Our Vision Part 3: Increase Transportation Choice


Our transportation infrastructure is key to the region’s prosperity, yet it has fallen behind other regions, many of which have invested in modern, world-class systems that support vibrant urban centers. Southern Nevada Strong stands behind future investment in a multi-modal transportation system that is safe, efficient, accessible, equitable, and supports reinvestment in our existing communities.

Completion of this vision will take time, given recent development and transportation investment trends. New housing development has most recently occurred at the fringes of the region while employment opportunities have continued to concentrate downtown and along the 4.2-mile resort corridor. With longer commute distances and auto-oriented development patterns, the region has a higher-than-average number of trips by car. As a result, freeway congestion has increased 35 percent since 2000. When visitor volumes are taken into consideration, the impact on the infrastructure is more challenging than many other metro areas.78

Despite this congestion, the region has relatively high residential densities, which could be leveraged for successful transit use if the development pattern were more supportive for all users. Southern Nevada Strong envisions the evolution of the transportation network to respond to the needs and desires of citizens, generating opportunities for economic and physical growth that improve access to high-quality neighborhoods and community gathering spaces.

Southern Nevada Strong envisions the evolution of the transportation network to respond to the needs and desires of citizens, generating opportunities for economic and physical growth that improve access to high-quality neighborhoods and community gathering spaces. This Plan proposes strategic, implementation of a more diverse set of land uses integrated with a modern high-capacity transit system that together facilitate mobility and shorten the distance traveled from housing to jobs and services. In addition, providing mixed-use centers of activity allows transit and bike/pedestrian amenities to be implemented more efficiently, as critical densities of people can support increased transit services and the frequency of services needed for a healthy system.

Given scarce resources, the region needs to allocate transportation funds more wisely, using performance-driven criteria rather than arbitrary formulas. Transportation implementers should prioritize efforts to maintain, enhance and modernize the existing system. Expensive, new roadway capacity projects should be built only if they yield benefits that outweigh their costs. As exemplified by other regions that have implemented broad transportation and land use visions, a coordinated, multi-pronged approach that improves the transportation system while addressing development pattern issues will achieve further reductions in auto trips, trip lengths, and vehicle emissions over the next 20 years.

The Plan calls for increased coordination of planning for housing, transportation, and economic development by prioritizing public investments in transportation and infrastructure that improve our community, provide affordable transportation choices, and increase transportation efficiency and safety.

Coordinating with Existing Plans

The Regional Plan serves as a single unified vision and strategy for land use and transportation system improvements that will build upon an existing inventory of local and regional transportation plans:

• The 2013-2035 Regional Transportation Plan

• The 2011-2015 Nevada Strategic Highway Safety Plan

• Safe Routes to Schools

• Regional and Open Space Working Group

• Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (2008)

• CLV Great Streets Committee


The work outlined in this Plan theme was led by the Transportation Task Group, which brought together a group of transportation leaders from throughout the region. The group identified key challenges that the valley’s transportation network faces, and promoted possible refinements to state and local laws and regulations to promote integrated transportation and land-use planning. The SNS process gathered further input through workshops, open houses, interviews, focus groups and survey discussions. Analysis and public input consistently pointed the Task Group to the following core challenges and opportunities that the region faces, and that this Plan theme addresses.



CHALLENGES Opportunities and Priorities

Unrealized Transportation Network:

The region is decidedly car-dependent: regional transportation costs are a significant burden for the average household based on the H+T index.79

Proximity to transit is higher than the national average, but design impediments, such as block walls, cul-de-sacs, roadways design, and the separation of uses leaves people reliant on cars.

Develop a modern transit system that is integrated
with vibrant neighborhood and employment centers
better connecting people to their destinations by:

• Working with the RTC and other partners to
develop a comprehensive transit master plan that
focuses on enhanced services that supplement
existing routes.

•Supporting safe neighborhood connections in
marginalized communities.

• Supporting the RTC to secure funding for the
expansion, operation and maintenance of transit
systems and routes. Integrate future land-use
planning with existing and future transportation

Inadequate Bike/Pedestrian Facilities:

Development patterns limit or make impossible access for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit patrons, limiting viable choices for other modes. The region has poor connectivity, high pedestrian fatalities, and a lower Walk Score than other Intermountain West metro areas.80 The Las Vegas region is the sixth most dangerous region in the country for pedestrians.81

Connect and enhance bike and pedestrian facilities
throughout the region by:

• Implementing policies and design concepts that
encourage safety and ease of movement for
pedestrians and cyclists.

• Increasing funding strategies for investments in
the bicycle and pedestrian network. Promoting
transportation alternatives at the regional scale.

Congested Road Network:

The region is reliant on its highways and large arterials for local connectivity. However, local road connectivity is often poor outside the urban core. As a result, it is reliant on the arterial system. Freeway congestion has increased 35 percent since 2000 and has led to longer trip time and increased vehicle emissions. Southern Nevada residents spend about 25 percent of their household income on transportation. Las Vegas metro residents can reach about 44 percent of jobs in the region via transit in 90 minutes.82

Develop a safe, efficient road network that supports
all transportation modes by:

• Establishing a road network with improved and
acceptable local and regional connectivity and
traffic congestion levels. Overhauling design
standards to support multiple modes and support
healthy lifestyles.

• Reducing transportation-related emissions of
ozone and carbon monoxide.

Unrealized Transportation Network

Equal viability for multiple modes, such as walking, biking and transit patronage are important for the workforce to access job opportunities, and for health, quality of life and safety. Nearly a quarter of comments submitted to Southern Nevada Strong via MetroQuest focused on transportation and traffic issues. Most of the comments focused on transportation priorities, but others talked about transportation in the context of providing healthy communities and improving environmental quality. The comments were summarized under four main themes: traffic improvements, traffic safety, public transit, and walkability/bikability.

Table 8: Mean Travel Time to Work, 2012

Time (minutes)
Las Vegas, NV 25.3
Denver, CO 24.6
Phoenix, AZ 24.3
Salt Lake City, UT 19.9

Source: American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates, 2012

Auto Dependency

lack of viable transportation choices causes the region to be auto-dependent. Faced with the rapid growth of the 1990s and 2000s, the region invested heavily in a comprehensive network of wide, high-speed arterial roadways, making it relatively easy to drive in what is still, in terms of geography, a relatively small region. Congestion is a growing issue in the region, increasing by 35 percent, from 21 to 28 hours spent delayed in traffic between 2000 and 2010.83 By comparison, the average for all urban communities in the U.S. was 34 hours. For urban areas similar to Las Vegas (population between one and three million), including Salt Lake City and Denver, the average was 31 hours.84

Despite this congestion, the region still maintains an average mean travel time to work of 25.3 minutes (including all modes of transportation),85 which is similar to Denver and Phoenix, but slightly longer than the 20-minute commute in Salt Lake City (Table 8). Of those in the workforce, the majority (about 79 percent) drive alone to work, 11 percent carpool, seven percent take transit, walk or bike, with the remaining three percent working from home.86

Public Transportation

The region’s public transit system, while well used and among the most fiscally efficient in the country,87 is limited in its service, frequency and coverage across areas of the valley, also exacerbated by the fragmented development patterns and design issues. The region is the only one of its size in the Intermountain West without a fixed-rail, high-capacity transit system, making the region less attractive for a growing demographic segment.

Households in the region are fairly close to transit stops, but long trip lengths and transfers preclude extensive transit use. In 2011, the Brookings Institution published an analysis of data from transit providers in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. The report revealed that transit access in Las Vegas is much higher than the U.S. metro average. In terms of peer regions, the percent of working-age residents within three-quarters of a mile of a transit stop (86 percent) is more than the Denver metro area (84 percent) and less than Salt Lake City (89 percent).88

Las Vegas metro residents can reach about 44 percent of jobs in the region via transit in 90 minutes.89 In the region, the typical working-age resident can reach 61 percent of low-skill jobs, 43 percent of middle-skill and 29 percent of high-skill jobs within 90 minutes via transit. By comparison, in all Western metro areas, the typical computer can access 31 percent of low-skill industry jobs, and 35 percent of high-skill industry jobs.90

Job location within a metro area affects how many jobs are accessible via transit. In addition, the distribution of different types of industries within a region may affect the kinds of jobs residents can reach via transit. As a result, the degree to which transit systems “match” workers and the jobs for which they are most qualified depends on a range of factors that vary across metro areas.

Benefits of Walking

Walking offers both health benefits and is a more sustainable form of transportation. Increasing the
amount of time spent walking decreases the likelihood of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Further, walking promotes better psychosocial health by way of increased levels of social capital and an increased sense of community (Leyden, 2003; Lund, 2003).92


Figure 28 shows where Southern Nevadans with no vehicle live.

Inadequate Bike and Pedestrian Facilities

The provision of safe facilities for cyclists and pedestrians has, until recently, been poor to non-existent across much of Southern Nevada. The arterial roadways are designed with little consideration of bicyclists or pedestrians and constitute formidable barriers to those needing to walk, bike and/or access transit. The region has many auto-oriented urban design characteristics, which result in an unsafe pedestrian environment.

It has developed along a grid design with numerous high-speed arterial streets, which is where pedestrian crashes most frequently occur.93 Combined, these factors result in a transportation system that is highly focused on the automobile at the expense of safety and viability of other less expensive, more healthful modes. The responding auto-oriented, homogenous development pattern has had negative economic impacts. In 2011, Transportation for America ranked Las Vegas the sixth most dangerous region for
pedestrians, with an annual average of 2.5 pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people.

According to the website Walkscore.com, most places in
the Southern Nevada region are auto-dependent, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Walkscore by Place

Out of 100 Classification
Enterprise Township 31 auto-dependent
Henderson 39 auto-dependent
North Las Vegas 42 auto-dependent
Phoenix, AZ 45 auto-dependent
Las Vegas 49 auto-dependent
Spring Valley 51 somewhat walkable
Paradise Township 57 somewhat walkable
Salt Lake City, UT 58 somewhat walkable
Denver, CO 60 somewhat walkable
Tempe, AZ 62 somewhat walkable

Source: Walkscore.com

A Walk Score measures the walkability of a place based on proximity to nearby amenities such as restaurants, stores, schools, parks and entertainment.97,98

The region has myriad opportunities to strengthen opportunities to use a bicycle as a form of transportation. With its mild weather and flat topography, the region’s climate provides an opportunity for a strong biking culture. In addition, according to the RTC, most of the trips (both for work and for personal reasons) in the region are relatively short. For example, 25 percent of all trips are less than one mile; 50 percent of all trips are less than three miles.99

Once a road network is built, it is difficult to make corrective changes to the infrastructure. Appropriate design and accommodation strategies are most effectively considered at planning and design stages. Required elements should include refuge areas, storage areas for pedestrians at high-demand areas, sufficient walk time on signals, adequate site distances, and lighting.Bikeway and pedestrian facilities need to be considered roadway infrastructure. Cities and counties typically do not build roadways that terminate abruptly or are disconnected from other parts of the system. Non-motorized mode facilities need the same continuity/connectivity in order to provide a reliable network of infrastructure for non-motorized options.

Bikeway and pedestrian facilities need to be considered roadway infrastructure. Cities and counties typically do not build roadways that terminate abruptly or are disconnected from other parts of the system. Non-motorized mode facilities need the same continuity/connectivity in order to provide a reliable network of infrastructure for non-motorized options.


Off-Street Path Network

The RTC’s Bike and
Pedestrian Plan recommends
634 miles of Shared Use Paths
for the network. These paths
should have minimum 12-foot
widths and 2-foot shoulders.95
The City of Las Vegas and
the RTC are in the process of
making Main Street a two-lane
northbound street with
widened sidewalks and bike
lanes, while southbound travel
will use Commerce Street. The
result will be an upgrade to the
area that meets the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists, and
an increase in the capacity of
the roadway.96


Providing more bicycle amenities such as bike convenient parking and more multi-use pathways will encourage alternative modes of travel in the region.



Transportation Costs

Southern Nevada’s households spend a significant portion of their income on transportation. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) states that spending 15 percent of income on transportation is considered affordable. Las Vegas MSA residents spend about 24 percent of their household income on transportation (Table 10), which is very similar to comparable Intermountain West metropolitan areas.

Table 10: Metro Area Transportation Costs.

Average HH Income Average Percent of Income
Las Vegas $56,080 24%
Phoenix $54,713 26%
Salt Lake City $57,682 25%
Denver $59,932 22%

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology (2011)

According to the CNT, spending 45 percent of income on combined housing and transportation costs is considered affordable. In the region, 83 percent of residents spend greater than 45 percent of their income on combined housing and transportation costs. Forty-five percent of the median household income equates to about $25,236 annually or $2,103 each month.

The average family in Clark County is spending nearly half their income on transportation and housing. Most own two vehicles and drive a total of 18,500 miles annually. The average household takes 97 transit trips annually. All told, the average family spends about 18 percent of their income on transportation ($10,126). Transportation costs combined with housing costs total about 49 percent of the average family income, or $27,566.

Congested Road Network

Expanding the range of transportation options will require a different approach than the traditional, auto-oriented facility planning and design strategies that primarily focus on automobile capacity and alleviating traffic congestion. Visitor volumes, just under 39 million in 2011, have grown since 2009. Auto traffic coming from California on I-15 has increased 27 percent over the last 15 years, from an average of 29,530 vehicles per day in 1996 to an average of 40,344 vehicles per day in 2011.


Expanding transportation choices in the region will help relieve already congested roadways.

Local Connectivity

The region relies on its highways and arterial streets for local connectivity. Freeway congestion has increased 35 percent since 2000 and has led to longer trip time and increased vehicle emissions, creating air quality issues. Part of Southern Nevada’s air quality challenge arises from its natural geography: the mountains surrounding the valley create a bowl, tending to trap exhaust over the metropolis for long periods. Thermal inversions, which trap pollutants, are also common.

The region had 24 days between 2008 and 2010 where ozone concentrations were unhealthy for sensitive groups and two days where particulate matter was unhealthy for sensitive groups. The region received a score of F and B, respectively in these two categories.103 Clark County had zero days when it exceeded its CO2 air quality standards.

The lack of connectivity in the street network hinders different modes of transportation. Urban design standards have permitted fragmented development, with walled and gated communities inhibiting mobility by any mode other than the automobile. In addition, large swaths of land are built out with homogenous development patterns, limiting the availability of goods and services in proximity to residences and requiring automobiles for what should be very short trips. Design impediments, such as block walls, cul-de-sacs, roadway design and the separation of uses leave people reliant on cars.

Part of this is due to the master-planned community dominance, which segregates retail from residential development by gates and large block walls.105 Good connectivity can enhance local circulation of both motorized and non-motorized trips.106 In order to attract the widest possible segment of the population, routes between origin and destination should not require individuals to use highly congested links or involve an undue level of detour.

Achieving the Vision Through Strategic Land Use

Since the way we use land profoundly influences how we live, work and play, this document touches on many aspects of the region’s land-use planning. The goals and policies included in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 will guide the design of the valley’s regulatory system, including the zoning code, rules governing the subdivision of land, the interaction of land use and transportation and economic development.

The Plan also recommends strategies that should be
pursued in the first few years following Plan adoption. These strategies are found in the Implementation Matrix.


Figure 31: Average Household Expenditures on Housing and Transportation as a Percent of Total Income for Renters, Owners, and Combined in Clark County, Nevada


This section details the goals, objectives, and actions that support increased transportation choice and will move Southern Nevada toward the vision.

• Goals are the big overarching ideas, changes, or practices that are essential to realize the community’s vision.

• Objectives establish specific, measurable goals that guide how the Plan is implemented in a way that will achieve the vision.

• Strategies outline the steps needed to achieve the objectives.

Goal 1. Develop a modern transit system that is integrated with vibrant neighborhood and employment centers, better connecting people to their destinations.

Objective 1.1 Work with the RTC and other partners to develop a comprehensive transit master plan, which focuses on enhanced services that supplement existing routes.

1.1.1 Pursue light rail and improved transit options in low and moderate income areas, including improvements to make walking and biking pleasant, safe and viable transportation options.

1.1.2 Leverage recently completed transit infrastructure projects as a foundation to develop a comprehensive transit master plan.

1.1.3 Incorporate land use, multi-modal transportation, and air quality planning considerations into future updates of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) multimodal transportation plan.

1.1.4 Develop implementation criteria by which future corridors will be prioritized including: potential ridership, economic development/ transit-oriented development (TOD) potential, proximity to jobs, housing and education, enhanced quality of life, and integration with the bike and pedestrian network.

1.1.5 Develop a strategy to combine public input and best practices to support the decision-making process when considering the locations and alignments of multi-modal connections to the airport and other destinations.

1.1.6 Continue to evaluate Maryland Parkway as a BRT or rail corridor under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with consideration given to the implementation strategies identified in the Maryland Parkway Opportunity Site study.

1.1.7 Identify lines that would have increased frequency, limited stops, express, BRT, and light rail services.

1.1.8 Designate a baseline transit network and set of operating standards that can serve as the foundation of the transit system.

1.1.9 Improve the rider experience by locating stops away from adjacent travel lanes, offering robust lighting, and making other site considerations that maximize visibility and safety.

1.1.10 Update design standards to create wider sidewalks with street trees, benches, trash receptacles, street lighting, and other streetscape amenities along key transportation corridors to make walking to transit stops more welcoming for riders and to shield them from heat during extreme temperatures.

1.1.11 Coordinate with relevant agencies to pursue interstate regional passenger rail service.

1.1.12 Identify and pursue the use of complementary alternative funding sources for mass transit improvements, including national public and private funds, and existing local and state funds that are intended for public purpose and positive outcomes in the areas of: economic development or growth; green infrastructure; environmental protection; land conversion; urban land development;
access to jobs, housing and education for low or moderate income individuals (LMI); and public health.

Objective 1.2 Support safe neighborhood connections in marginalized communities.


1.2.1 Analyze the feasibility of transit stations with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure provisions adjacent to existing and future mixed-income developments.

1.2.2 Consider partnerships between the RTC and private developers to create park-and-ride facilities in outlying areas that could provide access to express transit services and reduce travel time.

1.2.3 Ensure that transit amenities are supported by ADA/PROWAG-compliant pedestrian facilities, universal design, and adequate directional signage.

1.2.4 Revise and develop bus stop/station design standards based on passenger volumes, locations, and other characteristics.

1.2.5 Reduce the dependence on paratransit through facility enhancements and education about the transit system for people with disabilities or limited mobility.

Objective 1.3 Support the RTC to secure funding for the expansion, operation and maintenance of transit systems and routes.

1.3.1 Pursue funding opportunities for system completion, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation through federal, state, and local sources.

1.3.2 Identify and pursue creative funding strategies to better balance transportation investments between roadway, transit, bike and pedestrian improvements.

1.3.3 Promote community pride in marketing and promotional materials with the idea that the region’s transportation system should be a source of community pride

1.3.4 Continue to monitor effectiveness of communication methods with priority target audiences and enhance outreach efforts to raise awareness of existing services.

1.3.5 Strive to provide effective, efficient, and equitable service to all individuals regardless of their ability to speak, read, or write English.

 Objective 1.4 Integrate future land-use planning with existing and future transportation improvements.

1.4.1 Ensure coordination between local governments and the RTC to evaluate frequent service transit corridors for potential designation as TOD areas.

1.4.2 Pursue an analysis of the economic benefits of transit to highlight the importance of fixed transit lines in economic development and redevelopment.

1.4.3 Consider using space/land dedications or impact fees for transit amenities that support employment centers, such as multi-modal centers, transit centers, bike lanes, etc.

1.4.4 Tailor parking requirements to encourage more concentrated development in mixed-use areas, reflect actual demand and increase development feasibility.

1.4.5 Require interim sidewalks along incomplete roadways, when feasible.

Goal 2. Connect and enhance bike and pedestrian facilities throughout the region.

Objective 2.1 Implement policies and design concepts that encourage safety and ease of movement for pedestrians and cyclists.

2.1.1 Work with the RTC to implement a regional system of fully multi-modal interconnected arterial and local streets, pathways and bikeways that are integrated with public transit in order to increase mode share.

2.1.2 Enhance safety for marginalized groups, taking into consideration the particular needs of vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, unemployed, underemployed and other marginalized groups.

2.1.3 Ensure that information about transportation options is available and distributed in creative ways to promote and educate Southern Nevada’s most vulnerable populations, such as homeless, unemployed, underemployed and other marginalized groups.

2.1.4 Pursue a pedestrian safety study to identify priority locations with high pedestrian-vehicle conflicts to focus retrofit plans, conduct an incident management analysis, and define crash hot spots.

2.1.5 Develop a regionally-shared traffic safety database.

2.1.6 Work with local bike groups and transportation advocates to update the RTC’s multi-modal transportation plan and identify strategies to increase safety and make walking and bicycling more viable as primary transportation modes.

2.1.7 Establish an off-street bicycle parking policy, which considers security, placement, quality of facilities, and provision of
signs directing bicyclists to the parking facilities.

Objective 2.2 Increase funding strategies for investments in the bicycle and pedestrian network.

2.2.1 In coordination with Clark County School District, support Safe Routes to Schools and identify funding sources for all aspects of Safe Routes to Schools programs.

2.2.2 Develop financial or regulatory incentives for development projects that include multi-modal transportation infrastructure in low-income communities.

2.2.3 Consider alternative funding sources to connect the bicycle and pedestrian network to the transit network.

2.2.4 Coordinate with and continue to support the Outside Las Vegas Foundation and the Regional Open Space and Trails Working Group to integrate priorities into local ordinances and/or comprehensive plans and support the development and funding of the trails system and supporting programs.

2.2.5 Continue to implement the RTC’s public education campaign on multi-modal transportation and pursue a campaign on the region’s transportation vision.

2.2.6 Promote educational opportunities to the local engineering and planning community on the role of design and land use in pedestrian safety, such as an educational event about how to repurpose right-of-way, and design streets and streetscapes as amenities.

2.2.7 Celebrate accomplishments through special events and community outreach activities (e.g., cyclovias, family rides, etc.).

Goal 3. Develop a safe, efficient road network that supports all transportation modes.

Objective 3.1 Establish a road network with improved and acceptable local and regional connectivity and traffic congestion levels.

3.1.1 Evaluate planned transportation infrastructure to reflect the land use vision.

3.1.2 Revise and adopt regional and local design standards to include multi-modal street design, safety and improved access management.

3.1.3 Pursue a regional policy change to require roadways to be designed for target speeds as recommended in the Complete Streets Design Guidelines for Livable Communities, based on the context of the corridor and overall safety and comfort of all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, and require justification for all target design speeds and speed limits.

3.1.4 Consider the potential impacts of the development of the I-11 corridor, currently being studied by the Arizona and Nevada Departments of Transportation.

Objective 3.2 Overhaul design standards to support multiple modes and support healthy lifestyles, with special attention to the region’s extreme summer temperatures.

3.2.1 Working with local stakeholders, support more stringent criteria to justify roadway capacity expansion and ensure that any capacity expansions accommodate viable multi-modal transportation options.

3.2.2 Ensure that all traffic studies provide a justification for roadway capacity and speed limit.

3.2.3 Consider a regional review of RTC’s TIP and local road CIPs to justify project need.

3.2.4 Promote “Complete Streets” cross section revisions whenever corridor reconstruction or reconfiguration occurs. Activities could include removing block walls, limiting cul-de-sacs, increasing sidewalk and bike lane widths, reducing curb cuts, and limiting driveways.

3.2.5 Develop a road diet/retrofit plan for road networks in Southern Nevada to improve connectivity and access for multiple modes, starting with areas identified through the pedestrian safety study.

3.2.6 Develop neighborhood and regional connectivity ratios/standards.

3.2.7 Encourage the development of design standards and land use policies that require investments in low-income or at-risk communities to include the basic attributes such as sidewalks, adequate lighting, street trees, and other strategies to create walkable communities, with special attention to designing for shade and heat-absorbent materials to provide respite to transit riders.

Objective 3.3 Reduce transportation-related emissions of ozone and carbon monoxide.

3.3.1 Consider collaborating with state regulatory agencies and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to strengthen the standard for vehicle emission.

3.3.2 Reduce vehicle miles traveled to reduce mobile emissions and therefore improve regional air quality.

3.3.3 Promote responsible auto use, including refueling motor vehicles after sunset to prevent gasoline fumes from interacting with sunlight, and keeping vehicle engines finely tuned.

Priority Transportation Corridors


Transportation corridors are important for uniting complete communities.

Priority transportation corridors provide mobility to the local workforce and serve regional freight needs to diversify Southern Nevada’s economy. To diversify Southern Nevada’s economy, we must improve the transportation network to encourage interstate commerce and international trade.

Interstate 11, which would connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, and ultimately Canada to Mexico, promises to position Southern Nevada at a strategic location that would attract new industries and outside investment. Work currently is underway to realize I-11. Nevada and Arizona are evaluating possible alignments of the proposed interstate, and the RTC and NDOT are investing more than $300 million dollars in a phase of I-11 known as the Boulder City Bypass.

The Bruce Woodbury 215 Beltway is another regionally significant transportation facility that fosters the movement of goods and people around the perimeter of the valley. Clark County is making significant investments in the coming years to upgrade this facility to interstate freeway standards. When complete this project will facilitate movement by residents and freight alike because of its connections to multiple jurisdictions and their neighborhoods (Clark County, Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas), intermodal facilities (McCarran International Airport and the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport), major employment centers (the Strip and Nellis Air Force Base, among countless others), and existing and planned interstate corridors (I-15, I-515, US 93, US 95 and the future I-11). Efforts to improve workforce mobility also are important to the region.

Corridors that connect areas of high residential densities with areas of high employment lend themselves to future investments.

• Las Vegas Boulevard and its environs represent one of the largest economic generators in the state. Efforts have been initiated to assess multi-modal transportation options in this area that would alleviate congestion, provide transportation options which seamlessly connect with one another, and improve overall mobility for residents, employees and visitors.

• Flamingo Road, which services the Strip, is the next busiest transit line in the region. This corridor is slated to be improved in the next few years to allow for improved transit service.

• Maryland Parkway is identified as a candidate for future transit enhancements because it links many high-activity centers such
as McCarran International Airport, the UNLV campus, high-density residential areas, commercial properties, medical facilities and
downtown Las Vegas.

Chapter Six