Nevada

[cl94]

I mean, the original deal to build the industrial park involved the developer and major employers funding construction of the road in question. So it really boils down to if the current admin will actually make them hold up their end of the bargain.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[roadfro]

I suppose the fact that a Legislature is about to happen is what's driving this proposal coming out now, so they can adjust the law to allow Washoe to have toll roads.

Coming from Oklahoma, it seems kind of silly to have a geographical restriction on where toll roads can and can't be built. Oklahoma has used toll financing to build turnpikes as safety improvements for roads that wouldn't justify a freeway by traffic count alone. It would be kind of strange if such an improvement were needed in, say, Lander County, and it was constructed as free, whereas Clark County might have to pay to use a more highly-trafficked road.

There are a few Nevada laws that are specially crafted to apply only to counties above/below a specific population size, typically to single out the application to Clark County or apply everywhere but Clark County (sometimes Washoe County or other jurisdictions are lumpedin).

Probably the best well known example is the state law that allows for the licensing of 'houses of il repute', which has a specific clause prohibiting licensing of such establishments in counties with population over 700,000, aka Clark County only. Apparently that was adopted at the behest of Clark County in the late 1970s. (Note prostitution is illegal in other Nevada counties and certain cities as well, but those prohibitions are set by local ordinance and not state law.)

I feel this arbitrary geographical population distinction is often invoked to keep certain practices in the state distinctly urban or rural.

But then again, Nevada is mercifully less prone to gigantic self-inflicted budget holes than Oklahoma is. So maybe we can find the cash for this road in Sparks without having to go the tolling route.

You can thank the law that mandates the state operate with a balanced budget for our lack of budget holes (although I don't think the counties and cities are 100% bound to that). Although as a non-classified state employee in the NSHE system (where we are often treated like pseudo-state employees depending on the context), that balanced budget mandate is a double-edged sword when employee furloughs are required to achieve it...

[roadfro]

I don't think we had a separate thread on this, but NDOT's project to improve the Charleston interchange on US 95 (I-11) is complete.

Finish of U.S. 95-Charleston project raises hopes for motorists - Las Vegas Review Journal - 8/7/2024

Motorists in east Las Vegas can probably expect an easier commute after the completion of the U.S. Highway 95-Charleston Boulevard interchange project, officials said Wednesday.

The U.S. 95 freeway ramps at Charleston were widened as part of the two-year, $99 million project, with an auxiliary lane added on both sides of the highway between Charleston and Eastern Avenue. The addition of the auxiliary lanes required the widening for three bridges along the freeway.

The freeway's northbound off-ramp to Eastern also was widened as part of the project.

The project, a collaboration among Las Vegas, Clark County and NDOT, is expected to alleviate the backups on U.S. 95 and Charleston that were routinely seen before the project.
<...>
Charleston between Honolulu Street and Sacramento Drive was widened and reconstructed, with sidewalks around the interchange also expanded.

Aside from the road improvements, the project included art elements to spruce up the look of the interchange, including a larger installation featuring figures dancing around a ribbon. Crews added improved LED lighting on Charleston and installed high mast lighting on U.S. 95 near the interchange.
<...>

[roadfro]

NDOT Announces Contract Approval of Improvements Coming Later This Year to Interstate 80 in West Reno - NDOT Press Release - 08/16/2024

CARSON CITY, Nev. – The Nevada Department of Transportation is announcing upcoming improvements to Interstate 80 in west Reno after the Nevada State Transportation Board this week approved a contract for a project to widen and enhance more than one mile of interstate. 

Road and Highway Builders. LLC. was selected as contractor for the approximately $56 million project to widen and improve I-80 between western McCarran Boulevard and Keystone Avenue, a heavily-traveled section of interstate.

Initial project construction is anticipated to begin over coming months. Community members can anticipate intermittent lane reductions and up to 10-minute travel delays, as well as speed reductions, on I-80 as project construction takes place over the coming year on the following highway improvements: 
- Resurface both directions of I-80 between McCarran Boulevard and Keystone Avenue. 
- An auxiliary merge lane will also be added on eastbound I-80 between western McCarran Boulevard and Keystone Avenue, providing additional merge opportunities for enhanced traffic safety and mobility. 
- Approximately 8,000 linear feet of decorated sound wall will be added in certain areas to help reduce traffic sound impacts for surrounding neighborhoods. Soundwalls will feature water and fish, reflecting the Truckee River.
- Select interstate bridges will also be resurfaced and improved, and the I-80 bridge over Stoker Avenue will be widened.
- Roadside drainage, signage and lighting will be improved. Certain existing roadside trees will be removed for the interstate widening, and replaced with more than 400 deciduous and evergreen trees adapted to the northern Nevada climate. 

My apartment looks out on this stretch of I-80, and I see the slowdown every weekday morning on eastbound I-80 from all the traffic merging on from McCarran Blvd West. The ramp meter installed several years ago helps somewhat, but given all that traffic coming from McCarran funnels into just two through lanes, the status quo is inadequate during rush hour.

NDOT widened the westbound direction from two to three lanes from Keystone Ave west to Robb Dr in the mid 2000s—IIRC, that was done ostensibly as a 'climbing lane' project. The lane imbalance between directions never quite sat right with me. When NDOT announced plans their project to improve I-80 through Reno-Sparks circa 2009, I emailed the project office asking if they had considered widening eastbound I-80 to three lanes starting at McCarran—that hadn't been analyzed (although reconfiguring the onramp to a longer parallel merge was in the plans). So an additional eastbound lane will be quite welcome here.

[cl94]

But will they extend said lane an extra 800 feet or so to meet where the current lane add is? That could mean a lot for how useful this is. For those not familiar with the area, the third lane begins just west of the Keystone exit ramp.

I will also note that RTC Washoe has a full 6-laning to Verdi in their long-range plan. When exactly it will happen is TBD, but 80 should be a continuous 6+ lanes from Verdi to SR 439 in the next 15-25 years.

[roadfro]

But will they extend said lane an extra 800 feet or so to meet where the current lane add is? That could mean a lot for how useful this is. For those not familiar with the area, the third lane begins just west of the Keystone exit ramp.

I will also note that RTC Washoe has a full 6-laning to Verdi in their long-range plan. When exactly it will happen is TBD, but 80 should be a continuous 6+ lanes from Verdi to SR 439 in the next 15-25 years.

That's the million dollar question. Instead of adding an auxiliary lane that begins at the McCarran Blvd West on ramp and ends at Keystone Ave, it would be much more effective to just make the added lane begin at the McCarran on ramp instead of the Keystone overpass. The amount of traffic that exits I-80 EB at Keystone is relatively minimal, such that an auxiliary lane that ends there would be somewhat pointless (especially when a new lane is added 800 feet later). It seems like an auxiliary lane could be reevaluated in the future, if widening of the freeway further west were to happen down the road.

[US 395]

But will they extend said lane an extra 800 feet or so to meet where the current lane add is? That could mean a lot for how useful this is. For those not familiar with the area, the third lane begins just west of the Keystone exit ramp.

I will also note that RTC Washoe has a full 6-laning to Verdi in their long-range plan. When exactly it will happen is TBD, but 80 should be a continuous 6+ lanes from Verdi to SR 439 in the next 15-25 years.

That's the million dollar question. Instead of adding an auxiliary lane that begins at the McCarran Blvd West on ramp and ends at Keystone Ave, it would be much more effective to just make the added lane begin at the McCarran on ramp instead of the Keystone overpass. The amount of traffic that exits I-80 EB at Keystone is relatively minimal, such that an auxiliary lane that ends there would be somewhat pointless (especially when a new lane is added 800 feet later). It seems like an auxiliary lane could be reevaluated in the future, if widening of the freeway further west were to happen down the road.

Never understood why eastbound 80 between McCarran and Keystone was still two lanes. Could've been three lanes by now, especially with the third lane starting over Keystone. Could've had a third lane going from Robb.

[kernals12]

https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/transportation-projects/i-15-south-project

Holy hell, the I-15 widening project is only costing $86 million over 9 miles.

[kkt]

I was in Reno for the first time this week (work trip). I know that the complete I-580 designation is new between Reno and Carson City, but logically the freeway should just be signed as US 395.

Yes, I know interstate funding played a major role in an entire freeway being built between the two cities, but I-580 is not physically a separate route from US 395.

Was the desire for a freeway the only reason why this 3DI exists?

I thought the freeway route is signed as both I-580 and US 395, while the old surface route of US 395 is now US 395 Business.  I think that makes the most sense:  if the US route is not going be removed, it should be the best route between two points.

It is an interstate as a thank-you for all the lovely interstate funds used to pay for it.

[lstone19]

I thought the freeway route is signed as both I-580 and US 395, while the old surface route of US 395 is now US 395 Business.

All of I-580 is also US 395. The old route is US 395 Business within Reno and US 395 Alternate outside of Reno (roughly south of Mt. Rose Highway). Where exactly it changes it less than clear (and I'm on it almost every day).

[cl94]

I thought the freeway route is signed as both I-580 and US 395, while the old surface route of US 395 is now US 395 Business.

All of I-580 is also US 395. The old route is US 395 Business within Reno and US 395 Alternate outside of Reno (roughly south of Mt. Rose Highway). Where exactly it changes it less than clear (and I'm on it almost every day).

Not completely true. The state-maintained portion of the former surface alignment is 395A, while the (very poorly signed) business route stretches north from Exit 25. The two overlap for about 4 miles (Exit 25 to Patriot Blvd, just north of Exit 29), but the business route is barely acknowledged by either NDOT or Reno. Southern city limit along 580/old 395 is at about SR 431. The 395A redesignation replaced two separate SRs connected by the Pleasant Valley section of 395 that was bypassed much later than either end.

[roadfro]

I thought the freeway route is signed as both I-580 and US 395, while the old surface route of US 395 is now US 395 Business.

All of I-580 is also US 395. The old route is US 395 Business within Reno and US 395 Alternate outside of Reno (roughly south of Mt. Rose Highway). Where exactly it changes it less than clear (and I'm on it almost every day).

Not completely true. The state-maintained portion of the former surface alignment is 395A, while the (very poorly signed) business route stretches north from Exit 25. The two overlap for about 4 miles (Exit 25 to Patriot Blvd, just north of Exit 29), but the business route is barely acknowledged by either NDOT or Reno. Southern city limit along 580/old 395 is at about SR 431. The 395A redesignation replaced two separate SRs connected by the Pleasant Valley section of 395 that was bypassed much later than either end.

The extent of 395 Business signage on the route itself appears to be the "begin" assembly southbound at the northern terminus and this confused assembly at the southern terminus. The SB US 395 ramp to Virginia St at the north end is still signed as US 395 Business (the sign was replaced in kind a few years ago), and there are some assemblies along the I-80 off ramps to Virginia St pointing ahead to US 395 Business (but not telling you which of the three streets you encounter is actually the business route).

I've always been somewhat puzzled by how Nevada's business routes are so poorly signed, especially the urban areas. I get that business routes are less important than they used to be... But I feel NDOT shouldn't bother signing business routes from freeways if NDOT and the cities are not going to sign the business routes once you leave the freeway. (For example, I-80 Business in Reno-Sparks is prominently signed along I-80 in both directions, but there is virtually no guidance on how to actually follow the business route after you exit.) NDOT seems to do a much better with this in the rural towns (maybe because those business routes tend to still be NDOT-maintained), but you'd think all involved would do a better job of this.

[cl94]

I've always been somewhat puzzled by how Nevada's business routes are so poorly signed, especially the urban areas. I get that business routes are less important than they used to be... But I feel NDOT shouldn't bother signing business routes from freeways if NDOT and the cities are not going to sign the business routes once you leave the freeway. (For example, I-80 Business in Reno-Sparks is prominently signed along I-80 in both directions, but there is virtually no guidance on how to actually follow the business route after you exit.) NDOT seems to do a much better with this in the rural towns (maybe because those business routes tend to still be NDOT-maintained), but you'd think all involved would do a better job of this.

The US 395 business route through Carson City is still signed decently well, but that is definitely an exception. The Reno-Sparks I-80 BL has horrific signage, and what signs you do get on the surface are, um, interesting. Even state-maintained business routes tend to be primarily signed as the underlying state route on the surface.

That south end assembly at Exit 25 always gives me a chuckle, as it still includes an SR 430 shield.

[pderocco]

I-80 Business in Reno-Sparks is prominently signed along I-80 in both directions, but there is virtually no guidance on how to actually follow the business route after you exit.

I just drove that a couple weeks ago, and I had to use TravelMapping on my phone in order to follow it from Prater Way onto Victorian Ave.

[roadman65]

Is Rancho Drive still US 95 Business?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ibAK53HHuYJXc4GZ9
The Exit 91 guide on US 95 ( Future I-11) omits the business route here.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/FZ38Q4SxTYrCh9Ta9
Then NB US 95 Business is shielded with a NV 599 moniker.

So is it Bus. US 95?

[roadfro]

I-80 Business in Reno-Sparks is prominently signed along I-80 in both directions, but there is virtually no guidance on how to actually follow the business route after you exit.

I just drove that a couple weeks ago, and I had to use TravelMapping on my phone in order to follow it from Prater Way onto Victorian Ave.

Sparks (or was it RTC?) did a revitalization project along Prater Way about 8 years ago which realigned the Prater/Victorian intersection so that Victorian tees into Prater. Previously, the traffic from Victorian flowed directly into the west leg of Prater toward East 4th St into Reno, so the following the business route was more seamless. They installed one of the few correctly-designed BL 80 shields there, but it's right as you turn onto Victorian (and easy to miss if you were lined up to go straight on Prater)...the opposite direction has no guidance that you need to turn left to keep following the business route.

Is Rancho Drive still US 95 Business?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ibAK53HHuYJXc4GZ9
The Exit 91 guide on US 95 ( Future I-11) omits the business route here.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/FZ38Q4SxTYrCh9Ta9
Then NB US 95 Business is shielded with a NV 599 moniker.

So is it Bus. US 95?

Yes, technically it's still BUS US 95 (at least according to AASHTO).

The northbound signage at Exit 91 and signage both directions at exit 77 shows US 95 BUS along Rancho Drive. The southbound signs at Exit 91 used to show the business route, but that was before the C/D road was installed combining the exits for Rancho Dr, Ann Rd & Centennial Center Blvd into one exit. Leaving out US 95 BUS shield was likely done to save sign space (note also this sign just says "Centennial" instead of "Centennial Ctr Blvd", which could be misleading as there is also a Centennial Pkwy nearby), but they could've installed a supplemental sign like they have on I-80 in Reno.

You won't find any business shields along Rancho Drive itself, though. And, like many urban state routes, the SR 599 shields are scarce. The ones linked at the intersection of Cheyenne Ave/SR 574 are the only ones I can think of that aren't near either terminus.

[gonealookin]

I-80 will be widened to three lanes each way from Vista Boulevard on the east side of Sparks (Exit 21) to USA Parkway (Exit 32), with federal funds now secured.  I haven't seen much about it other than the politicians' press releases so I'll quote from the one from Senator Cortez Masto:

U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) announced that the Nevada Department of Transportation will receive more than $275 million in federal funding to widen I-80 from Vista Boulevard to USA Parkway between the Reno-Sparks metro area and Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center. The improvements funded by this award include an additional lane in each direction, shoulder widening, bridge reconstruction, new pavement, and intelligent transportation system facilities.

NDOT took public comment on this project earlier this year.  https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/programs-studies/i-80-east-study

[cl94]

Long-term plans involve 6+ continuous lanes from Verdi to Exit 32. Final design between the Spaghetti Bowl and Vista has not yet been completed, so I'm curious if they'll get that project underway before this one. Else, we might have a WB bottleneck entering town. Good news for the latter project is that it is mostly bridge replacements, as the pavement and 2 bridges have already been widened for 6 lanes.

[roadfro]

NDOT seems to think their stadium-sized dynamic message signs down in Las Vegas are working fairly well, such that they're getting ready to expand that system further west along US 95 (I-11).

US 95 to get more messaging signs; multiple closures on horizon for I-15, Mick Ackers, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/16/2024

With Interstate 15 already lined with dynamic messaging boards with more to come, U.S. Highway 95 is set to see many more of the boards added along a stretch between the Spaghetti Bowl and Summerlin Parkway.

A dozen active traffic management signs — six in each direction — are planned to be installed on the U.S. 95 stretch, according to the Nevada Department of Transportation.

The $31 million project, dubbed the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment project, aims to increase traffic flow on the busy 5-mile portion of highway between downtown and Summerlin.

The messaging boards allow for real-time traffic updates, alerting motorists to upcoming lane closures, crashes and merging points. The speed limit is also changeable, with the ability to adjust to current traffic conditions.

Aside from the coming dynamic messaging boards, the project also includes the installation of 12 wrong-way driver alert systems at exit ramps along U.S. 95, two strategic traffic management sites being added and the installation of Intelligent Transportation System infrastructure.
<...>
"Construction and system integration are projected to take 18 to 24 months, followed by six months of data collection and analysis," NDOT spokeswoman Kelsey McFarland said in an email.

There's already a couple of these signs along US 95, which were installed as part of the I-15 Project Neon, but these are fairly close to the Spaghetti Bowl.

I think it's good that they are also installing wrong-way driver alert systems with this project. There are several of these systems in the Reno area now. Installations of similar systems are conspicuously few down in the Las Vegas area, where I believe there have been a lot more more wrong way driver incidents down there.

[roadfro]

Looks like a bill to allow automated traffic enforcement cameras in Nevada will again be introduced in the 2025 legislative session...

Traffic camera bill could face an uphill battle in Nevada Legislature, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/3/2024

Nevada could become the 34th state to install traffic cameras to catch speeders and drivers running red lights, but getting a bill to pass the Legislature could be an uphill battle.

Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff Kevin McMahill called for the installation of red-light and speed cameras in Las Vegas to help reduce fatalities in a city where more than 100 people have died in traffic-related incidents this year.

While a bill will be on the table in the 2025 legislative session, it'll have to overcome what appears to be wavering support among state lawmakers who have long been resistant to the idea.

Traffic safety priority of next session

The Legislature's Joint Interim Standing Committee on Growth and Infrastructure recently agreed to draft a bill that would allow the installation of road safety camera systems to help governments issue civil infraction traffic citations when drivers speed or run a red light.

The bill draft request was brought forward by the Nevada Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety, which was created about three years ago to advise the Legislature and governor on policy priorities.

Andrew Bennett, chair of the Nevada Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety, said automatic traffic enforcement systems have been a policy priority of the committee for the last two years, with the main goal to reduce traffic fatalities.
<...>
Traffic cameras are just one element of a multipronged solution aiming to address traffic safety that will be on the table when the session starts in February. The standing committee on growth and infrastructure also has a second piece that will address infrastructure changes in high-impact areas to encourage safer driving, according to Sen. Dallas Harris, the chair of the interim joint committee. It also put forward two other bill draft requests, one that will allow the use of cameras to enforce school bus stop violations, and another that would establish the requirement for some high-risk drivers to be subject to drug and alcohol monitoring.
<...>

Past wavering legislative support

Implementing traffic cameras has been a long and unsuccessful effort in the Nevada Legislature. Lawmakers killed similar bills in 2005, 2007, 2009 and again in 2019 with Senate Bill 43. That bill never made it out of committee, receiving opposition from legislators on both sides of the aisle.

Legislators in 2019 questioned where revenues from the traffic citations would go and said they worried municipalities could become dependent on the revenue streams. They also expressed opposition to the burden of proof placed on drivers if someone borrowed their car and ran a red light.
<...>

Better chance now?

Proponents of the 2025 legislation hope it'll have better success based on lessons learned in other states that already use traffic cameras.

Harris, D-Las Vegas, views it as a pilot program and a way to determine the impacts of such a program.

"There's been resistance to it for good reason, and that's why I'm hoping that with a really, really thoughtful approach, there might be an opportunity to at least test out whether these can help slow people down and save some lives," Harris said.

The intent is to make sure funding generated by traffic camera citations will go directly toward infrastructure changes, such as speed bumps or other creative infrastructure ideas to encourage people to drive safer, she said. Harris wants to prevent local governments from becoming dependent on the funding the traffic cameras might generate. Ideally, the system would generate little revenue as it would work the traffic violators out of existence, she said.

In the 2021 session, legislators passed Assembly Bill 116, which decriminalized many traffic offenses to make them civil offenses. With that change in mind, legislators might be more comfortable authorizing the cameras.

It also has the backing of Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, which could help sway some wary Republicans.
<...>

While the details of the bill are still being worked out, current and possible future legislators expressed some concerns and doubts.
<...>

Gauging local government support

Ultimately, it'll be the Legislature's responsibility to put guardrails on the program in place, and it will be up to cities and counties to decide whether to implement those programs. So far, municipalities' positions on the installation of traffic cameras are vague.

Clark County Commissioner Michael Naft has been an outspoken advocate of traffic safety measures. He said has worked closely with McMahill in relation to the proposed cameras, and has discussed the technology during commission meetings.

"We know that traffic safety cameras do work," he said. "So long as they can be implemented equitably, so long as they can be implemented in a way that protects privacy, jurisdictions should have a right to implement them."

The commissioner said the technology can reduce "unnecessary contact" between police and drivers, and that red light cameras can eventually help reduce crashes, while speed cameras can help reduce how serious the crashes are.

Naft said that, placed "specifically" around school zones, the technology can also help the valley's younger populations.

"So long as legislation is (implemented) both equitably and with a priority on safety, I think it would be a shame for taxpayers to not utilize the technology that we know to keep people safe, and to save money," Naft said.
<...>

[Scott5114]

If Sheriff McMahill would actually make his officers do their damn jobs and pull people over, we wouldn't need traffic cameras. Traffic enforcement is, as far as I can tell, basically nil in Las Vegas—I've seen plenty of reports of people blowing through lights, right in front of Metro officers, and nothing happening. It's bad enough that when the light turns green, nobody goes for about five seconds, just in case someone is going to run the light.

[roadfro]

NDOT Announces Contract Approval of Improvements Coming Later This Year to Interstate 80 in West Reno - NDOT Press Release - 08/16/2024

CARSON CITY, Nev. – The Nevada Department of Transportation is announcing upcoming improvements to Interstate 80 in west Reno after the Nevada State Transportation Board this week approved a contract for a project to widen and enhance more than one mile of interstate.
Road and Highway Builders. LLC. was selected as contractor for the approximately $56 million project to widen and improve I-80 between western McCarran Boulevard and Keystone Avenue, a heavily-traveled section of interstate.
Initial project construction is anticipated to begin over coming months. Community members can anticipate intermittent lane reductions and up to 10-minute travel delays, as well as speed reductions, on I-80 as project construction takes place over the coming year on the following highway improvements:
- Resurface both directions of I-80 between McCarran Boulevard and Keystone Avenue.
- An auxiliary merge lane will also be added on eastbound I-80 between western McCarran Boulevard and Keystone Avenue, providing additional merge opportunities for enhanced traffic safety and mobility.
- Approximately 8,000 linear feet of decorated sound wall will be added in certain areas to help reduce traffic sound impacts for surrounding neighborhoods. Soundwalls will feature water and fish, reflecting the Truckee River.
- Select interstate bridges will also be resurfaced and improved, and the I-80 bridge over Stoker Avenue will be widened.
- Roadside drainage, signage and lighting will be improved. Certain existing roadside trees will be removed for the interstate widening, and replaced with more than 400 deciduous and evergreen trees adapted to the northern Nevada climate.

But will they extend said lane an extra 800 feet or so to meet where the current lane add is? That could mean a lot for how useful this is. For those not familiar with the area, the third lane begins just west of the Keystone exit ramp.

That's the million dollar question. Instead of adding an auxiliary lane that begins at the McCarran Blvd West on ramp and ends at Keystone Ave, it would be much more effective to just make the added lane begin at the McCarran on ramp instead of the Keystone overpass. The amount of traffic that exits I-80 EB at Keystone is relatively minimal, such that an auxiliary lane that ends there would be somewhat pointless (especially when a new lane is added 800 feet later). It seems like an auxiliary lane could be reevaluated in the future, if widening of the freeway further west were to happen down the road.

I found the plans for the I-80 McCarran to Keystone project on NDOT's site over the weekend.

From what I saw on the striping plan, they are adding a third travel lane in the eastbound direction, such that the third lane that currently begins atop the Keystone overpass will now begin as an added lane from the McCarran eastbound on ramp. Calling that an "auxiliary lane" is completely inaccurate to reality.

I'll have to double check, but it appears the ramp meter on the eastbound on ramp at McCarran will be staying, despite it feeding into an added lane.