Interstate 15 north of Barstow to the State Line

[pderocco]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

[Plutonic Panda]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

[DTComposer]

I would be unsurprised if there was serious lobbying by, say, Brightline West or the California tribal casinos to keep the widening from happening.

[DenverBrian]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

One problem with all that.  None of it falls in line with the VMT reduction stuff Caltrans is now required to study.

[Plutonic Panda]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

One problem with all that.  None of it falls in line with the VMT reduction stuff Caltrans is now required to study.

Well, I just don't see that as being viable long-term. Somethings gonna have to be done about that just like Los Angeles's HLA initiative. Explain to me how they're going to resurface Sunset Boulevard through the Holmby Hills and provide complete street initiatives to it? What about the portion right by Bel Air Rd.? There's literally no room.

There's always a loophole they'll have to find a way to get through it. Ensure this shit seems like Orange County does.

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

One problem with all that.  None of it falls in line with the VMT reduction stuff Caltrans is now required to study.

Well, I just don't see that as being viable long-term. Somethings gonna have to be done about that just like Los Angeles's HLA initiative. Explain to me how they're going to resurface Sunset Boulevard through the Holmby Hills and provide complete street initiatives to it? What about the portion right by Bel Air Rd.? There's literally no room.

There's always a loophole they'll have to find a way to get through it. Ensure this shit seems like Orange County does.

I suspect it is way easier for non-state agencies to find wiggle room out Complete Streets versus Caltrans not having to VMT stuff.

[Plutonic Panda]

Probably but I still think that ultimately one way or another they're going to have to find a way around that. You can't just not widen any interstates or state highways due to the possibility of rising VMT's. Is there any other state that has that rule right now? If California is the first and it's gonna be a guinea pig for that experiment. It'll be interesting to see how long it last.

[jdbx]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

One problem with all that.  None of it falls in line with the VMT reduction stuff Caltrans is now required to study.

Well, I just don't see that as being viable long-term. Somethings gonna have to be done about that just like Los Angeles's HLA initiative. Explain to me how they're going to resurface Sunset Boulevard through the Holmby Hills and provide complete street initiatives to it? What about the portion right by Bel Air Rd.? There's literally no room.

There's always a loophole they'll have to find a way to get through it. Ensure this shit seems like Orange County does.

I suspect it is way easier for non-state agencies to find wiggle room out Complete Streets versus Caltrans not having to VMT stuff.

The only way I see anything significant being done about I-15 would be through an act of congress which provided funding AND stipulated that it was exempt from VMT calculations. Highly unlikely with the current state of our federal government. I could still easily see the aforementioned Indian casino operators and Brightline throwing up environmental suits and similar tactics to obstruct the project.

[Scott5114]

I seem to remember at one point MGM wanted to write a check to chip in for I-15 expansion but couldn't find anyone willing to cash it. At least one Nevada governor has gone over to Sacramento to talk about it, too (can't remember if it was Sisolak or Lombardo or both, but it's probably mentioned earlier on in the thread). The problem here is really not on the Nevada side.

[pderocco]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

I don't necessarily agree either. I'm just saying that some people here in California have the idea that our patronage of Las Vegas casinos and hotels mainly benefits Nevada. But I also recall hearing that some people in Nevada agree, and think chipping in for our widening would be a good investment for them.

I'd really like to see I-15 widened, and if Nevada can be coaxed into paying for some of our road, I wouldn't complain. But that's not because I want to go to Las Vegas, it's because I want to go to all those great places past Las Vegas, and Las Vegas traffic is getting in the way.

[pderocco]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

One problem with all that.  None of it falls in line with the VMT reduction stuff Caltrans is now required to study.

Is Caltrans required to study it, or to achieve it?

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

Not to mention, a considerable amount of northbound traffic on I-15 is TRUCKS taking California-produced items north and east to all sorts of points in the US and Canada. For this reason alone, you'd think CA would want to eliminate the wasted hours of stopped traffic that occurs in that section.

One problem with all that.  None of it falls in line with the VMT reduction stuff Caltrans is now required to study.

Is Caltrans required to study it, or to achieve it?

Seemingly they are just required to study and prefer it when possible.  It all seems to be based on Induced Demand theory.  The Caltrans page on VMT reductions reads as though as it is urban centric:

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/sustainability/sb-743

I'm sure in most cases like the topic of this thread it would be easy to conclude that VMT Reductions aren't possible.  However, with the Brightline looming in the background I'm sure it is very easy for the agency to say there is an alternative in the works. 

[Plutonic Panda]

It's just a matter of how sure are we that the bright line we actually gets built. Or gets built within the timeframe.

[Max Rockatansky]

Even if it doesn't get ultimately built that "what if?" will drag on for years and years.   

[mgk920]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

That would depend on how badly Nevada wants Californians to drive up and spend money in Vegas. If they have financial incentive for the project to happen, there's no reason why they couldn't chip in to expedite the project if they wanted. It's just not a requirement since the project happens to be across the border in California.

Well, if Nevada is super e

If not for the Las Vegas area (and it marketing towards Californians), I-15 would be a fairly typical western rural I-route.

Mike

[DenverBrian]

Hard to figure how Brightline will make much of an impact because it terminates in, where, Ontario? It's the same mistake made in never having the LV monorail terminate at the airport.

[Scott5114]

Hard to figure how Brightline will make much of an impact because it terminates in, where, Ontario? It's the same mistake made in never having the LV monorail terminate at the airport.

Well, yes and no. From our end it's going to seem pretty silly, because you take the train down and then you're in the middle of nowhere with no easy way to get anywhere. But if you're starting on the California end, the terminus is basically going to function as a Park and Ride.

[heynow415]

I mean, at least it's being talked about that's a good thing. I've only seen the mayor of Las Vegas constantly bring it up. It seemed like any group in California just completely acted like this issue was nonexistent.

Nevada DOT (NDOT) is finally planning to chip in their share for it?

Mike

I'm pretty sure they already did by widening their portion. What exactly you're trying to say here that they should foot the bill for widening California's portion because people from southern California want to drive to Las Vegas?

I think the theory is NV lures so many CA people into losing lots of money there, NV should pay for the road.

I just don't agree with that. I think that if the issue is in California, California owes it to its citizens to widen the freeway.

California has orders of magnitude more impacted freeway mileage than Nevada so I-15 to Nevada likely falls lower on any priority list, particularly since the times of peak congestion seem to be Friday and Sunday afternoons, i.e. people going to/from Vegas.  Given its much more constant volumes and truck plugs, I would argue that if anything rises to the top for a full four to six lane widening, I-5 between SR 99 and I-580 or I-205 would be it. 

[roadfro]

I seem to remember at one point MGM wanted to write a check to chip in for I-15 expansion but couldn't find anyone willing to cash it. At least one Nevada governor has gone over to Sacramento to talk about it, too (can't remember if it was Sisolak or Lombardo or both, but it's probably mentioned earlier on in the thread). The problem here is really not on the Nevada side.

Sisolak primarily. It should be earlier in the thread, but Sisolak's talking to Newsom about the southbound Sunday backup issues are what eventually prompted the part-time shoulder lane project from the state line to the ag inspection.

I also seem to recall, many years ago, the LVCVA wanted to pitch in on the California side in some way.

Agreed Nevada's done their part as much as they can—I-15 has been three lanes from the southern limits of the Vegas metro to Primm for a decade or two now. But also understandable how California hasn't prioritized widening in this stretch, because it is so rural and sporadically congested when compared to daily problems elsewhere in the state.

Hard to figure how Brightline will make much of an impact because it terminates in, where, Ontario? It's the same mistake made in never having the LV monorail terminate at the airport.

Well, yes and no. From our end it's going to seem pretty silly, because you take the train down and then you're in the middle of nowhere with no easy way to get anywhere. But if you're starting on the California end, the terminus is basically going to function as a Park and Ride.

As long as there has been talk about some kind of high speed train from Vegas to SoCal, it's always been the case that the California side would come just short of getting into the core of the LA metro. Growing up in the 90's & 00's in Vegas, the conversation was always about a maglev train that didn't have a clear vision how it would connect to the LA area beyond Victorville.. At least with the Brightline West iteration that is moving forward, they plan to terminate their line in Rancho Cucamonga adjacent to the Metrolink—so at least there is some kind of mass transit connection to greater LA.

In all the time this concept has been discussed I've never thought about it being like a park and ride at the south end. Given that Brightline is planning a parking structure at their station, which will literally be next to the Metrolink station & parking lot... that makes sense.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of that Ag station, I've never understood why it was necessary for non-freight traffic to go through them.  California is the only state that makes all vehicles go through them, even if it just an ag inspector waving them by.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, I was about to say I also think that the AG station for regular cars needs to disappear. That seems like a big source of the congestion as a lot of traffic will back up behind it and then it will start flowing afterwards for a while.

[vdeane]

Speaking of that Ag station, I've never understood why it was necessary for non-freight traffic to go through them.  California is the only state that makes all vehicles go through them, even if it just an ag inspector waving them by.

It's especially weird given that they built the regular lanes next to the ag stations, as if it's intended to be set up that way.

[DenverBrian]

Speaking of that Ag station, I've never understood why it was necessary for non-freight traffic to go through them.  California is the only state that makes all vehicles go through them, even if it just an ag inspector waving them by.

It's especially weird given that they built the regular lanes next to the ag stations, as if it's intended to be set up that way.

Those regular lanes were there before the ag station was built. That's essentially dead roadway.

[ClassicHasClass]

I imagine it would serve as a divert point if the structure were closed for some reason.