[winter-rabbit]

You missed the point of this thread. Architecture alone is not what makes the city modern. It's the iterative and cumulative execution of best/latest practices in city planning/development. We learn from mistakes from other poorly developed cities.

Originally Posted by yellowsnow

We have little respect for history. If it's old, we blow it up and rebuild. Most of the housing here is a dreary sea of stucco in one shade of brown or another. With a few notable exceptions like Paradise Palms, the housing is cookie cutter ugly.

[nickydim]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

A rail from Downtown summerlin to Town Square. Then Town Square would run a line up and down the strip and to downtown. Also from Town Square a line would run down into Henderson somewhere. It could expand from there

I agree. Start at Red Rock Casino up the 215 to Summerlin pkwy to rt95 to the rail line @ downtown @ main street station (making it a real station), follow the existing rail to where it crosses over Frank Sinatra blvd (behind TI) and follow Frank S. blvd right down to the Shelby museum/Town Square, with an extension "train to the plane" branch at Russell Rd. under the airport to Terminal 1. The byways are already there and can be an elevated light rail/monorail/maglev system in the center of the divided highways if you really want to go modern.

[whataboutyou]

I love light rail systems in Portland, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, and other cities where I visit as a tourist on a budget. I REALLY love them in European cities where I never consider renting a car when I visit. The problem is that Las Vegas is not like any of those cities. Las Vegas has a tourist area (the strip and downtown) and the rest is residential. There really isn't a downtown used by locals or a central locals hangout and the local community is very spread and sprawled out. The light rail system couldn't be just 1 line and would have to be some sort of grid to be efficient.

Second, the cost of putting one is would be huge and I don't feel that enough people would actually use it every day to recoup the cost or even close to it. Heck, the maintenance might be higher than revenue collected from riders. Putting just a line in along the strip and connecting it to downtown might make sense and even connecting to downtown might be too expensive compared to just having it go from Mandalay Bay to the Wynn/Fashion Show Mall. That stretch of land will get TONS of customers for a light rail, especially if it skips the traffic but it would need to have foot bridges connecting it to BOTH sides of the strip and it would have to be either overhead or squeezed in the middle of LV Blvd, which I don't see where it would fit.

Putting it in Summerlin or any other neighborhood will not get nearly enough customers. The reason the bus system sucks (I've lived carless in Vegas before for over several months so I KNOW) is because of traffic and the heat in the summer months. No one wants to wait in the 110 degree heat for the bus. Plus, the buses never run on time so who is gonna manage the light rail to keep it running on time? I don't trust RTC to do that.

Finally, as much as I love public transit, the environment, and not having to deal with Las Vegas drivers (they/we suck royally), even I would not take a light rail in Las Vegas unless it was 24 hours, had air conditioned stations for waiting for the light rail, and wasn't too far from where I live which it most certainly would be since LV is so sprawled out in every direction. I wouldn't drive and park, that's for sure. Las Vegas isn't that big for the places that I drive to and from.

So in summary, I would be PISSED if my tax dollars went towards a stupid light rail system that will be a waste of money.

Thanks for listening

[calisoccer99]

I would gladly put my tax money towards a light rail, and I think Vegas would already have a better transit system if it wasn't for the taxi companies

[Buzz123]

It's pretty modern, but not the most modern. There Probably aren't a lot of cities that are more modern, but I'd bet they are all west of the Mississippi. Probably two or three in Texas; at least Houston and Dallas. Albuquerque is in a lot of ways as modern as Las Vegas but they are never going to catch up with us. I don't know much about Phoenix. California has a few, but in LA, and maybe the rest of Calf. too, they need to tear down some old buildings and put up a parking lot. Then they need to put in left turn light. They finally added a few left turn lanes, but no lights. For a place that totally relies on cars, they don'y have any place to park them, they have too few gas stations, and they don't have any left turn lanes. If they would handle that it would take care of most of their traffic problems. Don't know a lot about Seattle or Portland, but I suspect they are both as modern if not more than Las Vegas.

Don't forget, we still have growing problems.

[Californiaguy2007]

Las Vegas has been the fastest growing city in population and urban development for a number of years so yes it has a more newness and modern look compared to the older northeast cities,and yes the city has the advantage of looking at older cities and it's problems then trying to avoid it with a different way of planning as the city or metro area grows.

NYC and Boston or The Northeast has a different mindset when it comes to planning/development,so even if these cities built from scratch it would more than likely be different from the way Las Vegas plans/builds...Just my opinion.

[JustMike77]

Yes, if they ever finish it. You could make a fortune selling orange construction cones in Vegas.

[Daddys///M3]

I don't think so. Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are, in my opinion, light years beyond Vegas.

[jfkIII]

A monorail along the center of The Strip (and possibly extending to the airport) would certainly help in this assessment, IMO.

[Camaro5]

Living in the NW suburbs of Chicago I spent 17 years taking the train to my downtown office. Now I have a 50 mile RT daily drive and while I don't spend as much time commuting, there are days I wish I could still take the train.

I think a limited rail system might work in Las Vegas, but the city isn't really laid out in the way a place like Chicago is. It's not that it's good or bad, just different. In Vegas you have master planned communities and shopping centers, and people need their cars. It isn't like a traditional older city with a grid layout where public transportation is more accessible.

Also, when you consider the history of Las Vegas and how everything got started, not many people at the time would have thought it would be what it is today and didn't plan it out that way.