RR Infrastructure Improvements

Here is a link to the article in the RJ...
Of particular interest is the item about opening up a portion of the loop to two-way traffic. reviewjournal.com/view/summ…

I am going to keep a list of everyone who thinks this is a good idea, and remind them of this when they gripe about the road construction...
:)

Sounds like road construction (maintenance and repairs) is going to happen regardless of additional widening for two-way travel between Sandstone and the entrance.

This is a terrible idea. The BLM continues to do work that entices more and more people to visit Red Rock, yet they invest little to nothing in actually protecting the land from overuse. The BLM runs the operation like a quick and dirty money-making scam at the cost of destroying the best of the Mojave Desert. How about they put some work on trail maintenance and signage instead of encouraging the increase in vehicular traffic? Simple improvements like clean, environmentally friendly toilets at all of the trailheads would go a long way, too. Instead of mercilessly patrolling the road for speed violations in the endless 25 mph zones, how about the rangers get out of their offices and actually patrol the trails?

The BLM is a blight on the land and should not be in the BUSINESS of managing a Conservation Area. Looking at what they do elsewhere in the widespread desert lands, it's obvious that they see Red Rock in the only way they know how: a cash cow to be exploited no matter the cost. Red Rock is industrialized tourism through and through. Much like the rest of the desert that BLM grazes, mines, sells off for tract homes or covers with a tangle of power lines, solar panels and wind turbines.

Honestly, I think the best improvement to Red Rock at this point would be to remove the gates and visitor center and to restore the loop road to dirt. Or even obliterate the loop road all together. Sure, it'd be a longer approach to most of the climbs but we'd all finally get what we've long sought in Red Rock - peace and quiet.

John Hegyes wrote:This is a terrible idea. The BLM continues to do work that entices more and more people to visit Red Rock, yet they invest little to nothing in actually protecting the land from overuse. The BLM runs the operation like a quick and dirty money-making scam at the cost of destroying the best of the Mojave Desert. How about they put some work on trail maintenance and signage instead of encouraging the increase in vehicular traffic? Simple improvements like clean, environmentally friendly toilets at all of the trailheads would go a long way, too. Instead of mercilessly patrolling the road for speed violations in the endless 25 mph zones, how about the rangers get out of their offices and actually patrol the trails? The BLM is a blight on the land and should not be in the BUSINESS of managing a Conservation Area. Looking at what they do elsewhere in the widespread desert lands, it's obvious that they see Red Rock in the only way they know how: a cash cow to be exploited no matter the cost. Red Rock is industrialized tourism through and through. Much like the rest of the desert that BLM grazes, mines, sells off for tract homes or covers with a tangle of power lines, solar panels and wind turbines. Honestly, I think the best improvement to Red Rock at this point would be to remove the gates and visitor center and to restore the loop road to dirt. Or even obliterate the loop road all together. Sure, it'd be a longer approach to most of the climbs but we'd all finally get what we've long sought in Red Rock - peace and quiet.

Agreed!!!

A few years ago Larry was posting about trying to have trails put in and didn't the BLM want to do a multi-year study and bring in anasazi and plant life experts to see what these trails would effect? Like there isn't 50 different climber trails to each area already...

I couldn't agree more with John.

I'd love to see a two-way road from the exit to willow springs. i'd take pine creek or icebox happily as well. or just make the whole thing two way and add a bike lane.

John Wilder wrote: First, the BLM isnt doing anything to entice anyone to come to Red Rock- the fact that Red Rock is spitting distance from the suburbs of Las Vegas takes care of that.

You fail to see the big picture, John Wilder. All the crappy housing developments on the outskirts of the Las Vegas Valley used to be open desert, owned by the BLM. That was all auctioned off to developers during the housing boom and after the crash we were left with an oversupply of homes in the valley that nobody wants. All of our housing prices plummeted - incurring some of the biggest losses in the country, losses that probably will never be recovered from. Yes, the crash was nationwide, but it was made much worse in Las Vegas by the wrongheaded, corrupt policies of the BLM. Thanks to them, the population boomed in the valley, negatively impacting surrounding lands and here we are now arguing about how to save what little we have left from the crowds that the BLM brought here. And the auctions are still continuing to this very day. You want to tell me that we need to build more homes in this valley at this time? The BLM should be investigated more closely for being in bed with land developers. And don't get me started ranting about what has happened with all the displaced tortoises - I'll just say that Mojave Max is the BLM's biggest disgrace of all.

Other issues I have with the plan to "improve infrastructure" is that it seems to be completely automobile-based. It is a sad fact is that most people enjoy Red Rock solely from the vantage point of the inside of their vehicles. What I hate most about the partial two-way plan is that we'll probably have a single lane in both directions, both clogged with car-tourists crawling at 5 mph. I'm sure people like me will be frowned upon when they try and pass the slow-goers by crossing in to the on-coming lane.

As I’ve said before, my preference for a loop road upgrade is simple and cheap. Take the existing road and stripe it down the middle creating two lanes in the same direction, allowing slow traffic on the right, passing traffic on the left. It's ridiculous that the road has been in it's current state for so long. Who builds a road approximately 1.9 vehicles wide with no striping? Some people currently drive in the middle... some on the sides... some wander side to side... the loop road is a circus.

Striping the road for two lanes could likely be done without expanding the width of the road much at all. I guarantee that the BLM’s two-way plan would result in more impact on the land with a much wider road than what I am suggesting. And your assertion that if a two-way road were built up to the Quarry lot then traffic on the canyons-side will be greatly diminished is bunk as your suggestion doesn't encompass the high point lot which seems to be a major destination.

I find it unbelievable that the BLM can work on widening the loop road to facilitate a two-way traffic on a fast-track plan and yet it takes 10 years to get any sort of wilderness bolting plan out of them. They can’t even get a bathroom constructed at the first pullout or the high point. They just focus on bringing more people here and don’t do anything about the crowd’s impact on the land. The way the trails get braided and the land gets trampled by all these people represents the total mismanagement of these lands.

Would be nice to have two-way on the loop, but then again, that will mean no passing the slow pokes either.

For a place that is "underfunded" they sure did spend a shitload of money building a new visitor center about 5 years ago. (Yes, I understand it was a separate appropriation from the operating budget, still it's all coming from the Fed discretionary budget)

A few clarifying points worth noting in this philosophical disagreement... The Visitor Center was SNPLMA dollars, which Mr. Hegyes so eloquently describes the problems with... This is not a Congressional appropriation, this is obtained by selling off the desert. Appropriations account for a miniscule portion of RRCNCA's operating budget, so far as I can tell from my reading of the business plan that is posted on their website. Most of the operating budget comes from amenity fees, such as the entrance fee to the loop road, which is authorized by FLREA, the Recreation Enhancement Act. FLREA is also the authorization to keep that $$ in RR.
According to county regs, the road is not wide enough to be two lanes currently. At least that's what the Transpo Survey folks were saying... Oh yeah, just re-read Wilder's statement to that effect.

Maybe we can just wait 15 years, and when the water runs out, this will all resolve itself...

I vote to keep it the way it is. I love passing people on the loop road-they get all pissed off and it makes me smile.

flooded road swept your car away? You should have read the sign.

Signs, signs everywhere there is signs blocking up the scenery wastin my time, do this don't do that. (not sure what to do because there isn't a siiigggn).

the pavement is fine keep on patchin.

A new well for the visitor center-sure.

Shade for vehicles? na.

bus transportation Mr. George McDonald? GTFOH

edit: $ saved 38 million

There is no where to park Dorothy. Maybe next time.

I strongly suggest the campground consults an electrical engineer.

There's also a short article in the Vertical Times (Access Fund's newsletter thingie) about RR access. Of note: "The BLM is considering how to expand current parking, but we are also working with them to reestablish a parking area just outside the gates where climbers can meet and carpool."