http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-BoO3rcRts
Its a city owned Freeway by Las Vegas. Its Interesting its mainly a freeway that only Local use. Its very light at the time of filming not as heavy as I-15 would be. How does this freeway gets financed exactly since its a city route. I thought Gas Taxes are passed by the state.
Developer impact fees maybe?
Summerlin Parkway was never meant to be a through route at all. It is primarily for local and local commuting, as it goes into areas that were built as residential (with commercial and business coming later). Summerlin Parkway was originally constructed by the developers of the Summerlin master planned community. If memory serves, the original segment ran from US 95 to Town Center Drive with original interchanges at US 95 & Buffalo Drive. Other interchanges and expansion came later as Summerlin grew.
Further improvements and subsequent expansions of Summerlin Parkway have been funded mostly through the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, which is behind much of the roadway capacity improvements in the Las Vegas Valley--other funding likely comes from the City of Las Vegas (particularly the Durango Drive interchange and Tenaya Way overpass), Clark County (the CC 215 interchange) and NDOT (vicinity of the US 95 for the "Rainbow Curve" interchange rebuild and HOV flyover). The RTC collects gas tax in Clark County (on top of what the state collects) and there is also local voter-approved tax initiatives in Clark County ("Question 10") that go to RTC road projects that may have provided some funding for Summerlin Parkway projects. Summerlin itself may have also provided some funding for upgrades--they provided funding to build some of CC 215 through Summerlin as freeway originally when adjacent sections were initially constructed as frontage roads and interim roadways.
Primary maintenance responsibility lies with the City of Las Vegas. Major maintenance/rehab projects are likely RTC driven.
Would love to see Summerlin Parkway get some type of highway number, as I believe that it is better to have limited access routes numbered in some way.
Is there any way to get a City of LV highway 711 signed? (or maybe as a CC or NV route)
(I figured with I-11 coming to the area, the Summerlin should have a number that is reminiscent of a 3di of I-11, even if it itself is not an interstate highway.)
Also, is there a reason why there are no freeway entrance signs at on-ramps to Summerlin Pkwy? It seems like it meets the requirements of a freeway at all points except the interchange with CC 215.
Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
Would love to see Summerlin Parkway get some type of highway number, as I believe that it is better to have limited access routes numbered in some way.
Is there any way to get a City of LV highway 711 signed? (or maybe as a CC or NV route)
(I figured with I-11 coming to the area, the Summerlin should have a number that is reminiscent of a 3di of I-11, even if it itself is not an interstate highway.)
To my knowledge, there is no plan to put a route number on this freeway. It would not get a Clark County route number at all, since it is maintained by the City and not Clark County.
In my ideal world, NDOT and CLV would agree to a swap of ownership and maintenance. CLV would take over some more arterial road(s) within its borders that are currently overseen by NDOT and don't make sense as state highways (some potential candidates would be portions of Craig Rd [SR 573], Bonanza Road [SR 579], Jones Blvd [SR 596], and the short bit of Casino Center Blvd [SR 602]). In exchange, NDOT would take over the freeway portion of Summerlin Parkway (future plans, on hold since the recession, are to continue the Pkwy west from CC-215 as an arterial boulevard when development extends across the beltway in this area). I would then designate Summerlin Pkwy as State Route 195, to liken it to being a "spur" of US 95–this number would fit in with the original 1976 renumbering schema, and no number near this range has been used.
(Circa 2015 or so, NDOT developed more standard guidelines to help facilitate jurisdictional transfers of roadways, identifying types of roads it should ideally turn back to local entities and other roads that should be elevated to state highway status. The type of jurisdiction swap I propose could potentially fit into these guidelines.)
Quote
Also, is there a reason why there are no freeway entrance signs at on-ramps to Summerlin Pkwy? It seems like it meets the requirements of a freeway at all points except the interchange with CC 215.
I've always wondered this myself. Summerlin Pkwy is the only freeway facility in Nevada lacking such signs. My only guess is that there's not a route shield for Summerlin Pkwy (but they could have put the road name on a sign to make such an assembly work).
CA has freeway entrance signs for the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield, even though it is not a state highway. [It will become CA 58 once the connection to 58/99 is completed.]
Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
Would love to see Summerlin Parkway get some type of highway number, as I believe that it is better to have limited access routes numbered in some way.
The George Washington Parkway is limited access north of Alexandria and has no number. I've never found it confusing on my trips to DC. Many parkways and toll roads were not originally numbered. It may be a good way to keep down traffic counts as non-locals may avoid it.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Julsg
Bumping this topic to address a previous comment I made...
Quote from: roadfro on January 17, 2018, 10:32:31 AM
To my knowledge, there is no plan to put a route number on this freeway. It would not get a Clark County route number at all, since it is maintained by the City and not Clark County.
In my ideal world, NDOT and CLV would agree to a swap of ownership and maintenance. CLV would take over some more arterial road(s) within its borders that are currently overseen by NDOT and don't make sense as state highways (some potential candidates would be portions of Craig Rd [SR 573], Bonanza Road [SR 579], Jones Blvd [SR 596], and the short bit of Casino Center Blvd [SR 602]). In exchange, NDOT would take over the freeway portion of Summerlin Parkway (future plans, on hold since the recession, are to continue the Pkwy west from CC-215 as an arterial boulevard when development extends across the beltway in this area). I would then designate Summerlin Pkwy as State Route 195, to liken it to being a "spur" of US 95–this number would fit in with the original 1976 renumbering schema, and no number near this range has been used.
(Circa 2015 or so, NDOT developed more standard guidelines to help facilitate jurisdictional transfers of roadways, identifying types of roads it should ideally turn back to local entities and other roads that should be elevated to state highway status. The type of jurisdiction swap I propose could potentially fit into these guidelines.)
I was just perusing the NDOT's 2019 highway log and discovered that a jurisdiction swap appears to have taken place sometime in 2018...
The 2019 highway log shows Summerlin Parkway as a new designation: State Route 613. (I'll note that when I was in Las Vegas over the holidays, I did not see any indications in the field that the highway was now under state maintenance–no highway shields or mileposts in sight.)
The corresponding roadway swap appears to have been a truncation of SR 159. SR 159 was removed from Charleston Blvd between the 215 beltway and Martin L King Blvd, and also from downtown between Commerce St & 25th St. (I'm surprised 25th St was chosen as the endpoint of the eastern segment instead of the very nearby Boulder Hwy/SR 582.)
If I were NDOT, I would have offloaded a handful of other routes with lower roadway classifications (such as those I mentioned previously) instead of that much of SR 159. I'm guessing the City of Las Vegas really wanted local control of Charleston...the city having direct control of the downtown portion makes sense with revitalization efforts though. So NDOT gave up about 11 miles of arterial roadway in exchange for taking on about 5.5 miles of freeway...I guess that's a win for them.
It would make sense for Summerlin Parkway to get handed over to NDOT. As rapid growth continues in that part of Las Vegas I could certainly see the eventual need for creating a direct freeway to freeway interchange between CC-215 and the current West end of Summerlin Parkway. Right now Summerlin Parkway ends at a CC-215 with a couple stop lights. A freeway to freeway interchange won't be cheap, even if it isn't built as a full stack. A "Y" interchange alone will cost a bunch. At least they have plenty of space available to build such a thing.
At least they built out Summerlin Parkway in a manner where it could be brought up to full Interstate standards. In that case all that might be needed is a bit of improvement with the shoulders.
It's too bad other main arterials weren't built with future expansion in mind. If Enterprise keeps growing like it has been Blue Diamond Road (NV-160) will turn into a real slog. It's probably already too encroached with development for any serious expansion to happen. St Rose Parkway (NV-146) is almost in the same situation. At least it doesn't have as many driveways spilling out directly onto it.
If the land to the west of the Summerlin Parkway's terminus is developed someday, could the roadway be extended westward?
If you go on Google Maps Street View and look at the 215/Summerlin interchange from above, it appears as though there is room for a direct ramp from 215 South to the eastbound Summerlin Parkway, with the ramp going under Summerlin Parkway. The space for the ramp appears to be covered in rocks that are currently used for decoration along the 215.
I wouldn't be surprised if Summerlin ever gets extended west of 215, as Las Vegas expands westward. I would be surprised if it was a freeway west of 215.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 08, 2019, 11:59:38 AM
It would make sense for Summerlin Parkway to get handed over to NDOT. As rapid growth continues in that part of Las Vegas I could certainly see the eventual need for creating a direct freeway to freeway interchange between CC-215 and the current West end of Summerlin Parkway. Right now Summerlin Parkway ends at a CC-215 with a couple stop lights. A freeway to freeway interchange won't be cheap, even if it isn't built as a full stack. A "Y" interchange alone will cost a bunch. At least they have plenty of space available to build such a thing.
At least they built out Summerlin Parkway in a manner where it could be brought up to full Interstate standards. In that case all that might be needed is a bit of improvement with the shoulders.
It's too bad other main arterials weren't built with future expansion in mind. If Enterprise keeps growing like it has been Blue Diamond Road (NV-160) will turn into a real slog. It's probably already too encroached with development for any serious expansion to happen. St Rose Parkway (NV-146) is almost in the same situation. At least it doesn't have as many driveways spilling out directly onto it.
I was quite upset when the county converted 215 to freeway at Summerlin Pkwy that they didn't do a system interchange there. The design could have been so much better than what we got.
It wasn't all that long ago that SR 146 and SR 160 were two-lane roads. SR 146 was widened to it's present configuration circa 2006-07 (I interned for NDOT summer 2005, and one of the things I did was tag along with an in-house survey crew that was marking things in prep for the project). NDOT has been gradually widening SR 160 heading west from I-15 & Las Vegas Blvd ever since they finished 146--this was brought about by the massive rise in the southwest valley as well as commuter traffic from Pahrump.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:23:16 PM
If the land to the west of the Summerlin Parkway's terminus is developed someday, could the roadway be extended westward?
I once read that the future plans for Summerlin Parkway is to extend west from the 215 as an arterial roadway and not as a freeway, once future Summerlin development necessitates it.
Quote from: roadfro on January 10, 2019, 04:07:23 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:23:16 PM
If the land to the west of the Summerlin Parkway's terminus is developed someday, could the roadway be extended westward?
I once read that the future plans for Summerlin Parkway is to extend west from the 215 as an arterial roadway and not as a freeway, once future Summerlin development necessitates it.
That makes sense; the Charleston mountain range rises not terribly far west of 215 at that point, which would obviate much in the way of an additional outer loop being considered. For basic development of housing and associated commercial activity, a surface arterial with sufficient capacity would be appropriate. But I do think the lack of a system interchange between Summerlin and the 215 loop is short-sighted unless there is room reserved for future flyovers to and from the freeway portion of Summerlin (I guess we can now call it NV 613 -- for obvious reasons, it's too bad they didn't make it 611!).
Quote from: roadfroI was quite upset when the county converted 215 to freeway at Summerlin Pkwy that they didn't do a system interchange there. The design could have been so much better than what we got.
It could be an interim exit design just to make the intersection operational with limited funds. There is plenty of room to convert it to a directional "Y" interchange with CA-215 (future I-215) in the future.
The intersection with CA-215 and US-95 on the NW side of Las Vegas currently has a pair of at-grade intersections with traffic signals along CA-215. That interchange will eventually be converted into a directional freeway to freeway interchange.
Quote from: roadfroI once read that the future plans for Summerlin Parkway is to extend west from the 215 as an arterial roadway and not as a freeway, once future Summerlin development necessitates it.
That sounds about right. Development can't go any more than perhaps a mile West of the current West end of Summerlin Parkway. One oddity with current Google Earth imagery: dirt work for a possible extension of Desert Foothills Drive has the street spreading out with the appearance of a Texas style frontage roads & future freeway concept. I don't know why they would be doing that with CA-215 running so close.
TIL Las Vegas is in California.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 11, 2019, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: roadfroI was quite upset when the county converted 215 to freeway at Summerlin Pkwy that they didn't do a system interchange there. The design could have been so much better than what we got.
It could be an interim exit design just to make the intersection operational with limited funds. There is plenty of room to convert it to a directional "Y" interchange with CA-215 (future I-215) in the future.
The intersection with CA-215 and US-95 on the NW side of Las Vegas currently has a pair of at-grade intersections with traffic signals along CA-215. That interchange will eventually be converted into a directional freeway to freeway interchange.
If this is an interim design, it's the second interim configuration for this intersection. (The original configuration, before this stretch of
CC-215 was converted to freeway, was all at-grade intersections.) Even if they're going to eventually do some more build out, there are elements that should have been done back when the 215 freeway was converted. For example, the WB to NB movement could have been a sweeping freeway-to-freeway ramp instead of making people take the right turn at the signalized intersection (and a NTOR restriction makes that even more painful).
I have not seen any plans nor even a mention of a system interchange conversion in any planning document. At least with the
CC-215/US 95 "Centennial Bowl" interchange, it is well documented & publicized that NDOT is converting the Centennial Bowl to a system interchange as part of a multi-phase project.
Even if there isn't any specific plans for a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange, the fact that adjacent neighborhood streets (Mission Lakes Ave, Whooping Crane Lane and Swanbrooke Drive) were pushed back away from the intersection in big curved paths certainly leaves the option open for NDOT to build a "Y" interchange in that spot at a future date. The ROW is available. They could have let developers hug their housing developments right up next to the signal lights, but they didn't.
Quote from: roadfro on January 11, 2019, 04:28:12 PM
If this is an interim design, it's the second interim configuration for this intersection. (The original configuration, before this stretch of CC-215 was converted to freeway, was all at-grade intersections.) Even if they're going to eventually do some more build out, there are elements that should have been done back when the 215 freeway was converted. For example, the WB to NB movement could have been a sweeping freeway-to-freeway ramp instead of making people take the right turn at the signalized intersection (and a NTOR restriction makes that even more painful).
I have not seen any plans nor even a mention of a system interchange conversion in any planning document. At least with the CC-215/US 95 "Centennial Bowl" interchange, it is well documented & publicized that NDOT is converting the Centennial Bowl to a system interchange as part of a multi-phase project.
I always assumed that Howard Hughes wanted to downgrade Summerlin Parkway to a surface arterial west of 215, so a signalized intersection at 215 would be more effective at slowing drivers to arterial speeds vs. a full system interchange.
Quote from: roadfro on January 11, 2019, 04:28:12 PM
If this is an interim design, it's the second interim configuration for this intersection. (The original configuration, before this stretch of CC-215 was converted to freeway, was all at-grade intersections.) Even if they're going to eventually do some more build out, there are elements that should have been done back when the 215 freeway was converted. For example, the WB to NB movement could have been a sweeping freeway-to-freeway ramp instead of making people take the right turn at the signalized intersection (and a NTOR restriction makes that even more painful).
I have not seen any plans nor even a mention of a system interchange conversion in any planning document. At least with the CC-215/US 95 "Centennial Bowl" interchange, it is well documented & publicized that NDOT is converting the Centennial Bowl to a system interchange as part of a multi-phase project.
Apparently, the interchange *is* an interim configuration. Later found a mention on Summerlin Parkway's Wikipedia page with a 2008 LVRJ Road Warrior Q&A article mentioning such. (I'm an avid reader of this column and don't recall this...)
http://www.reviewjournal.com/road-warrior/cost-constraints-impact-interchange
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 16, 2019, 01:44:02 PM
I always assumed that Howard Hughes wanted to downgrade Summerlin Parkway to a surface arterial west of 215, so a signalized intersection at 215 would be more effective at slowing drivers to arterial speeds vs. a full system interchange.
Fair enough, and I don't disagree with that assessment. But it would only be appropriate for the through traffic on Summerlin Pkwy to get a signal. Westbound traffic continuing onto 215 could (and should) still have a freeway-to-freeway connection without passing through a signal. Currently, WB to SB is one of the two dominant movements at the interchange, and it involves passing through a signal and taking a very tight (25 mph advisory) loop ramp.
Quote from: roadfro on January 06, 2019, 03:37:14 PM
Bumping this topic to address a previous comment I made...
Quote from: roadfro on January 17, 2018, 10:32:31 AM
To my knowledge, there is no plan to put a route number on this freeway. It would not get a Clark County route number at all, since it is maintained by the City and not Clark County.
In my ideal world, NDOT and CLV would agree to a swap of ownership and maintenance. CLV would take over some more arterial road(s) within its borders that are currently overseen by NDOT and don't make sense as state highways (some potential candidates would be portions of Craig Rd [SR 573], Bonanza Road [SR 579], Jones Blvd [SR 596], and the short bit of Casino Center Blvd [SR 602]). In exchange, NDOT would take over the freeway portion of Summerlin Parkway (future plans, on hold since the recession, are to continue the Pkwy west from CC-215 as an arterial boulevard when development extends across the beltway in this area). I would then designate Summerlin Pkwy as State Route 195, to liken it to being a "spur" of US 95–this number would fit in with the original 1976 renumbering schema, and no number near this range has been used.
(Circa 2015 or so, NDOT developed more standard guidelines to help facilitate jurisdictional transfers of roadways, identifying types of roads it should ideally turn back to local entities and other roads that should be elevated to state highway status. The type of jurisdiction swap I propose could potentially fit into these guidelines.)
I was just perusing the NDOT's 2019 highway log and discovered that a jurisdiction swap appears to have taken place sometime in 2018...
The 2019 highway log shows Summerlin Parkway as a new designation: State Route 613. (I'll note that when I was in Las Vegas over the holidays, I did not see any indications in the field that the highway was now under state maintenance–no highway shields or mileposts in sight.)
The corresponding roadway swap appears to have been a truncation of SR 159. SR 159 was removed from Charleston Blvd between the 215 beltway and Martin L King Blvd, and also from downtown between Commerce St & 25th St. (I'm surprised 25th St was chosen as the endpoint of the eastern segment instead of the very nearby Boulder Hwy/SR 582.)
If I were NDOT, I would have offloaded a handful of other routes with lower roadway classifications (such as those I mentioned previously) instead of that much of SR 159. I'm guessing the City of Las Vegas really wanted local control of Charleston...the city having direct control of the downtown portion makes sense with revitalization efforts though. So NDOT gave up about 11 miles of arterial roadway in exchange for taking on about 5.5 miles of freeway...I guess that's a win for them.
Was out there a week ago and still no signs up to indicate the new SR 613 designation. I suspect it will be slow going to put up any route markers, much like they've been slow to put anything up for I-11 between the I-215/I-515/SR 564 exchange and Railroad Pass...
Quote from: flaroads on March 14, 2019, 06:43:42 PM
Was out there a week ago and still no signs up to indicate the new SR 613 designation. I suspect it will be slow going to put up any route markers, much like they've been slow to put anything up for I-11 between the I-215/I-515/SR 564 exchange and Railroad Pass...
Check out the "I-11 through Vegas and points north" thread. Last post indicates NDOT is (finally) starting a project to post I-11 signs.
Conversely, I do not expect SR 613 signs to be posted at all. 500/600 series routes along arterial roads in the Las Vegas Valley are scarcely signed. Summerlin Pkwy has existed for nearly 30 years without a number, so adding SR 613 signs is not really going to benefit anyone.
Quote from: roadfro on March 16, 2019, 09:44:49 PM
Check out the "I-11 through Vegas and points north" thread. Last post indicates NDOT is (finally) starting a project to post I-11 signs.
Just did!
Quote from: roadfro on March 16, 2019, 09:44:49 PM
Conversely, I do not expect SR 613 signs to be posted at all. 500/600 series routes along arterial roads in the Las Vegas Valley are scarcely signed. Summerlin Pkwy has existed for nearly 30 years without a number, so adding SR 613 signs is not really going to benefit anyone.
You're probably right about that since Summerlin Parkway is all anyone has ever known that freeway to be, but it still would be to see some route markers along its course, especially since some mapping applications (like Google and OpenStreetMap) are placing it on their products.
Is there a specific reason that the City handed it over to NDOT to maintain anyway? The only thing I can think of is a better chance of funding for future improvements.
Quote from: flaroads on March 17, 2019, 09:12:13 PM
Is there a specific reason that the City handed it over to NDOT to maintain anyway? The only thing I can think of is a better chance of funding for future improvements.
Nothing specific that I've seen published anywhere as of yet.
NDOT has had maintenance and ownership responsibilities over portions of many arterial and local roads statewide that really serve no state highway purpose for a long time, while cities/counties have had control over some high functional classification roadways that would make more sense as state highway. (I believe this is at least in part due to old NHS funding formulas/methodologies.) However, NDOT has long wanted to do some jurisdictional transfers across the state to take control of more high profile roads that should be state highway and let local agencies take back some of the lesser roads. There have been some one-off and small scale transfers over the past 20-ish years, but nothing comprehensive like NDOT has wanted. Within the last few years though, NDOT has worked with local agencies to develop a procedure manual that better outlines and guides the jurisdictional transfer process, and now some local agencies are expressing more interest.
With this framework now in place, we may see a few more transfers coming down the pipeline. The Summerlin Parkway swap is one of the bigger items I've seen since the finalization of the manual. IIRC, some NDOT board meeting minutes from late 2018 indicated that a swap for the county-maintained portion of I-215 may be on the horizon in the next year or so...
Intentional bump of this topic to make note of a few things.
I'm in Vegas right now for work, and I see that there has been a repaving project going on along Summerlin Pkwy between 215 and Rampart or Durango, which is in the finishing stages. Nothing major to report in the way of changes to road configuration and such, but I can address a couple things mentioned upthread.
Quote from: roadfro on January 17, 2018, 10:32:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2018, 08:08:57 PM
Also, is there a reason why there are no freeway entrance signs at on-ramps to Summerlin Pkwy? It seems like it meets the requirements of a freeway at all points except the interchange with CC 215.
I've always wondered this myself. Summerlin Pkwy is the only freeway facility in Nevada lacking such signs. My only guess is that there's not a route shield for Summerlin Pkwy (but they could have put the road name on a sign to make such an assembly work).
Quote from: FLRoads on March 17, 2019, 09:12:13 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 16, 2019, 09:44:49 PM
Conversely, I do not expect SR 613 signs to be posted at all. 500/600 series routes along arterial roads in the Las Vegas Valley are scarcely signed. Summerlin Pkwy has existed for nearly 30 years without a number, so adding SR 613 signs is not really going to benefit anyone.
You're probably right about that since Summerlin Parkway is all anyone has ever known that freeway to be, but it still would be to see some route markers along its course, especially since some mapping applications (like Google and OpenStreetMap) are placing it on their products.
I think I've reported elsewhere on the forum that the BGSs along CC 215 had SR 613 shields added atop them a few years ago, but that has been the only field signage of the route number.
The current project is in final stages such that much of the permanent signage has been installed. I can report that SR 613 shields are now more prevalent on and around Summerlin Pkwy. Reassurance shields are now in place along the freeway in the project area after each freeway on ramp. Additionally, "freeway entrance" sign packages, including shields, appear to have been installed along the side streets. Also, some of the overhead BGSs on side streets have been replaced with versions that include a 613 shield.
Another thing to report is BGS signage along Summerlin Pkwy as well. Originally, most of the signage was post mounted along the side of the roadway—now, most signs are relocated overhead (and unlit, as keeping with more recent NDOT practice). Additionally, NDOT has added exit numbers to these western interchanges: Rampart Blvd (exit 3), Town Center Dr (exit 1), Anasazi Dr (exit 0)*, and the 215 does not have an exit number.
I did not see mileposts, but that tends to be one of the last things installed (often by NDOT crews and not the contractors).
* Note that this is the first instance of an 'Exit 0' in Nevada, despite that fact that two other interchanges should be marked as exit 0—the I-15 Primm interchange (right at the CA state line) and I-215 interchange with I-11/I-515/US 93/US 95.
It's obvious Summerlin Parkway is going to be an Interstate-class freeway between CR-215 (Future I-215) and Future I-11. The route of the Summerlin Parkway Freeway gets unclear outside the CR-215 loop. Judging by what is being dug up outside the 215 loop it looks like Grand Park Blvd would be a continuation of the Summerlin Parkway freeway.
It looks like Summerlin Parkway west of 215 beltway will be called Sunset Run Dr. In fact, it seems an entire neighborhood is being prepped to be built west of 215. I wish Summerlin Parkway had exit numbers, though.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2023, 03:16:41 PM
I wish Summerlin Parkway had exit numbers, though.
Failure to read the thread, inane buster.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2023, 12:55:02 AM
It's obvious Summerlin Parkway is going to be an Interstate-class freeway between CR-215 (Future I-215) and Future I-11. The route of the Summerlin Parkway Freeway gets unclear outside the CR-215 loop. Judging by what is being dug up outside the 215 loop it looks like Grand Park Blvd would be a continuation of the Summerlin Parkway freeway.
Almost would have expected NV 611 or 615 for Summerlin Parkway as a placeholder for a potential I-shield. An urban radial connector from Downtown west to the Beltway (which is slated to become I-215 fully at some point when I-shield standards are met and Clark County and NDOT work out the details) could/should be deserving a 3di
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. As it is, Summerlin isn't fully up to I-standards given the presence of signals at the west end, though that may be coming.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 24, 2023, 08:40:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2023, 12:55:02 AM
It's obvious Summerlin Parkway is going to be an Interstate-class freeway between CR-215 (Future I-215) and Future I-11. The route of the Summerlin Parkway Freeway gets unclear outside the CR-215 loop. Judging by what is being dug up outside the 215 loop it looks like Grand Park Blvd would be a continuation of the Summerlin Parkway freeway.
Almost would have expected NV 611 or 615 for Summerlin Parkway as a placeholder for a potential I-shield. An urban radial connector from Downtown west to the Beltway (which is slated to become I-215 fully at some point when I-shield standards are met and Clark County and NDOT work out the details) could/should be deserving a 3di
I'd be surprised - nobody except for North Carolina is really putting interstate shields on new freeways these days. Phoenix and Salt Lake are doing just fine with state or US highway numbers for their new urban freeways. CC-215 to I-215 is a unique exception that has been planned for many years.
Quote from: US 89 on October 24, 2023, 11:45:38 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 24, 2023, 08:40:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2023, 12:55:02 AM
It's obvious Summerlin Parkway is going to be an Interstate-class freeway between CR-215 (Future I-215) and Future I-11. The route of the Summerlin Parkway Freeway gets unclear outside the CR-215 loop. Judging by what is being dug up outside the 215 loop it looks like Grand Park Blvd would be a continuation of the Summerlin Parkway freeway.
Almost would have expected NV 611 or 615 for Summerlin Parkway as a placeholder for a potential I-shield. An urban radial connector from Downtown west to the Beltway (which is slated to become I-215 fully at some point when I-shield standards are met and Clark County and NDOT work out the details) could/should be deserving a 3di
I'd be surprised - nobody except for North Carolina is really putting interstate shields on new freeways these days. Phoenix and Salt Lake are doing just fine with state or US highway numbers for their new urban freeways. CC-215 to I-215 is a unique exception that has been planned for many years.
The under construction I-490 O'Hare Airport Ring Tollway says hello. Summerlin Pkwy is different in Vegas, tho, as it wasn't originally constructed by a state DOT. Now that NDOT has it, it has at least received a state highway shield in NV 613
Wasn't that long ago that Nevada posted new I-11 shields between I-215 and the Hoover Dam on newly constructed freeway, either
But it wouldn't be the only example of a freeway in the state that doesn't get the I-shield. There are no plans to extend I-580 north of I-80 despite the freeway being Interstate-grade to the state line, nor are there plans to make the new 395-445 connector freeway north of Reno an Interstate. CC 215 has been planned to eventually be an Interstate for decades, sure, but I wouldn't say an x11 is certain along SR 613. 613 fits the numbering scheme and is sequentially next after SR 612. And using a 6xx instead of a 1xx here means little, as major arterial roads have gotten numbers in the 5-6xx range if it stays within urban limits.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 24, 2023, 08:40:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2023, 12:55:02 AM
It's obvious Summerlin Parkway is going to be an Interstate-class freeway between CR-215 (Future I-215) and Future I-11.
Almost would have expected NV 611 or 615 for Summerlin Parkway as a placeholder for a potential I-shield. An urban radial connector from Downtown west to the Beltway (which is slated to become I-215 fully at some point when I-shield standards are met and Clark County and NDOT work out the details) could/should be deserving a 3di
Quote from: cl94 on October 25, 2023, 02:46:02 AM
But it wouldn't be the only example of a freeway in the state that doesn't get the I-shield. There are no plans to extend I-580 north of I-80 despite the freeway being Interstate-grade to the state line, nor are there plans to make the new 395-445 connector freeway north of Reno an Interstate. CC 215 has been planned to eventually be an Interstate for decades, sure, but I wouldn't say an x11 is certain along SR 613. 613 fits the numbering scheme and is sequentially next after SR 612. And using a 6xx instead of a 1xx here means little, as major arterial roads have gotten numbers in the 5-6xx range if it stays within urban limits.
Summerlin Pkwy is of near-interstate quality. There's a few points with some shoulder deficiencies and of course the signalized interchange with the 215 (which is apparently still in an interim configuration), but otherwise good. An interstate shield
could be applied, but is likely not in the cards (although 5-10 or so years ago, I wouldn't have expected Summerlin Pkwy to have a state route number or shields posted, so who knows...).
Note that the 613 number was adopted before the I-11 routing had been decided through the Las Vegas Valley, so 611 wouldn't necessarily have been a reasonable placeholder at the time. And really, the number chosen doesn't totally make sense with the numbering scheme adopted in the renumbering—500/600 series being federal aid urban roads consisting mostly of urban arterials. A number in the 170s would be more appropriate—100-400s being federal aid primary routes with the mid-100's being assigned in Clark County, and 174 would've been the next number in sequence when NDOT took over the freeway. Note also that SR 171 is the NDOT-maintained portion of the airport connector, and Nevada's first state route freeway—which made me think Summerlin Pkwy would have a different number than it got. (BTW: I always thought SR 195 would've been a good number for Summerlin Pkwy, fitting the numbering scheme and acting as a "spur" of US 95.)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2023, 12:55:02 AM
The route of the Summerlin Parkway Freeway gets unclear outside the CR-215 loop. Judging by what is being dug up outside the 215 loop it looks like Grand Park Blvd would be a continuation of the Summerlin Parkway freeway.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2023, 03:16:41 PM
It looks like Summerlin Parkway west of 215 beltway will be called Sunset Run Dr. In fact, it seems an entire neighborhood is being prepped to be built west of 215.
I haven't seen any official maps, but it does seem like you both could be right...hard to tell. But it will be a surface arterial and not a freeway.
If a certain, national chain of convenience stores is willing to throw in some bread, then the Summerlin can be called "I-711" and give them in-perpetuity advertising. ;)
There is a 7-11 convenience store near the eastern terminus of the Summerlin Parkway at the corner of Westcliff Dr. and N. Tenaya Way: https://www.google.com/maps/place/7-Eleven/@36.1738426,-115.2490205,1162m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x80c8c05a57ed9143:0x26df71dc535b73a7!8m2!3d36.1744189!4d-115.2505345!16s%2Fg%2F1tf5ky1p?entry=ttu. So an Interstate 711 along the Summerlin would not be out of place.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 25, 2023, 10:39:02 AM
If a certain, national chain of convenience stores is willing to throw in some bread, then the Summerlin can be called "I-711" and give them in-perpetuity advertising. ;)
711 also has gambling connotations, especially for Craps players. Perfect for Vegas
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 25, 2023, 10:39:02 AM
If a certain, national chain of convenience stores is willing to throw in some bread, then the Summerlin can be called "I-711" and give them in-perpetuity advertising. ;)
This is horrible and totally plausible and don't give NDOT any ideas.
$110M+ Summerlin Parkway interchange project to start later this year: https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/01/08/110m-summerlin-parkway-interchange-project-start-later-this-year/
From the article, the project is slated to begin in the second half of 2024 and be completed in about 2 years. Here's an image from the article, albeit a low-quality one:
(https://gray-kvvu-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/v2/BZUEQEMJWNBGHPIEWG6M26WXC4.png?auth=122074b81b89ec20f6ac8f4c66fc40ba7abad5d13eedfda78a47ed69cf2e48c3&width=1300&height=318&smart=true)
The new CC-215/NV 613 interchange would certainly be an improvement over the old interchange.
Looks like a traffic light would still remain in the interchange, meaning that only 3/4 of the movements would be freeway/freeway.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2024, 08:42:55 PM
Looks like a traffic light would still remain in the interchange, meaning that only 3/4 of the movements would be freeway/freeway.
It wouldn't be unusual for Nevada if the WB direction (top to bottom here) was free-flowing, at least for the freeway-freeway movement. This state loves seagulls.
https://lvrealty4sale.com/summerlin-parkway-215-beltway-construction-project-2024/
Here's a much better view of the improvements of the Summerlin Parkway/215 interchange construction project.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 09, 2024, 10:32:15 PM
https://lvrealty4sale.com/summerlin-parkway-215-beltway-construction-project-2024/
Here's a much better view of the improvements of the Summerlin Parkway/215 interchange construction project.
As I figured. That light is a seagull intersection with free-flowing WB traffic. Only EB-EB and NB-WB traffic will encounter a light.
(https://8h6bv4n5hy25.cdn.shift8web.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/9.jpg)
Yep. Bring on I-711!
:bigass:
Another article, for the record, from the LVRJ's Road Warrior (same basic information as the Fox5 story posted upthread):
Summerlin Parkway-215 interchange upgrade project to begin this year (https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/summerlin-parkway-215-interchange-upgrade-project-to-begin-this-year-2977861),
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/8/2024.
What's interesting to me is that it was mentioned in these articles that this project was supposed to start in 2023. I don't ever recall reading anything about it last year (If I had, I certainly would've posted about it here).
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 09, 2024, 10:32:15 PM
https://lvrealty4sale.com/summerlin-parkway-215-beltway-construction-project-2024/
Here's a much better view of the improvements of the Summerlin Parkway/215 interchange construction project.
Kinda sad that a local realtor has the best available images of the improvements as opposed to Clark County or NDOT...
As far as the design, that's mostly what I thought we'd get, although NB>WB and EB>NB movements are a bit better than I expected. Braided ramps between Far Hills and Summerlin Pkwy are welcomed. I am kinda displeased that the WB>SB ramp is remaining a tight loop, but happy that the existing traffic signal is taken out of the equation. The images on that site don't seem to include the space along 215 between the Far Hills braided ramps and Summerlin Pkwy's ramps—but it appears the ramps from Summerlin Pkwy to SB 215 will merge into one lane before merging onto the 215, and that seems like a flawed design to me.
Where would the extension of this even go? There's mountains not too far to the west.
Quote from: Voyager on January 11, 2024, 07:26:32 PM
Where would the extension of this even go? There's mountains not too far to the west.
The extension is just local roads to a new subdivision. It's not a freeway.