The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/las-vegas-mayor-pushing-to-widen-i-15-between-primm-barstow/
QuoteLas Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman is still carrying a torch for plans to widen Interstate 15 between Barstow and Primm. And she's hoping the project crosses the finish line by the time Los Angeles hosts the Summer Olympics in 2028.
... Whether that happens remains to be seen, but California is finally warming up to the idea, Nevada Department of Transportation Director Rudy Malfabon said.
... The average travel time between San Bernardino and Las Vegas is 3.5 hours, while the southbound trip can last up to seven hours on Sunday afternoons because of bottlenecks near Primm and Barstow, according to an updated master plan released earlier this year by the California Department of Transportation, known as Caltrans.
... During the RTC board meeting, Malfabon announced that his counterpart at Caltrans is "a lot more open this time" to discussing the idea, but it's still unclear where the project will land on Caltrans' list of priorities. More immediately, the agency is focusing on interchange improvements in Barstow and Devore.
Could that agricultural inspection thing near Yermo have something to do with the backups?
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 23, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
Could that agricultural inspection thing near Yermo have something to do with the backups?
I think it just has to do with all the people that come up to Vegas from the LA area for the weekend.
Quote from: mvak36 on October 23, 2017, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 23, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
Could that agricultural inspection thing near Yermo have something to do with the backups?
I think it just has to do with all the people that come up to Vegas from the LA area for the weekend.
I thought that was moved closer to the state line so people couldn't bail off I-15 onto Yermo Road.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 23, 2017, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 23, 2017, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 23, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
Could that agricultural inspection thing near Yermo have something to do with the backups?
I think it just has to do with all the people that come up to Vegas from the LA area for the weekend.
I thought that was moved closer to the state line so people couldn't bail off I-15 onto Yermo Road.
I went to Zion last year, and we went through that thing. I think I pointed out to our driver that people could circumvent the thing that way.
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 23, 2017, 11:32:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 23, 2017, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 23, 2017, 10:16:25 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 23, 2017, 08:14:49 PM
Could that agricultural inspection thing near Yermo have something to do with the backups?
I think it just has to do with all the people that come up to Vegas from the LA area for the weekend.
I thought that was moved closer to the state line so people couldn't bail off I-15 onto Yermo Road.
I went to Zion last year, and we went through that thing. I think I pointed out to our driver that people could circumvent the thing that way.
When I came back from Vegas back in June, the Yermo station was open and backing up traffic. It was a nice drive on Yermo Road that day. I think the station at the border was open, too, but that just appears to be for trucks.
About time they widened that stretch! And I'm glad Caltrans is on board with it.
Quote from: Henry on October 24, 2017, 10:25:06 AM
About time they widened that stretch! And I'm glad Caltrans is on board with it.
It's way overdue, I haven't driven that stretch of I-15 since 2012 since it gets so frustrating. Lately I've been using US 395, CA 178, Trona Road, CA 190, Stateline Road, and NV 160 to avoid the conventional way into Vegas. The weekends on 15 were especially brutal with traffic, that agriculture station alongside Yermo Road causes several Mile back ups.
Since NV has done their part and widened their in-state portion to 6 lanes -- and I-15 is certainly accident-prone on the CA side of the state line, an argument could be made that any capacity increase brings with it a measure of additional safety -- less vehicles in close proximity to one another crowded into the existing two lanes. If NV has data regarding accidents (both the number and severity of each) before & after their widening that shows a favorable correlation, that should bolster the argument that the entire route NE of Barstow needs the same treatment.
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:40:46 PM
Since NV has done their part and widened their in-state portion to 6 lanes -- and I-15 is certainly accident-prone on the CA side of the state line, an argument could be made that any capacity increase brings with it a measure of additional safety -- less vehicles in close proximity to one another crowded into the existing two lanes. If NV has data regarding accidents (both the number and severity of each) before & after their widening that shows a favorable correlation, that should bolster the argument that the entire route NE of Barstow needs the same treatment.
But where does it fall on the priority list for Caltrans or if at all? Its not like there has been a ton of talk on the California side about widening I-15, I believe this was the hint of anything like this at all. Routes like 58 or US 395 haven't even been bumped up to full expressways not to mention all the other road priorities are caused by wear and tear. I would imagine with some of these new road funds coming up that Caltrans is open to a lot more projects, but the problem is there is a ton of needs across the entire state.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:40:46 PM
Since NV has done their part and widened their in-state portion to 6 lanes -- and I-15 is certainly accident-prone on the CA side of the state line, an argument could be made that any capacity increase brings with it a measure of additional safety -- less vehicles in close proximity to one another crowded into the existing two lanes. If NV has data regarding accidents (both the number and severity of each) before & after their widening that shows a favorable correlation, that should bolster the argument that the entire route NE of Barstow needs the same treatment.
But where does it fall on the priority list for Caltrans or if at all? Its not like there has been a ton of talk on the California side about widening I-15, I believe this was the hint of anything like this at all. Routes like 58 or US 395 haven't even been bumped up to full expressways not to mention all the other road priorities are caused by wear and tear. I would imagine with some of these new road funds coming up that Caltrans is open to a lot more projects, but the problem is there is a ton of needs across the entire state.
It's likely that any 6-laning of I-15 northeast of Barstow will be dependent upon funding from outside the usual Caltrans pools, possibly from NV interests -- the ones who would reap the most benefits from the facility expansion. Unfortunately for that prospect, those folks -- since the recent tragic events in LV -- might be putting their $$ into increased internal security measures or beefing up police task forces (events such as that shooting tend to have near/middle-term fiscal consequences affecting other expenditure options). There's little CA in-state support for such a project; sorry to say that it would likely take a significant incident along the route involving multiple fatalities to provoke any activity aimed at shaking loose funds for a general I-15 widening.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:31:02 AMBut where does it fall on the priority list for Caltrans or if at all? Its not like there has been a ton of talk on the California side about widening I-15, I believe this was the hint of anything like this at all. Routes like 58 or US 395 haven't even been bumped up to full expressways not to mention all the other road priorities are caused by wear and tear. I would imagine with some of these new road funds coming up that Caltrans is open to a lot more projects, but the problem is there is a ton of needs across the entire state.
Excellent points!
There are plenty of choke points around the state with heavy traffic delays on Sunday evenings as folks return from a weekend elsewhere. Getting eastbound through Santa Barbara on a Sunday evening as one example.
The Primm chokepoint is probably one of the worst, but I would be dubious that it would be a high priority for California to spend money making it easier for California residents to spend money in Nevada.
David
I drove north on 15 from San Diego to Las Vegas earlier this year on a Friday, early afternoon. I had no idea how bad it really was. It's more frustrating than anything because you end up driving a lot slower than you would for a long stretch of open road like that, most of the time around 60 mph. You just cannot pass vehicles, both lanes are jam packed with cars. Parts of this stretch do have the right side "truck lane" and that makes a huge difference on those parts with capacity, but it only lasts so long. I have not had the pleasure of driving southbound on a Sunday yet, with the northbound checkpoint close enough to Barstow there isn't a backup, but going south I have heard how bad it is. As much as I drive between Phoenix and Vegas and complain about how they need to finish up all those improvements, I would take that drive any day over the S. CAl to Vegas drive.
Quote from: bigdave on October 25, 2017, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:31:02 AMBut where does it fall on the priority list for Caltrans or if at all? Its not like there has been a ton of talk on the California side about widening I-15, I believe this was the hint of anything like this at all. Routes like 58 or US 395 haven't even been bumped up to full expressways not to mention all the other road priorities are caused by wear and tear. I would imagine with some of these new road funds coming up that Caltrans is open to a lot more projects, but the problem is there is a ton of needs across the entire state.
Excellent points!
There are plenty of choke points around the state with heavy traffic delays on Sunday evenings as folks return from a weekend elsewhere. Getting eastbound through Santa Barbara on a Sunday evening as one example.
The Primm chokepoint is probably one of the worst, but I would be dubious that it would be a high priority for California to spend money making it easier for California residents to spend money in Nevada.
David
Exactly. There is a demonstrated traffic need for CA to widen I-15. But there is no corresponding economic benefit of doing so since it primarily benefits the NV casinos.
This is similar to talk of a proposed additional rail tunnel connecting NJ to NYC. NJ wants both states to pay for the project equally, NY feels that it mostly benefits NJ commuters and is unwilling to pay the same amount that NJ is paying so the project won't get done.
This might be a good candidate for tolling. Isn't there a program that allows for tolling interstates if the money is used to improve the interstate? Or perhaps reversible toll lanes in addition to the existing lanes.
Quote from: mrsman on October 25, 2017, 07:47:10 PM
Quote from: bigdave on October 25, 2017, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:31:02 AMBut where does it fall on the priority list for Caltrans or if at all? Its not like there has been a ton of talk on the California side about widening I-15, I believe this was the hint of anything like this at all. Routes like 58 or US 395 haven't even been bumped up to full expressways not to mention all the other road priorities are caused by wear and tear. I would imagine with some of these new road funds coming up that Caltrans is open to a lot more projects, but the problem is there is a ton of needs across the entire state.
Excellent points!
There are plenty of choke points around the state with heavy traffic delays on Sunday evenings as folks return from a weekend elsewhere. Getting eastbound through Santa Barbara on a Sunday evening as one example.
The Primm chokepoint is probably one of the worst, but I would be dubious that it would be a high priority for California to spend money making it easier for California residents to spend money in Nevada.
David
Exactly. There is a demonstrated traffic need for CA to widen I-15. But there is no corresponding economic benefit of doing so since it primarily benefits the NV casinos.
This is similar to talk of a proposed additional rail tunnel connecting NJ to NYC. NJ wants both states to pay for the project equally, NY feels that it mostly benefits NJ commuters and is unwilling to pay the same amount that NJ is paying so the project won't get done.
This might be a good candidate for tolling. Isn't there a program that allows for tolling interstates if the money is used to improve the interstate? Or perhaps reversible toll lanes in addition to the existing lanes.
It's entirely possible that HOT lanes from Barstow to Primm might be the answer; regular Vegas travelers would likely pay
something for the privilege of getting there faster (especially if tempted by a 75 mph limit on those lanes). As an aside, the casinos could cooperate on some sort of "voucher", whereby transponder users would be given credits to use once in town (chances are they'd lose quite a bit of whatever amount they received -- and NV interests would be happy as clams about that!).
So if they added hot lanes they would need to add four new lanes. 2 in each direction. If they didn't and only added one each way, it would be annoying getting behind some slow driver. Alternatively, if they added just one each way with. I barrier, you would have people hopping in and out of the lanes to avoid tolls much like what goes on now on the 10 and 110 Freeway HOT lanes.
On a side note about I-10 between Phoenix and Indio, is traffic high enough to warrant 6 lanes?
Quote from: sparker on October 25, 2017, 09:00:48 PM
It's entirely possible that HOT lanes from Barstow to Primm might be the answer; regular Vegas travelers would likely pay something for the privilege of getting there faster (especially if tempted by a 75 mph limit on those lanes). As an aside, the casinos could cooperate on some sort of "voucher", whereby transponder users would be given credits to use once in town (chances are they'd lose quite a bit of whatever amount they received -- and NV interests would be happy as clams about that!).
Just like the NW Indiana casinos will pay your Chicago Skyway and Indiana Tollroad tolls, if you give them a receipt or I-Pass/E-ZPass statement?
Could easily see that happening
Or better yet, the Casinos could simply build their own, private Tollroad in Cali, or come to some type of PPP with Caltrans to finance either I-15 improvements or building a parallel tollroad
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:27:25 PM
On a side note about I-10 between Phoenix and Indio, is traffic high enough to warrant 6 lanes?
I'd definitely say no; about the only thing that might be nice is a climbing lane for trucks east of Coachella and Quartzsite for truckers. Really the only issue out there in the desert is making sure you don't get picked off by CHP near Blythe for not sticking near 70 MPH.
Quote from: sparker on October 25, 2017, 09:00:48 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 25, 2017, 07:47:10 PM
Quote from: bigdave on October 25, 2017, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2017, 08:31:02 AMBut where does it fall on the priority list for Caltrans or if at all? Its not like there has been a ton of talk on the California side about widening I-15, I believe this was the hint of anything like this at all. Routes like 58 or US 395 haven't even been bumped up to full expressways not to mention all the other road priorities are caused by wear and tear. I would imagine with some of these new road funds coming up that Caltrans is open to a lot more projects, but the problem is there is a ton of needs across the entire state.
Excellent points!
There are plenty of choke points around the state with heavy traffic delays on Sunday evenings as folks return from a weekend elsewhere. Getting eastbound through Santa Barbara on a Sunday evening as one example.
The Primm chokepoint is probably one of the worst, but I would be dubious that it would be a high priority for California to spend money making it easier for California residents to spend money in Nevada.
David
Exactly. There is a demonstrated traffic need for CA to widen I-15. But there is no corresponding economic benefit of doing so since it primarily benefits the NV casinos.
This is similar to talk of a proposed additional rail tunnel connecting NJ to NYC. NJ wants both states to pay for the project equally, NY feels that it mostly benefits NJ commuters and is unwilling to pay the same amount that NJ is paying so the project won't get done.
This might be a good candidate for tolling. Isn't there a program that allows for tolling interstates if the money is used to improve the interstate? Or perhaps reversible toll lanes in addition to the existing lanes.
It's entirely possible that HOT lanes from Barstow to Primm might be the answer; regular Vegas travelers would likely pay something for the privilege of getting there faster (especially if tempted by a 75 mph limit on those lanes). As an aside, the casinos could cooperate on some sort of "voucher", whereby transponder users would be given credits to use once in town (chances are they'd lose quite a bit of whatever amount they received -- and NV interests would be happy as clams about that!).
Isn't adding new express lanes to a pre-existing non-tolled Interstate the only way to actual add a tolled section? I seem to recall I-4 Ultimate had something like that called for with tolled express lanes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:27:25 PM
So if they added hot lanes they would need to add four new lanes. 2 in each direction. If they didn't and only added one each way, it would be annoying getting behind some slow driver. Alternatively, if they added just one each way with. I barrier, you would have people hopping in and out of the lanes to avoid tolls much like what goes on now on the 10 and 110 Freeway HOT lanes.
On a side note about I-10 between Phoenix and Indio, is traffic high enough to warrant 6 lanes?
Plenty of room in the median for an addition 4 lanes + at least a K-rail. There might be enough room for the famous CA oleander bushes plus a thrie-beam barrier (make it look like CA 99!) -- those things don't need a lot of water!
Re I-10 east of Indio: rarely crowded; no present need for 2 extra lanes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:27:25 PM
So if they added hot lanes they would need to add four new lanes. 2 in each direction. If they didn't and only added one each way, it would be annoying getting behind some slow driver. Alternatively, if they added just one each way with. I barrier, you would have people hopping in and out of the lanes to avoid tolls much like what goes on now on the 10 and 110 Freeway HOT lanes.
Another thought: What if they did a two-lane tolled express lane setup that is reversible and barrier-separated?
The extra capacity is really only needed in a single direction at a time - northbound going into a weekend, southbound ending the weekend. This would prevent having only one lane or the excess of building two lanes for each direction.
The HOT setup might not be viable for this stretch... if HOV vehicles ride free without toll, there is likely a higher percentage of HOVs making this trip on weekends which would result in less revenue (not to mention that enforcement would likely be an issue). Toll every vehicle using the express lanes, and it becomes more lucrative to a toll agency to consider.
Quote from: roadfro on October 26, 2017, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:27:25 PM
So if they added hot lanes they would need to add four new lanes. 2 in each direction. If they didn't and only added one each way, it would be annoying getting behind some slow driver. Alternatively, if they added just one each way with. I barrier, you would have people hopping in and out of the lanes to avoid tolls much like what goes on now on the 10 and 110 Freeway HOT lanes.
Another thought: What if they did a two-lane tolled express lane setup that is reversible and barrier-separated?
The extra capacity is really only needed in a single direction at a time - northbound going into a weekend, southbound ending the weekend. This would prevent having only one lane or the excess of building two lanes for each direction.
The HOT setup might not be viable for this stretch... if HOV vehicles ride free without toll, there is likely a higher percentage of HOVs making this trip on weekends which would result in less revenue (not to mention that enforcement would likely be an issue). Toll every vehicle using the express lanes, and it becomes more lucrative to a toll agency to consider.
Agree that in particular application HOT wouldn't be optimal; the tolling system would have to be set up to include all vehicles using the lanes rather than trying to parse out those of higher occupancy. I'm not sold on the reversible-lane concept; a lot of L.A.-area folks do extended single-day trips rather than whole weekend so they don't have to get a hotel room -- and their schedules vary (some go up Friday night and come back Saturday afternoon or early evening and either gamble or go to shows while in LV). If it were me, I'd do a single toll lane per direction with extended passing lanes (1-2 miles) every 15 miles or so, and double lanes up Baker Hill and Mountain Pass (both directions) where slower vehicles would likely pose problems. There's ample room to expand to 2 continual lanes/direction if the initial concept proves fiscally sound.
Quote from: roadfro on October 26, 2017, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:27:25 PM
So if they added hot lanes they would need to add four new lanes. 2 in each direction. If they didn't and only added one each way, it would be annoying getting behind some slow driver. Alternatively, if they added just one each way with. I barrier, you would have people hopping in and out of the lanes to avoid tolls much like what goes on now on the 10 and 110 Freeway HOT lanes.
Another thought: What if they did a two-lane tolled express lane setup that is reversible and barrier-separated?
The extra capacity is really only needed in a single direction at a time - northbound going into a weekend, southbound ending the weekend. This would prevent having only one lane or the excess of building two lanes for each direction.
The HOT setup might not be viable for this stretch... if HOV vehicles ride free without toll, there is likely a higher percentage of HOVs making this trip on weekends which would result in less revenue (not to mention that enforcement would likely be an issue). Toll every vehicle using the express lanes, and it becomes more lucrative to a toll agency to consider.
Could certainly be a compromise if 4 new lanes aren't needed or as you said only needed one way at a time, but I have never really been a fan of the reversible setup. I honestly would like to just see a new lane added and if the time comes for a 4 lane each way then toll it.
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2017, 01:00:07 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2017, 09:27:25 PM
So if they added hot lanes they would need to add four new lanes. 2 in each direction. If they didn't and only added one each way, it would be annoying getting behind some slow driver. Alternatively, if they added just one each way with. I barrier, you would have people hopping in and out of the lanes to avoid tolls much like what goes on now on the 10 and 110 Freeway HOT lanes.
On a side note about I-10 between Phoenix and Indio, is traffic high enough to warrant 6 lanes?
Plenty of room in the median for an addition 4 lanes + at least a K-rail. There might be enough room for the famous CA oleander bushes plus a thrie-beam barrier (make it look like CA 99!) -- those things don't need a lot of water!
Re I-10 east of Indio: rarely crowded; no present need for 2 extra lanes.
Yeah is the Vegas to Victorville bullet train still happening? I thought it was going in the median.
As for I-10. . . as I said, I am not familiar with this stretch but I went to Palm Springs and was chatting with a friend about how crazy people drive on I-15 to Vegas(I drive very fast sometimes so I am not the one to talk too much). He told me people drive even crazier between Indio and Phoenix. I plan to drive it this year as I will usually take the southern I-10 to OKC rather than I-40. I-40 gets bipolar during the winters!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 04:15:18 AM
Yeah is the Vegas to Victorville bullet train still happening? I thought it was going in the median.
The high speed train concept hasn't died yet. As far as I'm aware, it is still in the planning phases. I believe they wanted to try to keep it in/near the I-15 ROW, but it would not make sense to locate it in the median.
Quote from: roadfro on October 28, 2017, 10:03:21 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 04:15:18 AM
Yeah is the Vegas to Victorville bullet train still happening? I thought it was going in the median.
The high speed train concept hasn't died yet. As far as I'm aware, it is still in the planning phases. I believe they wanted to try to keep it in/near the I-15 ROW, but it would not make sense to locate it in the median.
Chances are if HSR ever gets deployed between SoCal and LV, it would likely follow the existing UP line between those two points east of Barstow, as rail lines tend to, in terms of gradient, follow the path of least resistance. In this case, the rail line arcs to the south of I-15 and passes through Kelso and Cima, rejoining the I-15 alignment north of Jean in NV. The "Baker Hill" gradient topping out at Halloran Summit, plus the heavy SB grade over Mountain Pass, might be troublesome for HSR unless extensive (and
expensive) tunneling were involved (much the same reason CA's HSR route avoids the I-5 alignment over the mountains between L.A. and Wheeler Ridge and uses essentially the original SP rail alignment via Palmdale, Mojave, and Tehachapi.) Despite any advances in rail technology over the years, it's still metal wheels on metal rails -- and grades
are always an issue.
This high speed rail project is completely private, right? I'm also aware of a planned project for HSR along the HDC so perhaps they're waiting for some sort of movement on that. I'm really skeptical that any of the HSR happens(even the SF-LA line).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 06:20:18 PM
This high speed rail project is completely private, right? I'm also aware of a planned project for HSR along the HDC so perhaps they're waiting for some sort of movement on that. I'm really skeptical that any of the HSR happens(even the SF-LA line).
Every time that
any form of rail service from LA to LV is proposed -- even conventional service over the UP tracks (which was serviced by Amtrak's
Desert Wind before 1995), it's been shot down for various reasons -- most of which pertain to station location and ownership (apparently Metrolink wants very high fees from any private entity to utilize its LA metro stations) and the insurance required by the host railroads (in this case a combination of Metrolink and Union Pacific). Also, the fact that there's no existing passenger station in Las Vegas means the train operators would have to build a station facility there, including trackage, platforms, and egress facilities (car rental agencies, shuttle drops, etc.). While such a terminus would be part of the plans for HSR, it, along with the other costs, would likely pose such a high level of expenditure for any private train operator that the trips would likely have to be priced higher than optimal to compete with private automobile travel. Unless any HSR developers are willing and able to amortize their investment over a very long time frame, it's more than likely economic circumstances similar to this -- or even worse -- will exist for their ventures.
Has there been any such proposals by Las Vegas to build a station there?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 06:46:27 PM
Has there been any such proposals by Las Vegas to build a station there?
The old Amtrak station was embedded within the Union Plaza hotel at the foot of Fremont Street; the entire hotel complex was torn down well after the rail service had ended. AFAIK, there has been no effort on the part of the city of LV or any other jurisdiction to build a passenger terminal anywhere within the city -- and UP certainly won't take any initiative to do so. In all likelihood any plans -- and subsequent expenses -- for such a facility would have to be undertaken by the parties planning to operate the passenger rail service.
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2017, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 06:46:27 PM
Has there been any such proposals by Las Vegas to build a station there?
The old Amtrak station was embedded within the Union Plaza hotel at the foot of Fremont Street; the entire hotel complex was torn down well after the rail service had ended. AFAIK, there has been no effort on the part of the city of LV or any other jurisdiction to build a passenger terminal anywhere within the city -- and UP certainly won't take any initiative to do so. In all likelihood any plans -- and subsequent expenses -- for such a facility would have to be undertaken by the parties planning to operate the passenger rail service.
The Plaza Hotel & Casino (without "Union" in its name since at least the mid 2000's) still stands today. The hotel and part of the casino was closed for about a year circa 2010 as the property underwent a major renovation, but the complex is still standing. I'm not sure what purpose the former train station facilities embedded into the property currently serve–I cannot recall ever entering The Plaza while the rail service was still operating.
The XpressWest concept is still alive. But, it being a private venture, any passenger terminals would be constructed by this private enterprise.
ISTR at one point that the Las Vegas station would be built near the Strip corridor somewhere west of I-15, since that is where the current UP tracks are. (I'm actually wondering if the initial concept might have been to place the station at what is now going to be the Raiders' stadium site...)
Quote from: roadfro on October 29, 2017, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2017, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 28, 2017, 06:46:27 PM
Has there been any such proposals by Las Vegas to build a station there?
The old Amtrak station was embedded within the Union Plaza hotel at the foot of Fremont Street; the entire hotel complex was torn down well after the rail service had ended. AFAIK, there has been no effort on the part of the city of LV or any other jurisdiction to build a passenger terminal anywhere within the city -- and UP certainly won't take any initiative to do so. In all likelihood any plans -- and subsequent expenses -- for such a facility would have to be undertaken by the parties planning to operate the passenger rail service.
The Plaza Hotel & Casino (without "Union" in its name since at least the mid 2000's) still stands today. The hotel and part of the casino was closed for about a year circa 2010 as the property underwent a major renovation, but the complex is still standing. I'm not sure what purpose the former train station facilities embedded into the property currently serve–I cannot recall ever entering The Plaza while the rail service was still operating.
The XpressWest concept is still alive. But, it being a private venture, any passenger terminals would be constructed by this private enterprise.
ISTR at one point that the Las Vegas station would be built near the Strip corridor somewhere west of I-15, since that is where the current UP tracks are. (I'm actually wondering if the initial concept might have been to place the station at what is now going to be the Raiders' stadium site...)
Since the central Vegas attraction has long shifted from downtown out to the lower Strip, it would make sense to place any rail terminal utilizing the current UP tracks somewhere in that area; likely west of the airport near the south I-15/215 interchange, where there would be a much smaller shuttle distance between depot and the destination cluster. Unless Amtrak would be functioning as the contracted operator -- and if they still have contractual obligations to the Plaza complex (which after 22 years is probably not the case) -- a downtown depot is likely a DOA concept.
This is probably good — but it should be coupled with a HSR investment. Give people the choice between a 2 hour trip on a train (with no TSA/trip to LAX) and a 3.5-7 hour drive, the market is going to push folks in a specific direction. Uber/Lyft make a good "last-mile" (or last-10-miles) connection on either end, something that wasn't there five years ago.
Again, I still think 6 lanes from Primm to Barstow makes sense — but at a certain point, you also need to prepare for the eventuality that 6 lanes won't be enough, either, and that folks need a choice that doesn't involve an airplane.
There's also a need to widen I-10 from Indio/Coachella to Blythe (what a crappy town) to Buckeye, AZ. An increase in year-round (double in the winter) traffic, high truck volume and sharp doubling in accidents in 3 years is an important concern. And what about I-40 from Barstow to Needles (another crappy town) to Kingman AZ? Desert stretches of freeways are becoming as busy and crowded like in LA, Orange county, Riverside or San Diego.
The only time I've encountered traffic on I-40 in between Barstow and Needles is when they had a bridge closed and traffic was backed up for miles. Other than that, I've never seen much traffic on that stretch of I-40. I-40 should be six lanes through Flagstaff.