MOD NOTE: This thread was split off from the I-11 thread starting at the quoted post below, due to significant thread drift. —Roadfro
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 07, 2024, 03:13:55 PMI doubt CC-215 is ever actually faster than I-15 but holy hell do I avoid I-15 like the plague. I'd rather drive the Strip than I-15, it's that bad.
Even at night?
Las Vegas Boulevard is designed to push the cars through with minimal interaction with the casinos. It isn't fast but you don't have traffic veering suddenly from one side to another to exit at the last second.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 07, 2024, 05:38:50 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on September 07, 2024, 03:13:55 PMI doubt CC-215 is ever actually faster than I-15 but holy hell do I avoid I-15 like the plague. I'd rather drive the Strip than I-15, it's that bad.
Even at night?
Night and day generally make little difference in Las Vegas. (LVB calms down to something resembling a normal arterial during the day around 1am or so. That's the best time to do your sightseeing on the Strip because everything is of course still lit up.)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2024, 05:41:27 PMLas Vegas Boulevard is designed to push the cars through with minimal interaction with the casinos. It isn't fast but you don't have traffic veering suddenly from one side to another to exit at the last second.
Ummm what? Is that sarcasm. I see that all the time on and around the strip.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 07, 2024, 08:18:28 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2024, 05:41:27 PMLas Vegas Boulevard is designed to push the cars through with minimal interaction with the casinos. It isn't fast but you don't have traffic veering suddenly from one side to another to exit at the last second.
Ummm what? Is that sarcasm. I see that all the time on and around the strip.
No, it isn't. I spent many years working in Clark County and having to pick up police reports in downtown. LVB was altered to keep pedestrians and cars away from each other. I'll gladly take it over I-15 as though during most regular people hours.
I'm glad there are a lot of bridges bringing pedestrian traffic over Las Vegas Blvd. Otherwise, driving The Strip would be WAY worse.
I would rather fly into Vegas from the LA Area, get an Uber to my hotel on The Strip, and just walk everywhere. Perfect two-day-max getaway.
It was way worse. Getting around waiting for pedestrian signals was miserable. A lot of drunk people took the chances to try to run traffic across in traffic gaps. I even had a hard time doing morning runs on LVB and would swing wide eastward often to Paradise.
Quote from: RZF on September 08, 2024, 12:03:24 AMI'm glad there are a lot of bridges bringing pedestrian traffic over Las Vegas Blvd. Otherwise, driving The Strip would be WAY worse.
Especially at the intersection with Tropicana Ave. It was the only way to walk between the Tropicana, MGM Grand, and New York New York. Nobody's allowed to cross at street level to this day, AFAIK.
QuoteI would rather fly into Vegas from the LA Area, get an Uber to my hotel on The Strip, and just walk everywhere. Perfect two-day-max getaway.
We used to stay at the Tropicana, with its large-but-convenient self-parking lot. I already miss it.
I spent a week in Vegas. I-15 was free flowing every time I drove on it, except at the Dropicana, whereas the Strip was a parking lot at night.
I've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
The pedestrian mall on Fremont Street always struck me as an attempt to draw people back to the dying heart of the city. It seems to have worked, more and more people are over there whenever I visit.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2024, 09:51:06 AMThe pedestrian mall on Fremont Street always struck me as an attempt to draw people back to the dying heart of the city. It seems to have worked, more and more people are over there whenever I visit.
I agree with this. The promotion of Fremont as a trip to the older side of Vegas seems to be working.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
Maybe expand some of the pedestrian bridges into mid-block caps? Or some kind of upper level promenade built over the median? Could be a clever way of adding a light-rail line if they can overcome the lobbies.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2024, 09:51:06 AMThe pedestrian mall on Fremont Street always struck me as an attempt to draw people back to the dying heart of the city. It seems to have worked, more and more people are over there whenever I visit.
It certainly helps that parking is a lot cheaper Downtown than on the Strip.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 05:00:52 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2024, 09:51:06 AMThe pedestrian mall on Fremont Street always struck me as an attempt to draw people back to the dying heart of the city. It seems to have worked, more and more people are over there whenever I visit.
It certainly helps that parking is a lot cheaper Downtown than on the Strip.
Yes, I preferred to stay down on Fremont for that very reason. Food and lodging were far more reasonable compared to what one gets on LVB in Paradise. Supposedly gaming odds are better on Fremont also, but I'm not big into gambling.
The Fremont Street Experience can be a lot of fun. The last time I was out there (for an International Sign Association world expo event at Mandalay Bay) our group headed up to Downtown to have dinner and drinks there. It was a Friday night. Lots of people were out there in the street, drinks in hand. There were open bars on the curb sides. The Freemont Street Experience display had just been remodeled for (I think) the third time. It's all full color LEDs now. Back in the late 1990's it was lit with colored incandescent lamps. They played a song list from Imagine Dragons and had all kinds of animated graphics overhead to go with the music. The whole crowd was singing along to "Radioactive." The whole block party vibe was pretty cool.
The hotels in the old Downtown area aren't as nice, but yeah, you can save some money staying there. Just be street smart.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2024, 09:51:06 AMThe pedestrian mall on Fremont Street always struck me as an attempt to draw people back to the dying heart of the city. It seems to have worked, more and more people are over there whenever I visit.
Yeah, and there are now mega-resorts like the Circa (which replaced Mermaids and Las Vegas Club)
The area is getting expensive.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
The benefit to the casino owners would come from the additional restaurants/shops they could build into the formerly 8-lanes-wide surface area - Paradise would have to cede that land to the owners, but they've done a lot of similar stuff in the past.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
Quote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
I'm pretty sure Vegas has the cash.
So, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
Why? You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
Why? You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?
So you admit it's only me you have it in for?
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:57:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
Why? You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?
So you admit it's only me you have it in for?
Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard?
You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 01:03:17 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:57:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
Why? You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?
So you admit it's only me you have it in for?
Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard?
You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.
Whenever I'm the one making suggestions, you happily invite yourself in.
The whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.
Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 01:37:41 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 01:03:17 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:57:24 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on September 11, 2024, 12:46:56 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
Why? You looking to have more of your posts trampled on?
So you admit it's only me you have it in for?
Have I insinuated that I would support capping or tunneling Las Vegas Boulevard?
You're the one inviting me into whatever this is.
Whenever I'm the one making suggestions, you happily invite yourself in.
Maybe point the mirror at yourself and ask why that is? You're the one demanding vindication and respect in a thread which you really haven't been in mix of the conversation. If you had really looked into this topic you would have found that I have questioned the logic of many assumptions/things.
I'm willing to give you a you a fair shake. The problem is you keep doing weird shit like this every time I think you are going to grow up a little.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?
I guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.
The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.
If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).
Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 11, 2024, 10:51:48 AMI guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.
The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.
If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).
Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.
there already is a transit line known as the Deuce.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 12:37:23 AMSo, Max, is it just my off-the-wall ideas that you enjoy trampling on? Because I'd think you'd have some opinions on putting Las Vegas Boulevard in a tunnel
I suspect you'd get a better reception if you put all your fantastical stuff in Fictional.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
And it leaked.
Big Dig finally turned out okay. Signage didn't work out as well as they thought, but overall, the concept worked.
Oh wait, this is a thread about I-11.
Forum's a mess.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 11, 2024, 10:03:49 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?
I lived near Boston until 3 months ago. I'm glad they built it, from what I've heard it's eased congestion from what it was before. But I'm not sure it would've penciled out in a cost-benefit analysis if they had known beforehand how much it would cost. Anyways, an interstate highway is one thing, but a city street is another.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 11, 2024, 10:51:48 AMI guess the point was that an equivalent $20 billion to tunnel Las Vegas Blvd is probably not worth the expense. I-93 was a tight, congested elevated highway, so the Big Dig was the best way to improve I-93 through central Boston.
The density around the Strip is not the same as downtown Boston. Also, driving the Strip is a tourist draw itself.
If the need is to improve through traffic, creating a north-south arterial to complement I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd might be more cost effective. Either by streamlining Frank Sinatra / Sammy Davis / Industrial / Grand Central up to I-11 or turning one of the other existing roads into a super-arterial (similar to Desert Inn).
Or using $20 billion to fund transit lines along The Strip.
I-15 already serves as an effective super arterial.
And they've tried transit with the monorail and people movers that connect a handful of resorts. The problem with transit is it has to accelerate and decelerate slowly enough so that standing passengers don't get knocked over, that makes them slow.
The only way out of this is probably going to be electronically connecting cars into trains that can more efficiently use current road space.
The discussions here seem to make it a 50/50 between I-15 and Las Vegas Blvd on which one is the least congested. It also sounds like the general perception is that there are only 2 (semi-)reliable north-south arterials to get through the Strip. Making modifications or encouraging people to use a third or fourth might not be a bad idea, maybe Paradise Road or Frank Sinatra, et al.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 09:25:08 PMAnd they've tried transit with the monorail and people movers that connect a handful of resorts. The problem with transit is it has to accelerate and decelerate slowly enough so that standing passengers don't get knocked over, that makes them slow.
The downside of the monorail is that it's lack of visibility, and the fact that people have to navigate through the casinos to get to it from Las Vegas Blvd, the east half of the Blvd at that. Naturally, the casinos have an incentive to try and capture that foot traffic and thus it's not in their interest to make it easier to get to the stations. The individual people-movers are more geared to move people between properties, not provide a general mass transit service, again, they would prefer to keep potential customers within their properties.
Since they already have The Deuce, they could convert a lane of Las Vegas Blvd into bus only to allow BRT service.
QuoteThe only way out of this is probably going to be electronically connecting cars into trains that can more efficiently use current road space.
So, no to trains, but yes to having cars behave like trains? Isn't that what the Hyperloop is trying to be? The Deuce already carries more passengers than two cars attached end-to-end.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 11, 2024, 09:11:29 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on September 11, 2024, 10:03:49 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 01:04:35 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 10, 2024, 11:17:31 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 10, 2024, 02:15:19 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 09, 2024, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 09, 2024, 12:23:35 AMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 09:58:45 PMQuote from: kernals12 on September 08, 2024, 04:59:26 PMQuote from: DenverBrian on September 08, 2024, 08:54:35 AMI've always thought that, given the massive amounts of money in Las Vegas for new casinos, that MGM/Caesars/Venetian/Wynn could come together and invest in burying Las Vegas Boulevard entirely from Mandalay Bay to Sahara. Send it underground and allow non-commercial traffic only - no trucks. (Most trucks already use adjacent streets for deliveries and such.)
Then, at ground level, you have all this land upon which to build a giant version of Fremont Street - a pedestrian-only area with even more restaurants, ziplines, and ridiculously expensive clothing and handbag stores.
Seems to me that, no matter how expensive it might be to bury LV Blvd, the casino moguls would make it up fast.
In the 1990s, they considered building pedestrian tunnels but the high water table meant that would cost too much, so they went with bridges. Burying an 8 lane roadway is going to probably be 100 times more expensive and for what benefit to the casino owners? Casinos would also have to build entirely new entrances underground. And what's going to happen to traffic during construction? Finally, driving down the Strip at night is a major tourist draw and I don't see how you're going to replicate that in a tunnel.
If you restrict to cars only, you probably only need a 4 lane roadway underground; yes, casino owners would build entirely new entrances underground, similar to all the entirely new crap they build every year; and walking down the Strip at night would replace driving down the Strip at night as a major tourist draw. <shrugs>
Lol the car share of Strip traffic is way higher than 50%.
And the Strip is 4 miles long (from Sahara Ave to Russell Road), not many people will want to walk that, unless they put in airport-style moving sidewalks (which, based on my experience with Vegas' escalators, will be non-functional half the time)
I'd assume you'd have far less car traffic because you'd be underground - not a lot to see underground - most traffic would probably be taxis/Ubers/Lyfts going to new entrances, plus the YOLO SoCal folks.
Let's assume that 4 lanes would be enough. You still need to contend with the high water table that scuttled the pedestrian tunnels proposed in the 90s
Obstacles are always there. If water tables couldn't be overcome, tunnels like the Big Dig in Boston would never have occurred. <shrugs>
The Big Dig cost $20 billion.
Are you saying the Big Dig was not worth putting I-93 under the city and having that beautiful Rose Kennedy Greenway at the surface level instead? Have you ever been in Boston?
I lived near Boston until 3 months ago. I'm glad they built it, from what I've heard it's eased congestion from what it was before. But I'm not sure it would've penciled out in a cost-benefit analysis if they had known beforehand how much it would cost. Anyways, an interstate highway is one thing, but a city street is another.
But Las Vegas Blvd is as wide as I-93 was in Boston. It probably would cost in the neighborhood of 15 billion to put it underground from Russell Rd to St Louis Ave. So while technically it is not an interstate, it is going to cost as much as if it were an interstate.
Actually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
I really don't think anything needs to get fixed with Las Vegas Blvd, the road. It's fine to drive on. Walking on the sidewalks next to it? If you're a person that enjoys walking faster than a sloth, it's an exercise in restraint.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2024, 03:19:40 AMThe whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.
Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.
Um, you don't have to be in a vehicle to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Plenty of people do that while walking.
Y'all are so blinders-on to the effects of the road that you can't see the after effects. Putting LV Blvd underground opens up land - valuable land - at the surface. Land upon which could be built restaurants and shops, touristy stuff, etc. Las Vegas has proven time and time again that rubes will spend boatloads of cash on things that are shiny and flashy.
If Hard Rock can spend $1B to acquire The Mirage and then another $1-3B to renovate and add a 700-foot guitar hotel building where the volcano used to be...then I posit the combined casinos have $20B or more to put The Strip underground if they knew they'd make $60B or more on new retail in a a pedestrian mall ala Fremont Street. Just sayin'.
The main thing that Frank Sinatra (and its sort-of-eastern-counterpart Koval Lane) accomplishes is being a backdoor to the Strip properties for the employees. So if you're going to improve Frank Sinatra, you need to improve Koval too, for the benefit of the properties on the east side of the Strip. Unfortunately, Koval tees out at Twain, and it also is part of the stupid Formula One track. (Said stupid Formula One track is also another reason LVB isn't going to get removed or buried anytime soon. Maybe after their contract with Uncle Clark is up.)
You could maybe improve Paradise Road, but that'd really only be useful north of Twain. South of there, it's far enough away that you may as well take Maryland Parkway or Valley View or what have you.
Also, since someone mentioned Desert Inn...I'm a little pissed that this amazing "super-arterial" is basically useless because it takes longer to get through the DI/Paradise intersection than it does any of the intersections with LVB. (Yesterday I lost 20 minutes to it because it turns out the damn thing was closed, so I had to go up to Sahara anyway.)
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 12, 2024, 10:54:16 AMActually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
This would be a neat way to handle the service traffic currently handled by Frank Sinatra and Koval, but...
...it would be incredibly disruptive to build since you'd basically have to tear up the entire Strip all at once. Some businesses sued the county over lost revenue because the street they were on was closed for a few
days due to Formula One. I can just imagine Bill Hornbuckle and Anthony Carano showing up to a Clark County Commission meeting raising holy hell over this.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 12, 2024, 11:20:38 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2024, 03:19:40 AMThe whole point of the Strip is to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Can't really do that in a tunnel.
Let Fremont be Fremont and LVB be LVB.
Um, you don't have to be in a vehicle to look at all the pretty lights and stuff. Plenty of people do that while walking.
Y'all are so blinders-on to the effects of the road that you can't see the after effects. Putting LV Blvd underground opens up land - valuable land - at the surface. Land upon which could be built restaurants and shops, touristy stuff, etc. Las Vegas has proven time and time again that rubes will spend boatloads of cash on things that are shiny and flashy.
If Hard Rock can spend $1B to acquire The Mirage and then another $1-3B to renovate and add a 700-foot guitar hotel building where the volcano used to be...then I posit the combined casinos have $20B or more to put The Strip underground if they knew they'd make $60B or more on new retail in a a pedestrian mall ala Fremont Street. Just sayin'.
My guess is the reason the casinos don't push for this is because they
wouldn't make $60B or more on putting LVB underground. Fremont does great, but it doesn't do so great that it puts a dent in Strip visitation. Which means that the ROI just isn't there to Fremontize the Strip.
If people want Fremont, they know where to find it. Presumably, all the people staying on the Strip are there because they
don't want Fremont.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 12, 2024, 10:54:16 AMActually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
Such a road already exists, except it's 12 lanes, it's called interstate 15.
The traffic on the Strip is almost entirely people visiting the casinos.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 12, 2024, 01:16:47 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on September 12, 2024, 10:54:16 AMActually, now that I think about it, you could turn Las Vegas Blvd into a similar idea that Wacker Dr is in Chicago. The Lower Blvd would be 2 or 3 lanes each way with limited access, say once a mile, for through traffic. The Upper Blvd would be for the tourists and trucks. I could see a scenario where it would access points at Mandalay Bay Rd, Flamingo Rd, Desert Inn Rd, and Sahara Ave. I know it's a bit fictional but it is related.
Such a road already exists, except it's 12 lanes, it's called interstate 15.
The traffic on the Strip is almost entirely people visiting the casinos.
I was about to say...there's already a bypass for traffic wanting to go past the Strip area. And numerous other parallel North-South streets to the Strip.
Vehicles on the Strip are generally on the Strip purposely.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 12, 2024, 11:03:46 AMI really don't think anything needs to get fixed with Las Vegas Blvd, the road. It's fine to drive on. Walking on the sidewalks next to it? If you're a person that enjoys walking faster than a sloth, it's an exercise in restraint.
I think airport-style moving walkways would be quite an effective solution on paper. But given how frequently I saw escalators that were out of order while I was there, I don't think that would work either.
I am a huge supporter of tunnels and the only tunnel that needs to be placed here is for a heavy rail subway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 12, 2024, 06:31:06 PMI am a huge supporter of tunnels and the only tunnel that needs to be placed here is for a heavy rail subway.
The need for trains to stop to let other people get on and off makes them slow, hence the failure of the monorail.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 13, 2024, 12:59:33 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on September 12, 2024, 06:31:06 PMI am a huge supporter of tunnels and the only tunnel that needs to be placed here is for a heavy rail subway.
The need for trains to stop to let other people get on and off makes them slow, hence the failure of the monorail.
Wtf. And way from the the airport to Fremont would be much faster than driving. I say this as someone who loves driving the blvd but the monorail is more or less a tourist ride than meaningful transit. Vegas has grown where it needs a subway.
My biggest issue with the monorail is that is was never extended south to connect with the airport.
I hear those things are awfully loud.
QuoteA downside of the monorail is that it's lack of visibility, and the fact that people have to navigate through the casinos to get to it from Las Vegas Blvd, the east half of the Blvd at that. Naturally, the casinos have an incentive to try and capture that foot traffic and thus it's not in their interest to make it easier to get to the stations. The individual people-movers are more geared to move people between properties, not provide a general mass transit service, again, they would prefer to keep potential customers within their properties.
Quoting my previous response since it's relevant.
Additionally, the monorail began as a shuttle between casino properties and was grafted to serve as a semi-public transit line. Would be similar if the monorail at Disney World was expanded as a rapid transit system for Orlando, sure it could work, but it wasn't designed for everyday commuters.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 13, 2024, 06:34:36 AMMy biggest issue with the monorail is that is was never extended south to connect with the airport.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 13, 2024, 08:26:30 AMQuoteA downside of the monorail is that it's lack of visibility, and the fact that people have to navigate through the casinos to get to it from Las Vegas Blvd, the east half of the Blvd at that. Naturally, the casinos have an incentive to try and capture that foot traffic and thus it's not in their interest to make it easier to get to the stations. The individual people-movers are more geared to move people between properties, not provide a general mass transit service, again, they would prefer to keep potential customers within their properties.
Quoting my previous response since it's relevant.
Additionally, the monorail began as a shuttle between casino properties and was grafted to serve as a semi-public transit line. Would be similar if the monorail at Disney World was expanded as a rapid transit system for Orlando, sure it could work, but it wasn't designed for everyday commuters.
When the monorail was first proposed, it was to go to the airport. But the Taxi Lobby in Vegas, which transported a very high percentage of travelers from the airport to the casino hotels, was very much against it and was able to get that portion of the line cancelled. They built the line anyway but being it was stuck in the back of the casinos with very little signage, it never was well traveled except for some convention business.
Then Uber/Lyft became a thing, which the taxi lobby couldn't overcome.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2024, 04:05:09 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 13, 2024, 12:59:33 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on September 12, 2024, 06:31:06 PMI am a huge supporter of tunnels and the only tunnel that needs to be placed here is for a heavy rail subway.
The need for trains to stop to let other people get on and off makes them slow, hence the failure of the monorail.
Wtf. And way from the the airport to Fremont would be much faster than driving. I say this as someone who loves driving the blvd but the monorail is more or less a tourist ride than meaningful transit. Vegas has grown where it needs a subway.
Notice what it says under his avatar. You have to take his comments with a significant grain of salt.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2024, 08:57:22 AMQuote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 13, 2024, 06:34:36 AMMy biggest issue with the monorail is that is was never extended south to connect with the airport.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 13, 2024, 08:26:30 AMQuoteA downside of the monorail is that it's lack of visibility, and the fact that people have to navigate through the casinos to get to it from Las Vegas Blvd, the east half of the Blvd at that. Naturally, the casinos have an incentive to try and capture that foot traffic and thus it's not in their interest to make it easier to get to the stations. The individual people-movers are more geared to move people between properties, not provide a general mass transit service, again, they would prefer to keep potential customers within their properties.
Quoting my previous response since it's relevant.
Additionally, the monorail began as a shuttle between casino properties and was grafted to serve as a semi-public transit line. Would be similar if the monorail at Disney World was expanded as a rapid transit system for Orlando, sure it could work, but it wasn't designed for everyday commuters.
When the monorail was first proposed, it was to go to the airport. But the Taxi Lobby in Vegas, which transported a very high percentage of travelers from the airport to the casino hotels, was very much against it and was able to get that portion of the line cancelled. They built the line anyway but being it was stuck in the back of the casinos with very little signage, it never was well traveled except for some convention business.
Then Uber/Lyft became a thing, which the taxi lobby couldn't overcome.
I remember the taxi lobby being a major reason the monorail didn't go to the airport.
Perhaps now the rideshares have taken a chunk out of the taxi business there, it might be somewhat easier to build the airport connection.
A Deuce BRT or rail line along the Strip might be better for increasing ridership, with a monorail transfer on Tropicana Ave.
I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have general purpose express lanes on I-15 between I-215 and I-11, similar to I-271 in Cleveland but with no Strip exits from the express lanes.
When we are in Las Vegas in November I'm going to ask my wife if she wants to "take a Deuce on the Strip."
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2024, 10:51:42 AMWhen we are in Las Vegas in November I'm going to ask my wife if she wants to "take a Deuce on the Strip."
She'll be blinded by the lights
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2024, 10:51:42 AMWhen we are in Las Vegas in November I'm going to ask my wife if she wants to "take a Deuce on the Strip."
Guess it's better than The Stripper
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2024, 04:05:09 AMQuote from: kernals12 on September 13, 2024, 12:59:33 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on September 12, 2024, 06:31:06 PMI am a huge supporter of tunnels and the only tunnel that needs to be placed here is for a heavy rail subway.
The need for trains to stop to let other people get on and off makes them slow, hence the failure of the monorail.
Wtf. And way from the the airport to Fremont would be much faster than driving. I say this as someone who loves driving the blvd but the monorail is more or less a tourist ride than meaningful transit. Vegas has grown where it needs a subway.
Maybe something fully automated like the Honolulu Skyline could work? Now the question is should it be above ground or underground. Above ground works great for tourism - the tourists can look out the window for the lights/decorations/buildings. Below ground might be better because of weather - shade the trains from the summer heat
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2024, 04:05:09 AMI say this as someone who loves driving the blvd but the monorail is more or less a tourist ride than meaningful transit.
You say that, but my wife works with someone who uses it every day as part of his commute. (Granted, the number of people that are able to plausibly do that is pretty low. But if you work on the Strip and are one of the few that live nearby...)
Is installing switches for a monorail more difficult than a traditional railroad or light rail system? From a technical perspective, how difficult would it be to build a branch off the existing LV Monorail? Maybe having a western loop of the monorail running down Sammy Davis and Frank Sinatra, reconnecting with the existing line at Sahara and Tropicana.
I also think an elevated light rail or heavy rail that ties in with the pedestrian bridges on Las Vegas Blvd would be a nice feature. Maybe if they could find trains with (tinted) glass ceilings and large windows to make it easier for sightseeing.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 14, 2024, 09:00:02 AMIs installing switches for a monorail more difficult than a traditional railroad or light rail system? From a technical perspective, how difficult would it be to build a branch off the existing LV Monorail? Maybe having a western loop of the monorail running down Sammy Davis and Frank Sinatra, reconnecting with the existing line at Sahara and Tropicana.
I also think an elevated light rail or heavy rail that ties in with the pedestrian bridges on Las Vegas Blvd would be a nice feature. Maybe if they could find trains with (tinted) glass ceilings and large windows to make it easier for sightseeing.
These are important questions. I think ideally, if I was starting with a blank canvas, I would provide an elevated rail system with two lines that basically connect along the Central Strip (Harmon - Sands). One line is wholly along the Strip from Blue Diamond to North LV. The other line branches southeast to reach Henderson, Airport, UNLV, joins the Strip line between Harmon and Sands, and then branches to serve the Convention Center, Downtown (another transfer to main line), and then heads northwest to the Summerlin area. But given the existing monorail, it would seem better if that line were extended to serve Downtown, Airport, and suburban park and rides.
With the monorail already in place, I would work on first keeping the fares in line with normal transit fares for the area (i.e. no more than 1.5 x the bus fare) and then extending north as follows: Paradise-LV Blvd-3rd-Casino Center. The west line turns onto Charleston-Rancho-Washington to end at Rainbow near the I-11/613 interchange at a park and ride. The east line heads into NLV, following LV Blvd. The monorail also should be extended south and east to reach near UNLV (Tropicana/Paradise) and the Airport terminals. A branch off the existing monorail should serve the west strip, essentially following Flamingo and then serving the casinos on the west side of the Strip, with a detour to serve the stadium, and ending at Blue Diamond. The capacity and frequency of the monorail would need a dramatic increase.
I also like the idea of general purpose express lanes on I-15. Skip the strip area and provide access to I-11 and Downtown.
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2024, 09:01:17 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on September 14, 2024, 09:00:02 AMIs installing switches for a monorail more difficult than a traditional railroad or light rail system? From a technical perspective, how difficult would it be to build a branch off the existing LV Monorail? Maybe having a western loop of the monorail running down Sammy Davis and Frank Sinatra, reconnecting with the existing line at Sahara and Tropicana.
I also think an elevated light rail or heavy rail that ties in with the pedestrian bridges on Las Vegas Blvd would be a nice feature. Maybe if they could find trains with (tinted) glass ceilings and large windows to make it easier for sightseeing.
These are important questions. I think ideally, if I was starting with a blank canvas, I would provide an elevated rail system with two lines that basically connect along the Central Strip (Harmon - Sands). One line is wholly along the Strip from Blue Diamond to North LV. The other line branches southeast to reach Henderson, Airport, UNLV, joins the Strip line between Harmon and Sands, and then branches to serve the Convention Center, Downtown (another transfer to main line), and then heads northwest to the Summerlin area. But given the existing monorail, it would seem better if that line were extended to serve Downtown, Airport, and suburban park and rides.
With the monorail already in place, I would work on first keeping the fares in line with normal transit fares for the area (i.e. no more than 1.5 x the bus fare) and then extending north as follows: Paradise-LV Blvd-3rd-Casino Center. The west line turns onto Charleston-Rancho-Washington to end at Rainbow near the I-11/613 interchange at a park and ride. The east line heads into NLV, following LV Blvd. The monorail also should be extended south and east to reach near UNLV (Tropicana/Paradise) and the Airport terminals. A branch off the existing monorail should serve the west strip, essentially following Flamingo and then serving the casinos on the west side of the Strip, with a detour to serve the stadium, and ending at Blue Diamond. The capacity and frequency of the monorail would need a dramatic increase.
I also like the idea of general purpose express lanes on I-15. Skip the strip area and provide access to I-11 and Downtown.
Is it possible to convert the monorail into a light rail? Thinking about this in terms on expansion.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 16, 2024, 01:48:05 PMQuote from: mrsman on September 15, 2024, 09:01:17 AMQuote from: PColumbus73 on September 14, 2024, 09:00:02 AMIs installing switches for a monorail more difficult than a traditional railroad or light rail system? From a technical perspective, how difficult would it be to build a branch off the existing LV Monorail? Maybe having a western loop of the monorail running down Sammy Davis and Frank Sinatra, reconnecting with the existing line at Sahara and Tropicana.
I also think an elevated light rail or heavy rail that ties in with the pedestrian bridges on Las Vegas Blvd would be a nice feature. Maybe if they could find trains with (tinted) glass ceilings and large windows to make it easier for sightseeing.
These are important questions. I think ideally, if I was starting with a blank canvas, I would provide an elevated rail system with two lines that basically connect along the Central Strip (Harmon - Sands). One line is wholly along the Strip from Blue Diamond to North LV. The other line branches southeast to reach Henderson, Airport, UNLV, joins the Strip line between Harmon and Sands, and then branches to serve the Convention Center, Downtown (another transfer to main line), and then heads northwest to the Summerlin area. But given the existing monorail, it would seem better if that line were extended to serve Downtown, Airport, and suburban park and rides.
With the monorail already in place, I would work on first keeping the fares in line with normal transit fares for the area (i.e. no more than 1.5 x the bus fare) and then extending north as follows: Paradise-LV Blvd-3rd-Casino Center. The west line turns onto Charleston-Rancho-Washington to end at Rainbow near the I-11/613 interchange at a park and ride. The east line heads into NLV, following LV Blvd. The monorail also should be extended south and east to reach near UNLV (Tropicana/Paradise) and the Airport terminals. A branch off the existing monorail should serve the west strip, essentially following Flamingo and then serving the casinos on the west side of the Strip, with a detour to serve the stadium, and ending at Blue Diamond. The capacity and frequency of the monorail would need a dramatic increase.
I also like the idea of general purpose express lanes on I-15. Skip the strip area and provide access to I-11 and Downtown.
Is it possible to convert the monorail into a light rail? Thinking about this in terms on expansion.
I would think so, but don't know for sure. Depending on the light rail specs, I would hope that at least the existing right of way and the support columns could be reused. Although looking at GSV of the LV monorail and some elevated light rail, it seems that light rail generally needs much wider support columns.
Since monorails don't use tracks like conventional rail, converting the monorail would likely involve shutting down the entire system in order to convert it. They would probably only be able to keep the pillars, assuming it can support the conventional rails. there would also be some tight spaces that the conversion would have to work around, like at the MGM / Wet Republic.
It might be better to keep the monorail as a tourist shuttle / loop around the Strip and have a regular light rail / subway for the local commuters. Like with the idea of general-purpose express lanes for I-15 to filter the tourists from regular traffic.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 17, 2024, 10:16:21 AMSince monorails don't use tracks like conventional rail, converting the monorail would likely involve shutting down the entire system in order to convert it. They would probably only be able to keep the pillars, assuming it can support the conventional rails. there would also be some tight spaces that the conversion would have to work around, like at the MGM / Wet Republic.
It might be better to keep the monorail as a tourist shuttle / loop around the Strip and have a regular light rail / subway for the local commuters. Like with the idea of general-purpose express lanes for I-15 to filter the tourists from regular traffic.
That might be best.
It would seem to fit the Miami model. Miami has both a people mover system that gets you around downtown and a full metro line that takes you from Downtown to the Airport and some nearby suburbs. There is a station where you can transfer between the two systems.
The monorail route is good to hit some off-Strip destinations like the Convention Center and the Sphere (it needs a station in front) and with a new light rail, it could be used as a complement to get to these destinations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tSIBEewkmE
Looks like the monorail is a viable option for perhaps a decade. No one makes the trains anymore, so that's probably the biggest obstacle to long-term continuance.
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 17, 2024, 11:43:19 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tSIBEewkmE
Looks like the monorail is a viable option for perhaps a decade. No one makes the trains anymore, so that's probably the biggest obstacle to long-term continuance.
I think the Disney monorail has a similar problem of using discontinued trains. It might further the case for rebuilding it as a traditional rail, the tight spaces and shutting down service for several years is still an issue.
If they were going to plan to reconstruct it, it would be better to build a new system around the monorail. That way, the transit authority can maintain revenue service during the (re)construction.
IMHO, long term, a European style steel-rail tram system would be best for the Las Vegas, NV area.
Mike
If we are going to be realistic in where the monorail in its current form can expand, it could extend north along Paradise Rd, St Louis Ave and S Main St to Fremont St. If there was a "Miami" model as Mrsman suggest, you could have the Sahara station be a transfer point. There's a large parking lot there.
How about horizontal elevators? Yes I know the name is a misnomer, but I think you get what I mean.