The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/downtown/major-us-95-road-project-in-downtown-las-vegas-could-cost-1b-1964634/
QuoteIn what could be the U.S. Highway 95 equivalent of Project Neon, early plans for a Downtown access project reveal possible striking changes for the highway in downtown Las Vegas.
The project will reconfigure a 4-mile portion of U.S. 95 and could carry a $1 billion price tag, according to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada documents. That would be the same as Project Neon, which was the largest and most expensive public works project in state history.
... The project, whose scope is between Rancho Drive and Mojave Road, would add lane capacity to U.S. 95 through the corridor and extend the HOV lanes from Martin Luther King Boulevard to Eastern.
Initial plans also call for braided ramps between I-15 and U.S. 95 and the construction of new HOV interchanges at City and Maryland parkways.
The project would be the first update to the U.S. 95 viaduct, or elevated road running from Martin Luther King to just east of Las Vegas Boulevard, since it was built in the 1960s.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/review-journal/image/upload/v1582526536/95projectgraphic.jpg)
MOD NOTE: Changed thread title (originally "$1 billion rebuild eyed for US 95 in downtown LV") on 8/25/2020, since "Downtown Access Project" seems to be the official name now. –Roadfro
Ha! We always joke about the two seasons in Colorado: winter and road construction.
You only have one season in Vegas!
Quote from: Mark68 on February 24, 2020, 06:56:55 PM
Ha! We always joke about the two seasons in Colorado: winter and road construction.
You only have one season in Vegas!
That seems about right. Have exhibited and/or attended the Winter CES in that town regularly since 1982; can't recall a time when there was no major construction along or near I-15, US 95/I-515, and the nascent 215 loop -- not to mention the airport accessways and the connectors between 15 and the Strip. Guess it's all part of the growth in the metro area and the commensurate need to address the needs of the major regional employers and both their customers and staff.
NDOT Downtown Access Project website: https://ndotdap.com/
Well, this project is sorely needed, so I'm glad NDOT is looking at this. Too bad the timeline is running out so far–environmental study by 2023, design by 2027 and construction by 2031...
The downtown leg of US 95/I-515 is the only part of the four freeway legs surrounding the Spaghetti Bowl that has not been reconstructed and widened within the last 10-15 years. The segment is showing its age, especially with the closely-spaced ramps between I-15, Casino Center/4th, and Las Vegas Blvd. That 4th St NB on ramp to US 95 is not very forgiving, requiring a merge out of the auxiliary lane within about 500 feet to avoid being forced off to I-15 south–especially challenging when the ramp meter is on, as the meter is very close to the end of the ramp so you're trying to do that merge at less than freeway speed unless you floor it. Also, the viaduct portion between Las Vegas Blvd and the Bruce St crossing (just west of Eastern Ave), while constructed in 1980, is sagging badly–there's a bit of a roller coaster effect as you travel in either direction. A prior scoping study for I-515 improvements that was started in the mid 2000s also eyed replacing or expanding the downtown viaduct–this study was quietly discontinued, perhaps due to the recession and need to put greater focus onto I-15 projects in the last decade or so.
Interestingly, some form of access ramp to City Pkwy has been proposed in various studies in the past decade, so it is good to see the concept survive. Now with the talk of extending the HOV lanes on US 95 past the Spaghetti Bowl, a HOV interchange makes sense (and will be a better access point for express bus routes from the northwest to reach the downtown bus station than the I-15 Neon Gateway HOV interchange). Also interestingly, a regular interchange at Maryland Pkwy was even contemplated in original studies that led to the construction of I-515, but ultimately never constructed–an HOV interchange here might relieve some pressure from the Eastern Ave interchange.
This is excellent news! I do wish the schedule would be moved up a bit. It would be nice if construction starts in 2025/2026.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 25, 2020, 11:53:57 PM
This is excellent news! I do wish the schedule would be moved up a bit. It would be nice if construction starts in 2025/2026.
Seems like this will be complete in time for 95/515 to finally get the I-11 designation. :bigass:
Quote from: Mark68 on February 26, 2020, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 25, 2020, 11:53:57 PM
This is excellent news! I do wish the schedule would be moved up a bit. It would be nice if construction starts in 2025/2026.
Seems like this will be complete in time for 95/515 to finally get the I-11 designation. :bigass:
This was my thought as well.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2020, 02:12:15 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on February 26, 2020, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 25, 2020, 11:53:57 PM
This is excellent news! I do wish the schedule would be moved up a bit. It would be nice if construction starts in 2025/2026.
Seems like this will be complete in time for 95/515 to finally get the I-11 designation. :bigass:
This was my thought as well.
Is US 95 through the city not interstate standards? I would think the only thing preventing I-11 from being designated through Vegas is that they're still studying the alternatives for I-11 to go through the metro area (officially, all three are still on the table, but the designation of I-11 to I-215 would seem to indicate that the eastern bypass option has been unofficially ruled out).
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2020, 08:51:28 PM
Is US 95 through the city not interstate standards? I would think the only thing preventing I-11 from being designated through Vegas is that they're still studying the alternatives for I-11 to go through the metro area (officially, all three are still on the table, but the designation of I-11 to I-215 would seem to indicate that the eastern bypass option has been unofficially ruled out).
US 95 through the city is pretty much interstate standards. Keep in mind that the leg of US 95 east of the Spaghetti Bowl/I-15 (where this Downtown Access Project would take place) has been signed as I-515 since the mid 1990s (and approved as I-515 on paper since the mid-1970s, prior to any of it being constructed). It's this downtown section, built in the 1980s, that is a bit substandard by today's interstate standards by virtue of some closely-spaced interchanges and narrower shoulders.
If NDOT decided on the "US 95" alternative for I-11 today, I don't see any design-based reason they couldn't switch out the I-515 shields for I-11 shields today (not to mention put up I-11 shields all the way to CC 215 in NW Las Vegas).
Quote from: roadfro on February 27, 2020, 11:14:55 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2020, 08:51:28 PM
Is US 95 through the city not interstate standards? I would think the only thing preventing I-11 from being designated through Vegas is that they're still studying the alternatives for I-11 to go through the metro area (officially, all three are still on the table, but the designation of I-11 to I-215 would seem to indicate that the eastern bypass option has been unofficially ruled out).
US 95 through the city is pretty much interstate standards. Keep in mind that the leg of US 95 east of the Spaghetti Bowl/I-15 (where this Downtown Access Project would take place) has been signed as I-515 since the mid 1990s (and approved as I-515 on paper since the mid-1970s, prior to any of it being constructed). It's this downtown section, built in the 1980s, that is a bit substandard by today's interstate standards by virtue of some closely-spaced interchanges and narrower shoulders.
If NDOT decided on the "US 95" alternative for I-11 today, I don't see any design-based reason they couldn't switch out the I-515 shields for I-11 shields today (not to mention put up I-11 shields all the way to CC 215 in NW Las Vegas).
I'm just wondering if the delay regarding the I-11 route through LV might be a result of Strip interests pressing to have I-11 overlay the 215 loop to bring it closer to the newer Strip-area development (and the Raiders stadium, for that matter). Personally, I don't think a renumbering would result in significantly increased traffic (once the western loop is fully completed), but those perceiving otherwise may not agree.
I was out in Vegas last month and took a video of US 95 from Summerlin Pkwy to I-215, which includes the older viaduct stretch past I-15.
https://youtu.be/cJp3W437SDo
Quote from: MarkF on February 29, 2020, 05:31:08 AM
I was out in Vegas last month and took a video of US 95 from Summerlin Pkwy to I-215, which includes the older viaduct stretch past I-15.
https://youtu.be/cJp3W437SDo
Cool, thanks!
Definitely needed but I hope NDOT does a wide look at build alternatives.
The viaduct may have made sense in the 1970s, but it feels like that route would be better served by a downtown trench than the current viaduct. Maybe. Or maybe an EIS will show that that is not a good idea. Can't know until you research it.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 23, 2020, 10:27:41 AM
Definitely needed but I hope NDOT does a wide look at build alternatives.
The viaduct may have made sense in the 1970s, but it feels like that route would be better served by a downtown trench than the current viaduct. Maybe. Or maybe an EIS will show that that is not a good idea. Can't know until you research it.
It would definitely need research. I'd worry a trench would flash flood. It doesn't take much water to turn an entrenched highway into a death trap.
Virtual meeting is now up:
https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/6352/395?fsiteid=1
(https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowPublishedImage/8959/637334307065970000)
I would prefer keeping it elevated but based on what their plans are it is almost certain they go with the below grade option. Hopefully they provide an opportunity for the city to build a park cap over sections of it. Exciting stuff!
Project website: https://ndotdap.com/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 10:52:04 AM
Virtual meeting is now up:
https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/Components/News/News/6352/395?fsiteid=1
(https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowPublishedImage/8959/637334307065970000)
I would prefer keeping it elevated but based on what their plans are it is almost certain they go with the below grade option. Hopefully they provide an opportunity for the city to build a park cap over sections of it. Exciting stuff!
Project website: https://ndotdap.com/
Looks like they're doing their best to eliminate all that weaving from the I-15 ramps, which is excellent and much needed. If a cap is built I'm hoping it can be another Fremont Street type area for downtown Vegas and dilute some attention from just the Strip.
All I can say from that rendering is — yow.
NDOT not really learning from other cities and proposing what appears to be a very noisy 600 foot trench between downtown and the Cultural Corridor.
If I were on the Las Vegas City Council, I'd be furious — and I'd be demanding a Margaret Hance Park solution before anything moved forward.
That rendering is beautiful and will solve traffic issues for the next 50 years if built. What is the problem?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 11:47:12 PM
That rendering is beautiful and will solve traffic issues for the next 50 years if built. What is the problem?
Gets to the question of who benefits, and at whose expense? That's a wall. A giant wall north of downtown.
And in a city with the historic racial justice issues that Las Vegas has, it might also be a message.
I'm not saying NDOT should exclusively pay for a cap. But if I lived or worked north of that? I'm getting a message that I need to stay on my side of the wall.
I wouldn't get that message at all. The message I'd get is that NDOT is investing in the infrastructure and that helps me. I fail to see the issue.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 25, 2020, 11:39:26 PM
NDOT not really learning from other cities and proposing what appears to be a very noisy 600 foot trench between downtown and the Cultural Corridor.
If I were on the Las Vegas City Council, I'd be furious — and I'd be demanding a Margaret Hance Park solution before anything moved forward.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 26, 2020, 01:22:09 AM
Gets to the question of who benefits, and at whose expense? That's a wall. A giant wall north of downtown.
And in a city with the historic racial justice issues that Las Vegas has, it might also be a message.
I'm not saying NDOT should exclusively pay for a cap. But if I lived or worked north of that? I'm getting a message that I need to stay on my side of the wall.
I'm curious about your perspective on this. Are you saying the depressed freeway option is worse than an elevated freeway (which is what's there now and is the two other build options)?
Seems to me like an elevated freeway would be a more imposing "wall" than a depressed freeway. And given that the city's "Cultural Corridor" connects to Downtown primarily via Las Vegas Blvd (which maintains access in all build options), that access is not cut off.
What I do see is that several numbered streets east of downtown, primarily residential in nature, will no longer cross the freeway (this is common to all build scenarios, not just the trench alternative), although two of the streets will have ped/bike crossings. A similar issue was a major point of contention when NDOT widened I-15 north of the Spaghetti Bowl and closed off the F Street underpass in a historically black neighborhood, and they ended up later going back and reconstructing the underpass after a lawsuit–this project area has less of the historical racial background issues, but I'm guessing the area now has more low SES and higher minority populations than in the past.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 10:52:04 AM
(https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowPublishedImage/8959/637334307065970000)
They put a truck on the HOV exit in that rendering. :-D
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 26, 2020, 12:35:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 10:52:04 AM
(https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowPublishedImage/8959/637334307065970000)
They put a truck on the HOV exit in that rendering. :-D
It's actually carrying the minimum number of people required to use the HOV lane. Just don't tell anyone how many.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 26, 2020, 01:22:09 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 11:47:12 PM
That rendering is beautiful and will solve traffic issues for the next 50 years if built. What is the problem?
Gets to the question of who benefits, and at whose expense? That's a wall. A giant wall north of downtown.
And in a city with the historic racial justice issues that Las Vegas has, it might also be a message.
I'm not saying NDOT should exclusively pay for a cap. But if I lived or worked north of that? I'm getting a message that I need to stay on my side of the wall.
It's why I'm a big fan of caps and tunnelling anyway. Australia's been embracing it and to some extent they can have their cake of cohesive neighborhoods and smoother traffic flow and eat it at the same time. Without the cap it creates more separation in a downtown area that's losing its luster near predominantly POC areas of town, just like how a lot of interstate highways were built in the first place; we're supposed to move past that by now.
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on August 26, 2020, 02:05:47 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 26, 2020, 01:22:09 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 25, 2020, 11:47:12 PM
That rendering is beautiful and will solve traffic issues for the next 50 years if built. What is the problem?
Gets to the question of who benefits, and at whose expense? That's a wall. A giant wall north of downtown.
And in a city with the historic racial justice issues that Las Vegas has, it might also be a message.
I'm not saying NDOT should exclusively pay for a cap. But if I lived or worked north of that? I'm getting a message that I need to stay on my side of the wall.
It's why I'm a big fan of caps and tunnelling anyway. Australia's been embracing it and to some extent they can have their cake of cohesive neighborhoods and smoother traffic flow and eat it at the same time. Without the cap it creates more separation in a downtown area that's losing its luster near predominantly POC areas of town, just like how a lot of interstate highways were built in the first place; we're supposed to move past that by now.
Exactly this. Even if you're physically comfortable walking across the 600 foot trench; even if you don't see it as a psychological barrier; that's still exposure to exhaust and noise pollution, which have real, quantifiable health impacts.
To be clear — freeway needs to be rebuilt, hell yes. But what I see there is a doing it on the cheap, and the expense will be passed on to the people who *least* use the freeway — people who live or work near it.
We are supposed to be smarter and more equitable than we were 70 years ago.
I'm still curious how a sunken freeway is any different than an elevated freeway in regards to exhaust, noise pollution, psychological barrier, etc.... Are people more physically comfortable walking across a 600-foot bridge over a trench or under 600 feet of elevated bridge structures?
If elevated and sunken facilities have relatively similar environmental impacts, and the sunken freeway presents the same traffic improvements at a lower cost, wouldn't that be a more effective and efficient use of transportation dollars in the long term?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 25, 2020, 11:39:26 PM
If I were on the Las Vegas City Council, I'd be furious — and I'd be demanding a Margaret Hance Park solution before anything moved forward.
I think Portland might be getting to your head dude.
Quote from: STLmapboy on August 26, 2020, 11:14:59 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 25, 2020, 11:39:26 PM
If I were on the Las Vegas City Council, I'd be furious — and I'd be demanding a Margaret Hance Park solution before anything moved forward.
I think Portland might be getting to your head dude.
Maybe it should get in yours, son
Quote from: roadfro on August 26, 2020, 11:04:47 PM
I'm still curious how a sunken freeway is any different than an elevated freeway in regards to exhaust, noise pollution, psychological barrier, etc.... Are people more physically comfortable walking across a 600-foot bridge over a trench or under 600 feet of elevated bridge structures?
If elevated and sunken facilities have relatively similar environmental impacts, and the sunken freeway presents the same traffic improvements at a lower cost, wouldn't that be a more effective and efficient use of transportation dollars in the long term?
I've walked under that freeway numerous times. It's unpleasant, but it's not nearly as unpleasant as walking over a freeway. It's quieter (even with the echoing street traffic), the shade can be a relief, and there is limited adaptive reuse under the viaduct.
I guess what I'm saying is, none of these are good options. A new viaduct is an expensive, dark tunnel in the middle of the city. A new trench is a loud maw. The latter is probably the best alternative — if it has a cap, but that's not what NDOT is proposing.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2020, 11:53:15 AM
Quote from: roadfro on August 26, 2020, 11:04:47 PM
I'm still curious how a sunken freeway is any different than an elevated freeway in regards to exhaust, noise pollution, psychological barrier, etc.... Are people more physically comfortable walking across a 600-foot bridge over a trench or under 600 feet of elevated bridge structures?
If elevated and sunken facilities have relatively similar environmental impacts, and the sunken freeway presents the same traffic improvements at a lower cost, wouldn't that be a more effective and efficient use of transportation dollars in the long term?
I've walked under that freeway numerous times. It's unpleasant, but it's not nearly as unpleasant as walking over a freeway. It's quieter (even with the echoing street traffic), the shade can be a relief, and there is limited adaptive reuse under the viaduct.
I guess what I'm saying is, none of these are good options. A new viaduct is an expensive, dark tunnel in the middle of the city. A new trench is a loud maw. The latter is probably the best alternative — if it has a cap, but that's not what NDOT is proposing.
The issue with the new design is permeability, or lack thereof, for people on either side of it. Older freeways built through established neighborhoods typically slashed through the existing street grid, severing all but a few connections which were usually arterials and often included ramps to the freeway. To its credit, the existing viaduct maintained most of the city street grid, even if it is a massive visual barrier between downtown and the community to the north. The proposed design would appear to sever most of the existing street connections.
This situation is somewhat unique in that much of the former cityscape adjacent to the area is either parking lots or otherwise vacant so there is already a large no-man's land severing the two parts of the city. Nonetheless, a cap on top of a new sunken freeway would enable retention of the connectivity between the two parts, resulting in a continuous street grid to facilitate reconnection of the two parts of the community. Capping freeways is extremely expensive though designing it in from the outset is far cheaper than trying to retrofit it later. In many examples from elsewhere "land" on the cap can be sold off or long-term leased for development, substantially offsetting the cost of building the cap while further enhancing the continuity of the "urban form" between the two sides of the freeway, whatever that might be envisioned as by the community.
This type of project can be designed to meet multiple objectives, providing much-needed transportation improvements while also leveraging the opportunity to enhance and restore the surrounding community. Vegas definitely marches to the beat of a different drummer than many metro areas but the fiscal benefits of developing untaxed land (the freeway) and redeveloping underutilized land (the sea of parking lots and vacant land next to it) should be enticing to any elected official.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 27, 2020, 11:53:15 AM
Quote from: roadfro on August 26, 2020, 11:04:47 PM
I'm still curious how a sunken freeway is any different than an elevated freeway in regards to exhaust, noise pollution, psychological barrier, etc.... Are people more physically comfortable walking across a 600-foot bridge over a trench or under 600 feet of elevated bridge structures?
If elevated and sunken facilities have relatively similar environmental impacts, and the sunken freeway presents the same traffic improvements at a lower cost, wouldn't that be a more effective and efficient use of transportation dollars in the long term?
I've walked under that freeway numerous times. It's unpleasant, but it's not nearly as unpleasant as walking over a freeway. It's quieter (even with the echoing street traffic), the shade can be a relief, and there is limited adaptive reuse under the viaduct.
I guess what I'm saying is, none of these are good options. A new viaduct is an expensive, dark tunnel in the middle of the city. A new trench is a loud maw. The latter is probably the best alternative — if it has a cap, but that's not what NDOT is proposing.
All things being equal, I've generally found it more pleasant to walk
over a freeway on an overpass than under, particularly with older & more "dingy" underpasses. Of course, if one has acrophobia, the overpass may not be the best experience! Wide sidewalks on overpasses help (cf. the Colorado Blvd. overpass over the 710 "stub" in Pasadena; I've even seen hot dog carts on that one!). What they've done here in San Jose along the elevated CA 87 freeway that passes through the west side of downtown is make the underpasses as "open" as possible; the openings have at least 20' of overhead clearance (needed to clear the LR catenary on one, but Caltrans seems to have standarized it on all the overheads). On the one most used by pedestrians (right near the SAP arena where the NHL Sharks play) the city has commissioned murals on the concrete walls, most deployed in conjunction with SJSU's community art outreach program. But for trenched freeways in urban centers, there's still nothing like a cap to minimize the visual effect of the freeway. However, most caps that I've encountered aren't designed to support huge amounts of weight (read buildings!) above them (the I-5 cap in Seattle being a notable exception); there are minimal amounts of bents underneath between or adjacent to the freeway carriageways -- and those are usually retrofit in any case -- so what is placed atop the cap more often resembles a park or plaza than anything else simply because
that is what the structure will support. If the I-515 (or nascent I-11) freeway is going to be rebuilt as a trench rather than a viaduct, it might behoove NDOT to design the whole thing with enough between-lanes support for at least some actual structures to be placed above the lanes. With the physical separation of HOV/HOT lanes in the middle, a through-traffic carriageway, and "slip" lanes for outside egress, there should be enough room to deploy enough bents for a reasonable amount of structural support -- similar to basement-level garage facilities in office buildings. It would be nice to see some sort of continuous city motif applied rather than a conspicuous "flat zone" over the freeway lanes -- and to do that, the freeway needs to be configured around that concept rather than the historic stand-alone through facility standing out like the proverbial sore thumb! If, as the above post claims, there are vast swatches of parking lots or even vacant lots adjacent to the present facility, there's no reason why a reasonable redevelopment program couldn't be instituted. Only thing -- because of the noise and vibration, most if not all of the units directly above the freeway would be best suited for strictly commercial/office/retail usage; the adjacent available land could host housing in the upper building floors (as per currently accepted urbanist methodology). Of course, low-cost housing rather than gentrified mega-condos should be a central feature of any development near downtown -- the area's service workers could use an in-town residential area accessible by transit! Save the "high-roller" stuff for down by the Strip or out in the 'burbs!
Sparker, check out this street in Columbus(though I suspect you are already aware of it):
Dropped pin
Near 587-569 N High St, Columbus, OH 43215
https://goo.gl/maps/8KfWDuwZ9qshXwAV8
I think if we made more overpasses like this one the effects of freeways would be much less noticeable and I would imagine this is cheaper than building large caps and certainly cheaper than tunneling.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 27, 2020, 10:40:48 PM
Sparker, check out this street in Columbus(though I suspect you are already aware of it):
Dropped pin
Near 587-569 N High St, Columbus, OH 43215
https://goo.gl/maps/8KfWDuwZ9qshXwAV8
I think if we made more overpasses like this one the effects of freeways would be much less noticeable and I would imagine this is cheaper than building large caps and certainly cheaper than tunneling.
I like that a lot better than the Walgreens that they built on top of I-80 in Reno between Virginia and Center St. I'm curious what the story is behind capping just one block and then putting a Walgreens there.
It's funny you mention that. I was just thinking about the other day and when I went to that Walgreens I couldn't get over how bizarre that was.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2020, 12:56:31 PM
It's funny you mention that. I was just thinking about the other day and when I went to that Walgreens I couldn't get over how bizarre that was.
It was, unsurprisingly, planned to be a casino. The developer built the deck lid and then gave up on the project. The Walgreens came many years later.
Quote from: jdbx on August 28, 2020, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 27, 2020, 10:40:48 PM
Sparker, check out this street in Columbus(though I suspect you are already aware of it):
Dropped pin
Near 587-569 N High St, Columbus, OH 43215
https://goo.gl/maps/8KfWDuwZ9qshXwAV8
I think if we made more overpasses like this one the effects of freeways would be much less noticeable and I would imagine this is cheaper than building large caps and certainly cheaper than tunneling.
I like that a lot better than the Walgreens that they built on top of I-80 in Reno between Virginia and Center St. I'm curious what the story is behind capping just one block and then putting a Walgreens there.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 28, 2020, 01:31:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 28, 2020, 12:56:31 PM
It's funny you mention that. I was just thinking about the other day and when I went to that Walgreens I couldn't get over how bizarre that was.
It was, unsurprisingly, planned to be a casino. The developer built the deck lid and then gave up on the project. The Walgreens came many years later.
Obviously, it's better to plan such things at the time the original freeway was constructed. But the general focus of past projects were much more compartmentalized than with today's endeavors, with significantly more socioeconomic factors included within today's calculi. Thus "retrofitting" is the name of the game with most of today's freeway mitigation -- and, as the aforementioned Walgreens example indicates, anything can happen there -- and the best laid plans often don't reach fruition (not that another casino would be the optimal use for that "cap space"). But if I-515(I-11/US 95) is slated for a full revision, including getting rid of the viaduct and sinking the facility, then that mitigation can be integrated with the freeway plans from their inception -- provided, of course, that various agencies can see eye-to-eye on design and functional standards -- and the money is there to do the job right! The problem is if one or another of the involved parties elects to either limit their input or, worse, "cheap out" on their end of the project (or capitulate to development dollars), the finished product might well not be much of an improvement over what would exist without the mitigation. But one doesn't know until the process commences. Let's hope NDOT and the LV redevelopment agency can "dovetail" their needs into something beneficial to both the local area and the driving public. :poke:
And in regards to the Columbus overcrossing example -- funny they should employ classic "southwest" architecture in that design! Phoenix, yes; Columbus, strange!
QuoteIt was, unsurprisingly, planned to be a casino. The developer built the deck lid and then gave up on the project.
Sounds about right.
NDOT has temporarily closed several streets east of downtown as a test run and means of soliciting feedback from neighborhood residents about possible future street closures proposed as part of this project.
8 streets in downtown Las Vegas to be closed for a month as test run (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/downtown/8-streets-in-downtown-las-vegas-to-be-closed-for-a-month-as-test-run-2297430/),
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/8/2021
Quote
Eight surface streets in downtown Las Vegas will be closed to traffic for over a month as a test run for a planned road project that could exceed $1 billion.
The temporary closures that began Monday and run through April 12 include Seventh, Eighth, 10th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th and 21st streets at U.S. Highway 95, the Nevada Department of Transportation announced Monday.
The streets will be partially closed from March 8 to 28 and will be fully closed from March 29 to April 12.
"There are three design alternatives being evaluated, and each of these streets are proposed for possible closure," said Tony Illia, NDOT spokesman. "Fourth Street is only proposed to close as part of the project's recessed design alternative, so it will not be shut down during these temporary closures."
<...>
The streets in the test run could be permanently closed as part of the planned Downtown Access Project. The temporary closures are aimed at providing area residents and businesses a chance to see how the new street configurations work first and an opportunity to provide feedback and voice concerns.
Project signage will direct those in the area to visit the project website at www.ndotdap.com or call the community feedback line at 702-938-5440. A brief survey is available on the website in both English and Spanish.<...>
It would seem NDOT learned from the I-15 & F Street fiasco several years ago, and are being a bit more proactive about advertising and soliciting feedback of the possible closures from the area residents.
The article also mentions that the planned construction timeline for whatever alternative is chosen is slated to be 2027-2031.
This seems like a really old-school project. I'm fall for replacing the viaduct and even widening the freeway. But I thought we were done with the whole "freeways cutting off streets in poor neighborhoods" thing
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 14, 2021, 08:57:10 PM
This seems like a really old-school project. I'm fall for replacing the viaduct and even widening the freeway. But I thought we were done with the whole "freeways cutting off streets in poor neighborhoods" thing
Yeah this project is sorely needed but NDOT should be sparing no expense in ensuring this freeway is built as good as possible ensuring adequate capacity and not cutting off neighborhoods. This is right by the downtown area and needs to be below grade and future caps possible.
I'd even go beyond that — the time for caps is now. If you're going to build a billion dollar freeway, you could, y'know, build a $1.2 billion freeway and mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 14, 2021, 09:13:04 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 14, 2021, 08:57:10 PM
This seems like a really old-school project. I'm fall for replacing the viaduct and even widening the freeway. But I thought we were done with the whole "freeways cutting off streets in poor neighborhoods" thing
Yeah this project is sorely needed but NDOT should be sparing no expense in ensuring this freeway is built as good as possible ensuring adequate capacity and not cutting off neighborhoods. This is right by the downtown area and needs to be below grade and future caps possible.
The 515 viaduct rehabilitation contract has been awarded.
Also, in case anyone is confused on what a viaduct is
Quote(A viaduct is a long bridge-like structure carrying an elevated roadway. It's not to be confused with an aqueduct that conveys water).
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/6832/395
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 18, 2021, 08:47:14 AM
The 515 viaduct rehabilitation contract has been awarded.
Also, in case anyone is confused on what a viaduct is
Quote(A viaduct is a long bridge-like structure carrying an elevated roadway. It's not to be confused with an aqueduct that conveys water).
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/6832/395
so a product carries paid athletes?
If an aqueduct conveys water, does a viaduct convey Viagra? :bigass:
Looks like the rehabilitation project is starting and will last until late 2022. The elevated freeway will be reduced to two lanes each way. It won't be fun. I wish they could just start on the full reconstruction project given it will likely occur in the late 2020s this road will only be open for a few years until it shuts down again.
Quote from: vdeane on March 18, 2021, 09:27:35 PM
If an aqueduct conveys water, does a viaduct convey Viagra? :bigass:
Or, in our neighbor to the north, a railroad (ViaRail)! :bigass:
Well this is really good news. After public feedback the DOT listened and will close fewer roads than they initially planned. I'm always happy to hear when DOT is actually taken in consideration what people say.
https://dailyupdate.transportation.org/Pages/StateDotNewsDetail.aspx?MessageId=91888
There is huge construction going on in this segment NOW. Is this going to be made obsolete by the Downtown Access Project?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 15, 2021, 01:23:09 PM
I'd even go beyond that — the time for caps is now. If you're going to build a billion dollar freeway, you could, y'know, build a $1.2 billion freeway and mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 14, 2021, 09:13:04 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 14, 2021, 08:57:10 PM
This seems like a really old-school project. I'm fall for replacing the viaduct and even widening the freeway. But I thought we were done with the whole "freeways cutting off streets in poor neighborhoods" thing
Yeah this project is sorely needed but NDOT should be sparing no expense in ensuring this freeway is built as good as possible ensuring adequate capacity and not cutting off neighborhoods. This is right by the downtown area and needs to be below grade and future caps possible.
Are you that delusional to think a cap would be that cheap? Or is this the 60% trolling side of you?
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 03:49:42 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 15, 2021, 01:23:09 PM
I'd even go beyond that — the time for caps is now. If you're going to build a billion dollar freeway, you could, y'know, build a $1.2 billion freeway and mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 14, 2021, 09:13:04 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 14, 2021, 08:57:10 PM
This seems like a really old-school project. I'm fall for replacing the viaduct and even widening the freeway. But I thought we were done with the whole "freeways cutting off streets in poor neighborhoods" thing
Yeah this project is sorely needed but NDOT should be sparing no expense in ensuring this freeway is built as good as possible ensuring adequate capacity and not cutting off neighborhoods. This is right by the downtown area and needs to be below grade and future caps possible.
Are you that delusional to think a cap would be that cheap? Or is this the 60% trolling side of you?
Right because we need to make sure everything we build is cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. Let's be cheap.
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 21, 2021, 02:00:29 PM
There is huge construction going on in this segment NOW. Is this going to be made obsolete by the Downtown Access Project?
The current projects on I-515 is a couple of interim measures:
- Selected retrofits to extend the service life of the existing viaduct, especially the actual downtown portion (parts of which date to the 1960s). This is necessary until the actual downtown access project can get going to reconstruct this section, which is likely still about a decade out.
- Resurfacing of the viaduct, to include reconfiguration of the lanes and median barrier to make room to add a southbound auxiliary lane and a two lane off ramp at Eastern Ave. This will all be rebuilt with the downtown access project.
- Replacing structurally deficient bridges over Eastern Ave and Desert Inn Rd. These bridges are outside the project limits of the downtown access project.
Info on current projects:
https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/programs-studies/i-515-viaduct-rehab-project
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2021, 04:44:37 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 03:49:42 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 15, 2021, 01:23:09 PM
I'd even go beyond that — the time for caps is now. If you're going to build a billion dollar freeway, you could, y'know, build a $1.2 billion freeway and mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 14, 2021, 09:13:04 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 14, 2021, 08:57:10 PM
This seems like a really old-school project. I'm fall for replacing the viaduct and even widening the freeway. But I thought we were done with the whole "freeways cutting off streets in poor neighborhoods" thing
Yeah this project is sorely needed but NDOT should be sparing no expense in ensuring this freeway is built as good as possible ensuring adequate capacity and not cutting off neighborhoods. This is right by the downtown area and needs to be below grade and future caps possible.
Are you that delusional to think a cap would be that cheap? Or is this the 60% trolling side of you?
Right because we need to make sure everything we build is cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. Let's be cheap.
Aiming they went with a depressed option, I could maybe see some limited capping in selected areas downtown and in some of the neighborhoods. But not the whole thing... That's about two miles and would be incredibly (prohibitively?) expensive.
Yes I didn't think that they would ever cap the entire thing. Maybe some expanded bridges like in downtown Columbus would suffice.
Quote from: roadfro on October 21, 2021, 10:53:00 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 21, 2021, 02:00:29 PM
There is huge construction going on in this segment NOW. Is this going to be made obsolete by the Downtown Access Project?
The current projects on I-515 is a couple of interim measures:
- Selected retrofits to extend the service life of the existing viaduct, especially the actual downtown portion (parts of which date to the 1960s). This is necessary until the actual downtown access project can get going to reconstruct this section, which is likely still about a decade out.
- Resurfacing of the viaduct, to include reconfiguration of the lanes and median barrier to make room to add a southbound auxiliary lane and a two lane off ramp at Eastern Ave. This will all be rebuilt with the downtown access project.
- Replacing structurally deficient bridges over Eastern Ave and Desert Inn Rd. These bridges are outside the project limits of the downtown access project.
Info on current projects:
https://www.dot.nv.gov/projects-programs/programs-studies/i-515-viaduct-rehab-project
Thanks. So, truly interim - looks like a $40M price tag. Tiding the viaduct over until the massive project.
Just saw this article. NDOT is accepting public comment on the DAP alternatives until February 15th.
Public input sought on major highway project through downtown Vegas (https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/public-input-sought-on-major-highway-project-through-downtown-vegas-2521730/),
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/31/2022
Quote from: Mick Ackers, LVRJ
State transportation officials are accepting comments on the Downtown Access Project, which is set to be the most expensive public works project in Nevada's history.
The project aimed at easing congestion on U.S. Highway 95 in downtown Las Vegas could cost as much as $3 billion, depending on which of the three alternatives the Nevada Department of Transportation selects.
Project Neon, which widened 3.7 miles of Interstate 15 from the Spaghetti Bowl to Sahara Avenue, is the most expensive public work project in the state's history at $1 billion. Even the least expensive option for the Downtown Access Project would top that at $1.6 billion, and the most expensive option could triple it.
Residents have until Feb. 15 to submit comments and concerns to NDOT before it moves to finalize the plan for the heavily used freeway. The preferred alternative is expected to be known by the time the draft environmental impact study is published this summer.
The trench option (Option 1) is expected to be the most expensive and take the longest to build.
All these options are bad for the local neighborhood. I see no point of putting US 95 in a trench unless they cap part of it. A trench alone would be far worse than the current elevated freeway. You can at least walk and do things under an elevated freeway (https://archive.curbed.com/2017/1/9/14183876/freeway-underpass-park-public). A trench means you must cross the freeway on a bridge. The other two options elevate the freeway on dirt (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6171927,-90.2505195,3a,75y,21.65h,72.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXaGrysyyVQ8aKX4nvEug1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)rather than bridges. I thought one goal of the rebuild was to make US 95 less of a divide for the poorer folk who live NE of downtown. It looks like the goal of NDOT is to divide the residents even more with all three options.
I'm also not impressed with the parallel trail in the design like it's some new feature. A parallel trail already exists from 10th St to Mojave Rd.
At least with a trench there is the option to cap in the future.
I would support Options 2 or 3. I think Option 1 is too expensive, and I'm not sure if a trench would be better than the existing viaduct. Of course, I've never been to Las Vegas so I could be full of it.
Were there ever any plans to give Downtown Las Vegas a full loop?
Quote from: skluth on February 08, 2022, 01:09:21 PM
All these options are bad for the local neighborhood. I see no point of putting US 95 in a trench unless they cap part of it. A trench alone would be far worse than the current elevated freeway. You can at least walk and do things under an elevated freeway (https://archive.curbed.com/2017/1/9/14183876/freeway-underpass-park-public). A trench means you must cross the freeway on a bridge. The other two options elevate the freeway on dirt (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6171927,-90.2505195,3a,75y,21.65h,72.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXaGrysyyVQ8aKX4nvEug1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)rather than bridges. I thought one goal of the rebuild was to make US 95 less of a divide for the poorer folk who live NE of downtown. It looks like the goal of NDOT is to divide the residents even more with all three options.
I'm also not impressed with the parallel trail in the design like it's some new feature. A parallel trail already exists from 10th St to Mojave Rd.
I don't think that an original goal of the project was "to make US 95 less of a divide" or that they are setting out to "divide the residents even more". Given that the existing freeway is a 1.6-mile viaduct (that I'm quite frankly surprised was designed and built as such in the late 1970's/early 1980's) that needs to be rebuilt, reconstructing a wider 1.6-mile viaduct in today's dollars is not really a necessity–especially if you consider that space under the freeway today is largely underutilized (much of it is fenced off, or used as parking lots closer to downtown).
I'll also note that the temporary street closure study NDOT performed did in 2021 altered their plans based on the community. NDOT was originally planning to permanently close 8-9 north/south residential streets with this project in all design alternatives–they scaled this back to 3-4 (with two planned ped/bike only crossings converted back to full street status) based on the community feedback requesting to keep the connections.
I haven't had chance to fully dive in to the interactive materials to make comments, but it would be nice if they can enhance the existing trail and tie it in to downtown. I'd bet it would get a lot more utilization.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2022, 11:47:08 PM
Were there ever any plans to give Downtown Las Vegas a full loop?
No. Downtown Las Vegas is not big enough or dense enough with businesses/traffic generators that a freeway loop would make sense.
Quote from: roadfro on February 09, 2022, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 08, 2022, 11:47:08 PM
Were there ever any plans to give Downtown Las Vegas a full loop?
No. Downtown Las Vegas is not big enough or dense enough with businesses/traffic generators that a freeway loop would make sense.
Also, Vegas was still pretty small during the mid-century push to build urban freeways, so it wouldn't have seemed necessary at the time.
NDOT has made a very beautiful presentation of their plans for the Downtown Access project in Vegas
https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-project-elements
I-515 would be expanded substantially, going from the current 3 GP lanes and 1 auxiliary lane in each direction to 4 GP lanes, 1 HOV lane, and 2 C-D lanes
They have 4 different design alternatives
Alternatives 5,6, and 7 would differ marginally from each other, with only differences being access provided to the HOV lanes. Alternative 8 would replace the currently elevated freeway with one below grade.
Alternative 8 would be twice as expensive to build as the other 3, it would require the destruction of 372 housing units vs ~50 for the other 3, and would create the most disruption to traffic during construction. The only advantage is aesthetic, as it removes the visual barrier of the current freeway and creates opportunity for capping. I'm guessing they only left that option in to illustrate why it would not be feasible.
Alt. 8 is the best decision in ideological world but I doubt it gets chosen now. I'd throw my weight behind alt. 7 as it seems to have the most efficient interchange at I-15.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2023, 03:31:45 PM
Alt. 8 is the best decision in ideological world but I doubt it gets chosen now. I'd throw my weight behind alt. 7 as it seems to have the most efficient interchange at I-15.
Twice the cost with purely aesthetic advantages? No way, Jose!
If all goes according to plan, and there are no delays, it appears that final design and right-of-way acquisition will begin in 2025 and construction will begin in 2029: https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-schedule. I'm sure that by the time construction begins, the Interstate 515 designation will be gone, and Interstate 11 will be fully signed through Las Vegas.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:55:12 PM
If all goes according to plan, and there are no delays, it appears that final design and right-of-way acquisition will begin in 2025 and construction will begin in 2029: https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-schedule. I'm sure that by the time construction begins, the Interstate 515 designation will be gone, and Interstate 11 will be fully signed through Las Vegas.
You don't think they'd wait for this project to be completed before signing it I-11?
It's possible. I would prefer that it happen before this project occurs, but it will only happen when the DOT decides to make it happen.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2023, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:55:12 PM
If all goes according to plan, and there are no delays, it appears that final design and right-of-way acquisition will begin in 2025 and construction will begin in 2029: https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-schedule. I'm sure that by the time construction begins, the Interstate 515 designation will be gone, and Interstate 11 will be fully signed through Las Vegas.
You don't think they'd wait for this project to be completed before signing it I-11?
Given the city's aversion to even calling it I-515 (it's always referred to as US 95, even by the traffic commentators on the TV stations), I'd say it could be a looooooong time before it's signed as I-11.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 02, 2023, 07:50:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2023, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:55:12 PM
If all goes according to plan, and there are no delays, it appears that final design and right-of-way acquisition will begin in 2025 and construction will begin in 2029: https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-schedule. I'm sure that by the time construction begins, the Interstate 515 designation will be gone, and Interstate 11 will be fully signed through Las Vegas.
You don't think they'd wait for this project to be completed before signing it I-11?
Given the city's aversion to even calling it I-515 (it's always referred to as US 95, even by the traffic commentators on the TV stations), I'd say it could be a looooooong time before it's signed as I-11.
I have to imagine part of the reason for that is that there is no part of 515 that isn't already part of 95 (i.e. 95 is the longer highway). It is also easier to refer to the main highways in town as 15 crossing 95. One term for the town's main east-west freeway, 95.
It is similar to some of the history of the 4 level in LA. Now we just have two highways: 101 and 110. But back in the day, parts of US 6, US 66, US 99 also ran through and even turned by way of the interchange. Quite complicated. It is true that CA-11 (forerunner to 110) and US 101 were the only roads that consistently went straight through the interchange, but the others were very important routes as well. But for simplification, it was the interchange of 11 and 101.
Quote from: mrsman on September 10, 2023, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 02, 2023, 07:50:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2023, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:55:12 PM
If all goes according to plan, and there are no delays, it appears that final design and right-of-way acquisition will begin in 2025 and construction will begin in 2029: https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-schedule. I'm sure that by the time construction begins, the Interstate 515 designation will be gone, and Interstate 11 will be fully signed through Las Vegas.
You don't think they'd wait for this project to be completed before signing it I-11?
Given the city's aversion to even calling it I-515 (it's always referred to as US 95, even by the traffic commentators on the TV stations), I'd say it could be a looooooong time before it's signed as I-11.
I have to imagine part of the reason for that is that there is no part of 515 that isn't already part of 95 (i.e. 95 is the longer highway). It is also easier to refer to the main highways in town as 15 crossing 95. One term for the town's main east-west freeway, 95.
OK, I'm confused. Las Vegas has no main east-west freeway. Both I-15 and US-95/I-515 run north-south.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 16, 2023, 10:39:55 PM
OK, I'm confused. Las Vegas has no main east-west freeway. Both I-15 and US-95/I-515 run north-south.
Yes and no...
(https://i.imgur.com/2okJoHU.png)
I could see some people seeing 95 as the "main east-west freeway", considering that's the orientation it's in when it hits 15. Although my mental map of the city treats it as a diagonal.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 17, 2023, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 16, 2023, 10:39:55 PM
OK, I'm confused. Las Vegas has no main east-west freeway. Both I-15 and US-95/I-515 run north-south.
Yes and no...
<img removed>
I could see some people seeing 95 as the "main east-west freeway", considering that's the orientation it's in when it hits 15. Although my mental map of the city treats it as a diagonal.
Fun fact: The first bits of US 95 as a freeway in Las Vegas extended from downtown (either from Casino Center/4th or from Las Vegas Blvd) westward towards Rainbow Blvd in the late 1960s to early 1970s and was known as the "Las Vegas Expressway"...it wouldn't be until the early 1980s before US 95 was moved from Rancho Dr onto the current alignment. There was some signage on side streets that directed traffic to "Las Vegas Exwy east/west" that persisted into the 1990s well after US 95 had been moved onto it.
All of these are ... absurd. Alternative 8 triples the footprint of the freeway, further cutting off the northern residential area from the downtown district. Alternatives 5-7 more than double the footprint.
I get what they're going for here, but there's zero balance in the project between "Moving cars through downtown Las Vegas" and "supporting the community around the freeway." I'm not saying it needs to be tilted all the way for the community, or even 50-50, but there's seriously zero balance here.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2023, 11:39:48 AM
NDOT has made a very beautiful presentation of their plans for the Downtown Access project in Vegas
https://ndotdap.com/vpm3-project-elements
I-515 would be expanded substantially, going from the current 3 GP lanes and 1 auxiliary lane in each direction to 4 GP lanes, 1 HOV lane, and 2 C-D lanes
They have 4 different design alternatives
Alternatives 5,6, and 7 would differ marginally from each other, with only differences being access provided to the HOV lanes. Alternative 8 would replace the currently elevated freeway with one below grade.
Alternative 8 would be twice as expensive to build as the other 3, it would require the destruction of 372 housing units vs ~50 for the other 3, and would create the most disruption to traffic during construction. The only advantage is aesthetic, as it removes the visual barrier of the current freeway and creates opportunity for capping. I'm guessing they only left that option in to illustrate why it would not be feasible.
It doesn't need to have balance. It just needs to move cars as quickly as possible and that's exactly what it will accomplish. That is completely appropriate for this area.
1958 called, it wants its urban planning back
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:27:07 PM
It doesn't need to have balance. It just needs to move cars as quickly as possible and that's exactly what it will accomplish. That is completely appropriate for this area.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the Casino Center Blvd exit if close exit spacing is a concern?
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 20, 2023, 10:59:15 PM
1958 called, it wants its urban planning back
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:27:07 PM
It doesn't need to have balance. It just needs to move cars as quickly as possible and that's exactly what it will accomplish. That is completely appropriate for this area.
Nice attempt at a joke that stopped being funny back in the 2000s.
1958 called, it wants you to know it's 65 years in the past.
Quote from: SeriesE on September 21, 2023, 12:59:27 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the Casino Center Blvd exit if close exit spacing is a concern?
Yes, it would be. However, Casino Center is the southbound part of a one-way couplet (4th St being the northbound counterpart) providing one of the most efficient routes through downtown Las Vegas. Without this half interchange, the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is the only direct freeway access to the downtown core. Even the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is probably still too close to I-15 to meet modern recommendations for spacing between a service interchange and a system interchange.
Today's Spaghetti Bowl has C/D roadways in most directions, and this is the only leg lacking any.
Quote from: roadfro on September 23, 2023, 10:22:30 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on September 21, 2023, 12:59:27 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the Casino Center Blvd exit if close exit spacing is a concern?
Yes, it would be. However, Casino Center is the southbound part of a one-way couplet (4th St being the northbound counterpart) providing one of the most efficient routes through downtown Las Vegas. Without this half interchange, the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is the only direct freeway access to the downtown core. Even the Las Vegas Blvd interchange is probably still too close to I-15 to meet modern recommendations for spacing between a service interchange and a system interchange.
Today's Spaghetti Bowl has C/D roadways in most directions, and this is the only leg lacking any.
Yeah. Downtown LV is a significant enough location that it simply cannot be bypassed. There may be ways to construct the interchange better to handle the weaving, but access to these exits in some way or fashion is critical.
Well, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395
Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2024, 05:57:53 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395
Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
Yeah, I saw that so it's gonna be interesting to see what their plan is. I guess nothing's gonna change with this highway. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth explanation as to exactly how impacts to the adjacent community were too significant for construction to proceeded.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 07:50:35 PMQuote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2024, 05:57:53 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395
Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
Yeah, I saw that so it's gonna be interesting to see what their plan is. I guess nothing's gonna change with this highway. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth explanation as to exactly how impacts to the adjacent community were too significant for construction to proceeded.
My guess is, it will not be revisited until more of I-11 is completed, especially towards Reno. But this comes as no surprise that the project is too expensive to undertake, and there has to be a way to build something similar, though smaller in scale and therefore lower cost.
This is a bummer.
Even if they don't go through with the grand plans they presented, that section of I-515 I-11 near downtown Las Vegas needs some serious revitalization. The viaduct has been sagging for years (the undulations just southeast of downtown are almost roller coaster-like), and will need replacing. And the section right in downtown is functionally inadequate with narrow roadway, no/minimal shoulders, and ramp geometrics that are substandard to current criteria...it's the only quadrant leading to the Spaghetti Bowl interchange that is still essentially in its original configuration, without a revamp in the last 25 years to address growth.
This is one of those rare moments when I feel like NEPA did its job.
Building Project Neon - which in itself is jaw-droppingly massive - adjacent to one of Las Vegas' wealthiest neighborhoods is one thing. That's a community of means that has chosen to wall itself off.
But plunking its equivalent on I-11 through one of Las Vegas' poorest neighborhoods – literally tearing down affordable housing in order to build a wider freeway – is totally different.
Yes, the viaduct needs to be replaced. But this is probably the most "urban" segment of freeway in the Las Vegas Valley and if it's going to be rebuilt, it must put the needs of the community it's
in at the same level of the needs of the commuters it serves. That's ... a really expensive undertaking.
I'm glad NEPA tripped this up and hope NDOT goes back to the drawing board. The downside is you don't often see Legislatures ponying up for making freeway projects more expensive for community justice purposes.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2024, 05:57:53 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on December 04, 2024, 02:08:55 PMWell, this is kind of surprising and to me somewhat sad if true. It seems as though the Nevada Department of Transportation has officially killed this project for the time being If I'm reading this correctly.
https://www.dot.nv.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8348/395
Quote from NDOT:
"During the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase of the Downtown Access Project, it was determined that the overall impacts to adjacent communities were too significant to proceed with construction. Additionally, the financial resources required to support the anticipated cost of the project presented a challenge beyond the scope of current funding availability."
I have a suspicion. This is just more to do with money. When I saw the initial video render, I thought wow this is gonna be a very expensive project. I mean they're taking several decades to do a simple interchange in Reno. They could've went with the depressed option and added a park cap over it if they really cared about improving traffic conditions alongside concerns of nearby impacts to lower income neighborhoods. And it's not like eminent domain hasn't been used before. I think it's just more to do with money.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2024, 03:37:22 PMI have a suspicion. This is just more to do with money. When I saw the initial video render, I thought wow this is gonna be a very expensive project. I mean they're taking several decades to do a simple interchange in Reno. They could've went with the depressed option and added a park cap over it if they really cared about improving traffic conditions alongside concerns of nearby impacts to lower income neighborhoods. And it's not like eminent domain hasn't been used before. I think it's just more to do with money.
I don't want to say money is really no object to Nevada, because that's not quite true. But this is the state where a couple years back we had the emergency situation of the rainy day fund having more money in it than was constitutionally allowed, and the Legislature had to quickly find something to do with the excess. We are not a poor state.
If NDOT really thought this project was necessary and proper they would have just asked the Legislature for the money next month and probably would have got it.
I mean, the initial proposal was just bad politics. Tearing down public housing projects and low-income neighborhoods will attract a lot of scrutiny, especially given who controls the legislature. Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done here, but the last thing NDOT needs is a PR nightmare, and public housing is basically untouchable in most states in 2024. I don't know enough about the local political situation to do a full analysis, but this is the type of thing that will cause an uproar.
Since the 80/580 project was mentioned above, that's another case of "right next to poor neighborhoods and low-income housing". The reason that's going to take forever is so they can keep land taking as minimal as possible and, well, they need to replace a public housing development in the NW quadrant. Even with the precautions, it's going to take out Butler Street because the current ROW has been maxed out.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I guess it's time to try my cheaper proposal of closing the Casino Center exit, and extending the aux lane to Las Vegas Blvd (at least as a band-aid solution) for the time being until the full improvement project can be redone. :colorful:
Quote from: SeriesE on December 09, 2024, 12:35:08 PMI guess it's time to try my cheaper proposal of closing the Casino Center exit, and extending the aux lane to Las Vegas Blvd (at least as a band-aid solution) for the time being until the full improvement project can be redone. :colorful:
No room to do that on the existing viaduct, unless you have a short distance with 0 shoulders and possibly narrowed lanes. (And this is after NDOT recently reconfigured the viaduct to get an extra lane southbound from the Bowl.)
Arguably, the Casino Center exit carries more of the downtown traffic than Las Vegas Blvd because, ya' know, it goes to the center of the casino district of downtown...
Quote from: roadfro on December 11, 2024, 11:31:53 AMQuote from: SeriesE on December 09, 2024, 12:35:08 PMI guess it's time to try my cheaper proposal of closing the Casino Center exit, and extending the aux lane to Las Vegas Blvd (at least as a band-aid solution) for the time being until the full improvement project can be redone. :colorful:
No room to do that on the existing viaduct, unless you have a short distance with 0 shoulders and possibly narrowed lanes. (And this is after NDOT recently reconfigured the viaduct to get an extra lane southbound from the Bowl.)
Arguably, the Casino Center exit carries more of the downtown traffic than Las Vegas Blvd because, ya' know, it goes to the center of the casino district of downtown...
Not as restriping, but a short physical 2 lane widening, that doesn't require tearing down any structures as it's only parking lots between the two interchanges