DAILY MEMO: AIRSPACE:

Why I-15 won’t go to two levels behind the Strip

It would cost too much, disrupt McCarran

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 | 2 a.m.

I-15 not getting any wider, so other solutions studied

Transportation officials rule out options to ease I-15 traffic (5-13-2009)

Archive of Sun transportation stories

For more than 20 years transportation analysts have suggested double-deck lanes would ease traffic congestion where Interstate 15 slices through Las Vegas’ resort corridor.

Transportation officials last week put that fanciful idea to rest.

Building a freeway that high at the already-elevated interchange of the Interstate 215 beltway would reach into McCarran International Airport’s airspace, an engineer reported at a meeting regarding problems on I-15.

(Oh, and double-deck lanes may be a tad too expensive, transportation officials said.)

Determining airspace incursion isn’t science. The Federal Aviation Administration must have the opportunity to review plans and decide whether a proposed structure poses a hazard, FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said. But the FAA does not have the authority to dictate local building decisions.

“If we had our druthers, the Stratosphere never would have been built,” Gregor said.

Generally, decisions on building structures near the airport fall to the Clark County Commission. McCarran-area height restrictions exist, but despite clear, straightforward language — “no structure shall be erected, altered or maintained” that would “constitute an airport hazard” — these codes have proved a legal minefield.

Indeed, transportation analysts aren’t the first to confuse airport height guidelines and codes, and probably won’t be the last.

In one lawsuit, Steve Sisolak — now a county commissioner — sued the county years ago for restricting height after he bought parcels about a mile from a McCarran runway. He planned to build a hotel in excess of 110 feet tall (or sell the parcels to someone who would). The FAA said he shouldn’t surpass 66 feet, and the county agreed.

Sisolak sued and won a $6.5 million judgment that held up on appeal in the state and U.S. high courts. (He never built the casino.)

Sisolak bought the parcels understanding he had airspace rights up to 500 feet. The state Supreme Court ruled that airplanes flying lower than that would invade his airspace without compensation.

At least seven cases have been filed challenging airspace restrictions — and tens of millions of dollars in settlements have been paid by the county. Not all suits pertain to laws changed on existing landowners. Pending cases could determine whether a landowner near McCarran who bought the parcel after restrictions tightened can claim airspace rights, a county attorney said.

Height restrictions aside, it’s unlikely the county or the Regional Transportation Commission can block a federal highway project.

A second deck of a freeway would stand at least 20 to 28 feet above the existing roadway, said Bryan Gant, a representative of government consultant Jacobs Engineering. (Sisolak notes that some light poles, billboards and cell towers near McCarran are already that tall.)

When alerted to the FAA’s role as adviser but not decision-maker of airspace-related height issues, Gant said: “I’d have to go back and ask our experts about that one. From what I understand, that’s a line you don’t want to cross.”

The state hired Jacobs for about $780,000 to study the I-15 resort corridor and offer traffic-mitigation suggestions.

Bob McKenzie, a spokesman for the state transportation department, suggested that the height issue was secondary to the hefty cost — more than $1 billion — of a double-deck freeway.

Together, they’re a one-two punch. “Because of the cost and FAA issues, it’s prohibitive,” McKenzie said.

Jacobs recommends 26 ways to ease I-15 traffic, which the company predicts will surge from 200,000 vehicles daily in 2006 to 360,000 in 2030.

The ideas don’t include adding lanes. Once I-15 reaches 10 lanes between the Spaghetti Bowl and the southern beltway, the only way to add more lanes is to go up. And that’s no longer on the drawing board.

Discussion: 13 comments so far…

By kptrojans

5/19/09 at 6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

I'm not sure I buy in to the notion this really would be a breach in to the FAA "height guidelines". Yes, I'll agree that there will be a "HUGE" cost building a second level to the "I", but who's really running/calling the shot on this? If height is truly an issue, then you have to go beyond just the the "Strato" at the north end. You're going to tell me that a little "ole light" coming out of a certain pyramid is not more of a nuisance to night flights, then what a second level on the freeway (ooops, I-15 parking lot) would be?
By nednougat

5/19/09 at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

There is nothing uglier than the 2 tier elevated I-35 in Austin, Tx. Right in front of the state capitol. Cost a fortune, too. I think this is a bad idea here.
By rumrunner

5/19/09 at 10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lets face it folks, if it aint gonna put money into the pockets of the city council, it wont be built! They are by far the most crocked bunch of people in the country!
By Socrates

5/19/09 at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

We need a good mass transit system. Light rail and bike paths in lieu of more auto-centric solutions.
By John_M

5/19/09 at 11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

What is desperately needed in Southern Nevada from the California state line to the Arizona state line is lane restrictions for semi trucks, and cars towing trailers and RVs. There should be traffic laws exactly as in California, trucks and cars towing trailers limited to 55 MPH and restricted to the right lane, AND from Jean to Apex, and Apex to Jean semi trucks should be prohibited to pass regardless of circumstance.
By catmintlady

5/19/09 at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am planning to move to Las Vegas from the East Coast where mass transit is more common than in the west. I agree with Socrates that a good mass transit would be preferable and could improve the quality of life for those Las Vegas citizens routinely stuck in "spaghetti bowl" traffic.
By markp

5/19/09 at 12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

why dont they build a new road to bypass the whole of vegas or another ring road around vegas further out..
By JayeTT

5/19/09 at 1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

I know I wouldn't ever be in a car on the I-15 if I had the option of taking a train.
By goingbust

5/19/09 at 2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Computer controlled cars are the answer. Cars should be able to go on these roads at 80 mph bumper to bumper if a computer was running the operation.
By President_Camacho

5/20/09 at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

* Flight 215 cleared for approach runway 7 left. *

"cleared for approach 7 left"

"oh my God what is that?"

Its a freeway! Full thrust pitch up we need to climb!

Its too late! Who built this here! Arghhhhhhh!

*radio goes dead*
By rverp

5/20/09 at 11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why exactly would this be an issue? If I am not mistaken there would be HOTELS BETWEEN THE HIGHWAY AND THE AIRPORT. IF THE HIGHWAY IS TOO LOW I GUESS THE HOTELS ARE DONE!
By rverp

5/20/09 at 11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

We do need a reasonable rapid transit system. The problem is that it should have been incorporated into the MONORAIL system. The monorail should have been down the middle of the strip with access to both sides. The system should have been built so that it would allow trains coming from California to travel right down to the strip as well.
By rverp

5/20/09 at 11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

I will buy the cost issues, but if we can't go up how about down? Lets build another express roadway under the I-15. We could incorporate light rail underneath and like 8 lanes of traffic! That would give us both rapid transit and new lanes for cars...The underground express lanes could be a toll way! We could certainly get a bond to allow us to build it with the tolls paying it off over 30 years or something...