Las Vegas road project nears completion, enhanced bus service set to launch 34%

By Mick Akers40%

8/3/2026, 6:00:38 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Sunk Cost Effect, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 645 faulty-reasoning hits from 654 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of 34% (18,366 of 27,714 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.30% of the article peer group.

Traffic relief is finally on the horizon for a busy stretch of Maryland Parkway from near UNLV to downtown Las Vegas, as a two-year, $378 million road project is nearing completion. 
Enhanced bus rapid transit service will begin running later this month on the 12.5-mile bus route on Maryland Parkway from near Harry Reid International Airport to downtown and into the Las Vegas Medical District, according to Regional Transportation Commission deputy CEO Andrew Kjellman. 
“We’re really excited that the Red Line will begin initial passenger service on Aug. 
23. 
And we’re going to wrap up this new Red Line service with our other annual transit service changes,” Kjellman said, noting that the federally funded project will replace RTC’s existing 109 bus route. 
“It’s transforming one of Southern Nevada’s most important transportation corridors,” Kjellman said. 
“And it’s really serving all modes. 
So, whether you’re driving, walking, taking transit, or riding a bike, it’s really designed to accommodate and improve the travel experience for everyone.” 
Maryland Parkway is one of RTC’s five busiest bus routes in the Las Vegas Valley. 
The BRT project construction has caused traffic headaches along Maryland Parkway near UNLV and into downtown for the last two years. 
Remaining work 
Work will continue on sections of Maryland Parkway after the new bus route opens, with substantial completion by year’s end. 
“There will be some construction activity continuing, specifically in the county section between Sahara Avenue and Flamingo Road,” Kjellman said. 
“Some of this is our work. 
So RTC work related to final punch list items, things like finalizing shelter installation, final landscaping, lighting and permanent striping. 
But then it’s also important to remember that there’s other projects going on as well in that section of the corridor.” 
Kjellman said that additional construction includes work on energy, private utility and private development on Maryland Parkway from Sahara to Flamingo. 
“We’re just coordinating with that as best as we can,” he said. 
One aspect of the project that won’t be completed until next spring is the final repave of Maryland Parkway between Flamingo and Desert Inn Road. 
“We need the temperatures to warm back up next spring to do that final layer of asphalt on that 1-mile section from DI to Flamingo,” Kjellman said. 
“We’ll do the final striping after that pavement is poured.” 
New shelters, ‘red lane,’ coming 
Additionally, 44 larger bus shelters are also being added to the corridor as part of the project. 
“They’re (new bus shelters) really nice, big, prominent,” Kjellman said. 
“They’re really well lit. 
They provide a lot of shade, and cameras are in there for enhanced safety, security.” 
The road work includes a new “red lane,” which will serve as a shared-use lane with priority given to RTC buses. 
Motorists should only use red lanes if they are making a right turn along the corridor. 
“The red lanes are really to improve visibility, increase driver awareness, and help transit run more efficiently,” Kjellman said. 
“Part of it is just redesigning the whole corridor, and it’s enhancing the prominence of transit and kind of signifying that this is an overall corridor makeover and reinvestment.” 
Wrapping up 
Revamping the corridor has been in the works for at least a decade. 
Light rail was once considered for the route, so getting the enhanced bus service and its 16-bus fleet of 60-foot-long hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road is a big moment for the RTC. 
With the project in the making for almost 10 years, nearing the finish line is a milestone that the RTC is happy to be approaching. 
“While some of the project development and getting environmental reviews did take some time, we are wrapping up construction of the project within our two-year timeline,” Kjellman said. 
“So, we are excited about that.” 
Contact Mick Akers at makers@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2920. 
Follow @mickakers on X. 
Send questions and comments to roadwarrior@reviewjournal.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 2.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Mick Akers: 2.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.9%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 2.3%Mick Akers: 0.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 4.3%Mick Akers: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.3%This article: 1.5%Mick Akers: 0.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 4.4%Mick Akers: 2.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.0%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Mick Akers: 1.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect7.0%This article: 14.7%Mick Akers: 7.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.4%Optimism Bias14.7%This article: 3.8%Mick Akers: 3.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 3.2%Mick Akers: 2.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.2%Negativity Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Mick Akers: 4.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.5%Halo Effect18.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Mick Akers: 2.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Mick Akers: 0.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 2.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.4%Mick Akers: 0.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.4%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.4%Mick Akers: 1.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 3.5%Mick Akers: 0.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Mick Akers: 2.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.1%

654 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker52%attributed speech317writer words
Selected voice

Andrew Kjellman

68%flagged-word coverage
337 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -29.0 ptsWriter: 29.0%Andrew Kjellman: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice+12.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Kjellman: 12.5%12.5%Indoctrination+6.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Kjellman: 6.8%6.8%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.