Anthony Carano showing up to a Clark County Commission meeting raising holy hell over this.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Scott5114

#47
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 12, 2024, 11:20:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2024, 03:19:40 AMThe whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.

Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.
Um, you don't have to be in a vehicle to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Plenty of people do that while walking.

Y'all are so blinders-on to the effects of the road that you can't see the after effects. Putting LV Blvd underground opens up land - valuable land - at the surface. Land upon which could be built restaurants and shops, touristy stuff, etc. Las Vegas has proven time and time again that rubes will spend boatloads of cash on things that are shiny and flashy.

If Hard Rock can spend $1B to acquire The Mirage and then another $1-3B to renovate and add a 700-foot guitar hotel building where the volcano used to be...then I posit the combined casinos have $20B or more to put The Strip underground if they knew they'd make $60B or more on new retail in a a pedestrian mall ala Fremont Street. Just sayin'.

My guess is the reason the casinos don't push for this is because they wouldn't make $60B or more on putting LVB underground. Fremont does great, but it doesn't do so great that it puts a dent in Strip visitation. Which means that the ROI just isn't there to Fremontize the Strip.

If people want Fremont, they know where to find it. Presumably, all the people staying on the Strip are there because they don't want Fremont.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kernals12

Quote from: hobsini2 on September 12, 2024, 10:54:16 AMActually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
Such a road already exists, except it's 12 lanes, it's called interstate 15.


The traffic on the Strip is almost entirely people visiting the casinos.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: kernals12 on September 12, 2024, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 12, 2024, 10:54:16 AMActually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
Such a road already exists, except it's 12 lanes, it's called interstate 15.


The traffic on the Strip is almost entirely people visiting the casinos.


I was about to say...there's already a bypass for traffic wanting to go past the Strip area.  And numerous other parallel North-South streets to the Strip.

Vehicles on the Strip are generally on the Strip purposely.



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.