TROY wrote on October 28, 2007 10:14 PM: Tollroads is bad for Nevadans and business. Install a Bart system in the middle of Freeway and along routes of Freeway to the strip to cut down on traffic. Will help in eliminating traffic. Public Transportation going North South East West to the Strip and buses along major stops will ease traffic congestion.

douglas wrote on October 26, 2007 02:12 PM: those chicago area toll roads are cool. when they first were installed, the toll was 35 cents and it was "temporary". then it went down to thirty cents for a while. then it took off into orbit. so it would be in nevada. as suggested, no problem with some toll if [as in chicago], there are alternative, non-toll routes.

as to taxing california inbound visitors, that's likely a long term loser. already casino visitor traffic is affected by the cost of fuel. some of the lv joints are comping gas for cal residents to visit lv. as the cal tribal joints expand, it will be at the expense of lv [taxpaying] joints.

the issue of cal/nevada traffic on i-15, that should have been resolved by now with some fast rail system. hopefully the environmentalists won't further delay [read, drive the cost up] so that such a system could connect with an opening of the proposed primm airport.

gp wrote on October 26, 2007 12:45 PM: Having toll roads around the Las Vegas valley could be a good idea, as long as you have a choice. In LA you have a choice of driving on a federal or state freeway, or you can drive on a toll road. The toll road is a faster commute with little traffic. But LA is connected to many other moderate sized cities, which makes having a choice of highway to travel on is a good thing. Where would a toll road in Las Vegas go? To Henderson or Boulder City? Maybe another ring road is in order. Anway, the toll roads back east suck, because you do not have a choice to pick and choose, except in Florida. You can travel up and down the state on whichever highway you choose to go on. A toll road is an interesting idea for Nevada, even though it would be just for the Las Vegas area. You don't need a toll road to drive to Reno, or Elko. If most of you even know where the rest of Nevada is. It is not I-15 to So Cal.

Tollways bad idea wrote on October 26, 2007 11:17 AM: First of all, I dont live in vegas anymore, I live in chicago (where we have tollways). There is not one person who doesnt work for the government who likes tollways. All they do is add to the cost of commuting and cause a nightmare with backed up traffic. If you want your commute time to double or triple immediately, let them enact tolways.

Second thing is a comment to John:

John, if you cut down on the traffic that pumps so much income into the economy because casinos subsidize the taxation in Las Vegas and NV (ever wonder why you don't pay a state tax?) then guess what? They will have to make it up elsewhere. If you are going to make a comment, make it funny or if is going to be a serious one, perhaps you should THINK before you speak. $50 to get into vegas. LOL, dude, why do you think the casinos give "free" drinks to gamblers?

John wrote on October 26, 2007 10:25 AM: I'm all for toll roads in and out of California. Make it $50 to come to NV and $5 to leave. Cut down on the weekend congestion from the filthy californians.

DaveR wrote on October 26, 2007 09:48 AM: If oil goes to $200 a barrel, I don't see the need for toll roads as there won't be many people using their cars anymore!

douglas wrote on October 26, 2007 09:40 AM: playing games trying to limit growth is foolish. people will move mostly where they choose in this "free" country. same as the millions [?] spent by taxpayers dealing with the intentionally obstructive, "environmentalist" law suits on the u.s. 95 widening. like the vehicular traffic will disappear if the highways are actually narrowed. all those law suits caused was more gridlock, congestion on arterial/residential/detour streets, and massive waste of fuel spent by vehicles stuck in traffic.

what the proposed highway/toll road privatization does prove is that governments cannot operate as efficiently as private industry. finally those elected officials have come out of their stupors and admit it. but is that really news to anyone ?

this extends to those private companies like bechtel, halliburton, u.s. aircraft & armaments manufacturers. it seems that most anytime the government takes over some task, the cost skyrockets. oddly, the net cost to taxpayers for virtually all "parts and services" connected with national defense would be far lower were they "outsourced", "offshore". does anyone think that for instance, a humvee couldn't be made at less taxpayer cost, "offshore" ?

those blinded by some party hack crafted rhetoric will complain that governments' responsibilities should be expanded rather than limited. we must need more u.s. postal service types of businesses instead of ups/fedex/dhl. huh ?

if the governments cannot economically provide those few tasks assigned them in the constitution, how well will they handle stuff that ain't ? like, some national health care boondoggle ?

coolest flip flop lately is the "progressive" party's proposed 401k contributions. notice that 401k's are mostly run by private businesses investing substantially outside of government paper. when the republicans suggested that some of the social security funds be so invested, the "progressives" kicked and whined.

Bobby V. Luker wrote on October 26, 2007 03:47 AM: I have a better idea, let our fine county commissioners and city councelmen pay for it, they are the ones responsible for not slowing the growth to keep a decent quality of life in southern nevada