BLM TO CHARGE $20 TO ACCESS CALICO BASIN; WILL BUILD TOLL BOOTH

Trad Manwrote:

I have a hard time that Vegas of all places is all that concerned about road safety considering it's common in Vegas for drivers to full on plow into houses. If the issue is really road safety, nothing short of keeping locals off the roads and only allowing visitors will help.

I don't speed, I don't drive and TXT, I don't drink & drive, I pay attention to crazy locals with a sense of paranoia and impending doom, etc. Anything else?

The state department of transportation doesn't care about road safety because *checks notes* there are bad drivers in Vegas. Incredible logic with an even more incredible solution!

Have anyone ever read a corridor safety study? The ones I have read deal with things like slowing traffic, reducing left turns and u-turns, removing driveways and other unnecessary conflict points, removing slip lanes, you know, actual safety measures. I have no idea why a corridor safety study would ever recommend a fee station as a safety measure. If you can explain to me, from a traffic engineering perspective, how a fee booth would improve safety, I'd love to see it. Specifically would love to know why SRR thinks hit and run accidents or speeding would be reduced by a fee station. Show me some data instead of just pulling stuff outta the sky. I'm guessing that in reality SRR has nothing to back up their claims except, like Trad Man, feelings. 

Does it say anywhere on the NVDOT website that fee stations are even a possibility or is this just a SRR pie in the sky request? Simply adding acel/decel lanes near trailheads and the sandstone sign would help safety greatly. Also find a way to stop people u-turning in the middle of the highway. If you want to improve safety simply add a median to prevent u-turns and passing, acel/decel lanes, and turn lanes, those 3 things would go far to improve safety. 

Lol, I just read SRR proposal, and woah man, how they gonna build roundy rounds and a fee booth while not bulldozing the wildflowers? This stuff is coming from SRR not NVDOT.

TL;DR: As SNCC President, I personally do not support any additional tolls or gates.

—

That being said, we are a democratic organization that represents a wide user base. In order to develop an official stance, we need to hear specifically from our members, not the public. If you are not a member, your voice means little to me during the process of developing a response to the issue. Join the SNCC and I will gladly consider your point of view.

If John had presented this information to me personally, and in a more timely and professional manner, I would have been eager to discuss this topic in depth. I am a dedicated member of the Access Fund because I truly enjoy researching and debating strategies to protect public land and climbing.

Instead, he decided to attack the organization I have been a part of for four years. Indirectly, he continues to attack my ideas and methodology. Because his slander is so widely spewed, he is willingly ignorant of the fact that he is not only criticizing my efforts on behalf of these organizations but also creating a false narrative built on divisiveness and sensationalism. I will not succumb to these tactics of coercion and intimidation.

Now instead of focusing on the issue at hand, I am working to repair my reputation, the reputation of my fellow board members, and the reputation of the Access Fund and SNCC. This is a complete waste of my time and I am resentful at the need to have to do it. I hope this response will be the end of this nonsense and we can move forward and work together to solve these complex challenges the climbing community faces.

I’ve also spoken to Leici and asked her to avoid this thread due to the absurdity of the accusation made about her. I respect Leici who has dedicated much of her life to working with the Access Fund. There does appear to be a misunderstanding on both sides.

John continually conflates NDOT’s corridor study with Save Red Rock’s email which asks its members to discuss certain talking points in their comments to NDOT. These are two separate entities and two separate issues. NDOT is asking for public input on road conditions. SRR is asking its members to make a comment on a variety of topics. One is a suggestion to build toll booths.

Asking the SNCC to answer for Save Red Rock’s policies is out of line. To shift the blame to the SNCC instead of directing your internet rage toward SRR is cowardice.

Additionally, where were you all during SNCC Board Member Elections? John did not run for a position. Other vocal critics did not run for a position. It’s hard to imagine you care as much as you claim when you can’t be bothered to take on the public responsibility and dedication needed to create a meaningful impact in the community. It is easy though to complain about issues on the internet and hope other people do the work that you won't.

Finally, I have had private discussions with John and I do believe we can move forward working together. Despite his misaligned aggression toward the SNCC, I respect the fact that he is a watchdog on these issues. If John is sincere in building a professional relationship with me, the Access Fund, and the SNCC, then we will be stronger in the fight to prevent any further access restrictions at Red Rock.

Yeah, how dare these organizations be asked to do what they were purportedly created to do. How dare anyone call their actions into question. What a waste of time to even address such concerns.

Trad Manwrote:

Yeah, how dare these organizations be asked to do what they were purportedly created to do. How dare anyone call their actions into question. What a waste of time to even address such concerns.

You know what would be a good use of time? Actually spending time thinking about practical ways to make the highway safer, and then make a comment to NVDOT. What are your proposals? Will you make a comment to NVDOT besides "I oppose a toll booth", an idea that NVDOT is not even proposing? 

Why should I even play this game that toll booths are about highway safety?

Trad Manwrote:

Why should I even play this game that toll booths are about highway safety?

They're not, no one said that except for Save Red Rock, and they are grasping at straws. Again, think about actual proposals to improve safety and make a comment to NVDOT. Climbers need to have a voice and make a comment with practical solutions or the comments from folks like Save Red Rock will drown us out. 

Its funny that the US, as a whole, is trying to come up with different ways to calm/curb unnecessary/unwanted traffic and reduce crime without actually focusing on the actual crimes with actual police with real consequences. I've personally known two friends who have had their windows smashed at RR and I know the crazy drugged up drunks are all over the roads 24/7/365. I know from living in New Mexico  that the police just can't keep up with it all. Gates and tolls could help I guess but its definitely more reactive than proactive IMO. Sin city...

M Mwrote:

Its funny that the US, as a whole, is trying to come up with different ways to calm/curb unnecessary/unwanted traffic and reduce crime without actually focusing on the actual crimes with actual police with real consequences. I've personally known two friends who have had their windows smashed at RR and I know the crazy drugged up drunks are all over the roads 24/7/365. I know from living in New Mexico  that the police just can't keep up with it all. Gates and tolls could help I guess but its definitely more reactive than proactive IMO. Sin city...

Funny, yeah. This is a conversation no one is having here because the state department of transportation doesn't work to prevent crime, and again a fee station is not a traffic safety measure. The department of transportation is not looking to calm or curb traffic, they are looking to project and forecast traffic into the future and plan for those ever increasing numbers. 

The LVMPD budget for 2022 is $715,886,318 and in 2021 it was $661,826,249 which is an 8.1% increase. In that same time period the department went from 3,301 officers to 3,387. Not that increasing police budgets and officer numbers prevent crime at all. 

There are proactive solutions to be implemented for sure, but throwing money and officers at the problem won't help. Funny how the US as a whole ignores systemic issues and tries the same old solutions that don't work over and over again.  

And if gates/tolls would help then maybe my car wouldn't have gotten broken into at the first pullout last year. 

Save Red Rock has been very effective at one thing that's for sure, derailing and distracting climbers away from the issues and the solutions that the NVDOT are likely analyzing. 

Somebody put this thread to pasture. It’s stinkier than a smelly sock. 

Tom Zwrote:

Somebody put this thread to pasture. It’s stinkier than a smelly sock. 

No one is obligating you to read it.

Tom Zwrote:

Somebody put this thread to pasture. It’s stinkier than a smelly sock. 

Thanks for taking your time to provide a comment to NVDOT about possible solutions to safety concerns along the highway that serves red rock. 

Ashortwrote:

Thanks for taking your time to provide a comment to NVDOT about possible solutions to safety concerns along the highway that serves red rock. 

I see mountain project = nvdot trololol

I've clearly reached an impasse with Bryan and we obviously see differently how things have transpired but I stand by what I have written. My bottom line is that I really don't like losing access to the land we all love. I'm sure that sentiment is shared by most. 

I have become disillusioned with these organizations and I have voiced my complaints publicly. With the change in leadership, I am cautiously optimistic that the SNCC will begin to represent the views of all local climbers rather than those of a few wealthy landowners. I will continue to watch this situation closely and speak up when I see something that I don't like. However, I will assume that Bryan and the SNCC will deal with these issues in good faith.

Bryan Friesenwrote:

TL;DR: As SNCC President, I personally do not support any additional tolls or gates.

—

That being said, we are a democratic organization that represents a wide user base. In order to develop an official stance, we need to hear specifically from our members, not the public. If you are not a member, your voice means little to me during the process of developing a response to the issue. Join the SNCC and I will gladly consider your point of view.

If John had presented this information to me personally, and in a more timely and professional manner, I would have been eager to discuss this topic in depth. I am a dedicated member of the Access Fund because I truly enjoy researching and debating strategies to protect public land and climbing.

Instead, he decided to attack the organization I have been a part of for four years. Indirectly, he continues to attack my ideas and methodology. Because his slander is so widely spewed, he is willingly ignorant of the fact that he is not only criticizing my efforts on behalf of these organizations but also creating a false narrative built on divisiveness and sensationalism. I will not succumb to these tactics of coercion and intimidation.

Now instead of focusing on the issue at hand, I am working to repair my reputation, the reputation of my fellow board members, and the reputation of the Access Fund and SNCC. This is a complete waste of my time and I am resentful at the need to have to do it. I hope this response will be the end of this nonsense and we can move forward and work together to solve these complex challenges the climbing community faces.

I’ve also spoken to Leici and asked her to avoid this thread due to the absurdity of the accusation made about her. I respect Leici who has dedicated much of her life to working with the Access Fund. There does appear to be a misunderstanding on both sides.

John continually conflates NDOT’s corridor study with Save Red Rock’s email which asks its members to discuss certain talking points in their comments to NDOT. These are two separate entities and two separate issues. NDOT is asking for public input on road conditions. SRR is asking its members to make a comment on a variety of topics. One is a suggestion to build toll booths.

Asking the SNCC to answer for Save Red Rock’s policies is out of line. To shift the blame to the SNCC instead of directing your internet rage toward SRR is cowardice.

Additionally, where were you all during SNCC Board Member Elections? John did not run for a position. Other vocal critics did not run for a position. It’s hard to imagine you care as much as you claim when you can’t be bothered to take on the public responsibility and dedication needed to create a meaningful impact in the community. It is easy though to complain about issues on the internet and hope other people do the work that you won't.

Finally, I have had private discussions with John and I do believe we can move forward working together. Despite his misaligned aggression toward the SNCC, I respect the fact that he is a watchdog on these issues. If John is sincere in building a professional relationship with me, the Access Fund, and the SNCC, then we will be stronger in the fight to prevent any further access restrictions at Red Rock.

Bryan, thanks for your reply and your volunteer work!

However, the earlier incorrect posts by Leici have not been corrected.  Avoiding this thread does not fix those errors, and may somewhat derail the actual issue.

I've heard just about every reason why I can't climb a rock. Lichen, "ancient" rock stacks for vision quests, the sight of my climbing ass ruining the "vista"...but highway safety is a new one. I wasn't even aware I was mowing people down driving 45 on a highway. 

Good luck playing this game, Vegas bros.

I would gladly buy a yearly pass for $200+ if it meant less dirtbags in Red Rocks. 

Are the dirtbags the ones who know proper grammar?

John Hegyeswrote:

I've clearly reached an impasse with Bryan and we obviously see differently how things have transpired but I stand by what I have written. My bottom line is that I really don't like losing access to the land we all love. I'm sure that sentiment is shared by most. 

I have become disillusioned with these organizations and I have voiced my complaints publicly. With the change in leadership, I am cautiously optimistic that the SNCC will begin to represent the views of all local climbers rather than those of a few wealthy landowners. I will continue to watch this situation closely and speak up when I see something that I don't like. However, I will assume that Bryan and the SNCC will deal with these issues in good faith.

I think you jumped the gun on this and have distracted away from the issue. A comment from Save Red Rock has set you off down the wrong path. Just because some group wants to claim that fee stations will improve safety doesn't make it true. When I first read your posts I actually thought that it was a solution being proposed, and it was only when I looked into it further that I saw that wasn't true. Now there are climbers that actually think that there is a proposal to add fee stations on the highway to close down access in the name of safety (see trad man's posts). You're focused on a solution that isn't even close to becoming a reality due to being triggered by a comment from save red rock, and burning bridges along the way.  That said, I do recognize that fee stations are on the wish list of Save Red Rock, and we need to be vigilant about that in the future, I just don't think it will come out of a NVDOT corridor study. 

People are acting like there aren't legitimate traffic safety concerns on this highway, there are. Just last week I was almost hit head on by a truck passing in the opposite direction, and that is extremely common. I've also almost had accidents in the eastbound lane near the sandstone sign from people braking hard to stop there at the blind hill, then they dangerously trying to cross the highway on foot for their photo op. Several times I have seen people pull u-turns in the middle of the highway, and in fact there have been fatalities from this behavior. 

All that said.....what is your stance on "strip-mining-type bulldozing" of the wildflowers? LOL

Hi all,

It’s been a few days since I’ve looked at this thread, so my apologies for the delay.

In my initial Google research, the only information I could readily find was that the Red Rock Loop Rd was the same thing as the Red Rock Scenic Byway. Thanks John for the photos and the further research. I see that your initial research and post was incorrect as well, as your original claim was that the RR Scenic Byway was the section of 159 from Charleston to Fort Apache, rather than the 8.8 mi section you clarified in your later comments. Not sure that matters much, but my point is that Google research was a bit futile and John actually had to get out and drive the road and take photos to clarify which part of the road was the 8.8 mi section that is called the Red Rock Scenic Byway. (Again, thanks for doing that and for the clarification John).

That statement was not intentionally false, but intentions don't seem to matter much amongst this crew :) I am sorry that I said it and wish I had done more thorough research before posting.

Also, I want to say that despite the fact that I'm the VP of the SNCC (I was voted into that position by SNCC members), these opinions are my own. I don't want 159 or Calico Basin gated either and I disagree entirely with the reservation system and worked my ass off to try and get changes made to it after the BLM surprised us with that announcement. 

I personally talked to John on the phone about 8 months ago and clarified my stances on the above, and clarified that the SNCC is against the reservation system, as well as more toll booths. I invited John to be on the Board (by running for a position in the 2022 elections). John said he would consider it, but did not run for a position. I also invited him to attend our trail clean ups or to volunteer by replacing wag bags, etc, but he hasn’t joined us yet. 

At the time, John said that he didn’t believe me and that he thought I was a part of a large conspiracy to gain private access for people that live in Calico Basin. It feels to me that John wants to paint a picture of me that serves his narrative that I’m intentionally spreading misinformation and lies to SNCC members in order to (and this is a guess, based on his and others posts) help residents of BD and Calico cut off access to rock climbing via toll booths. 

It’s pretty funny to me— the idea that I’ve spent 20 years of my career and personal life dedicated to protecting access to rock climbing, all so that I could help BD/Calico Basin residents have a gated community, when I don’t live in either of those communities and don’t intend to do so anytime in the future.

Either way, this portion of my comment, "In addition, this is just ONE group's comment. There's no proposal, no actual plan, and NVDOT is just looking for comments. So go and make your voice heard….there is NO ACTUAL PLAN to put toll booths on 159/Charleston and 159/Fort Apache (on the BD side). That's absolutely absurd and NVDOT is NOT going to even consider that. Spend your time commenting on the things that will actually make this road safer. Many, many people trying to recreate and get to recreation on this road have died because it is incredibly unsafe due to increased usage. There's no reason to freak out about this. Improving the safety of this road is a good thing and has NOTHING to do with closing off access to rock climbing." remains true. 

Save Red Rock is one organization making one comment to NVDOT, amongst what will hopefully be thousands of other comments from other users and other organizations. There's no plan in place from NVDOT to gate the 8.8 mi section of the Scenic Byway. Yet the fear mongering continues. 

The SNCC cannot force Save Red Rock to share the same beliefs as SNCC members. We have put out calls for comments on this plan on all of our channels and asked our members to comment on what they want to see on 159 and 160 to improve road safety. 

Once there is an ACTUAL proposal from NVDOT, if it includes ANYTHING that will affect climbing access negatively, the SNCC will absolutely stand up against that.

In the meantime, for those that are worried about losing access or restricted access to the amazing climbing we have in the Vegas area, please get involved by doing more than just commenting on the NVDOT proposal— there’s so much you can do to help and that will have a much larger impact on our access to climbing. Clean up trash every time you’re out climbing. Pick up after your dogs. Respect other user groups. Stay on trail. Volunteer for trail days. Use wag bags when you’re out climbing and hiking. Buy some wag bags for the Wag Bag stations all over Red Rock and go refill them when they’re empty. Join the board of the SNCC. Attend our board meetings (open to anyone and everyone). 

I’m not perfect, but I do care deeply about access to recreation and protecting our public lands. It’s okay if some of you don’t believe that. I’ll keep trying to be a better steward and advocate for all climbers, even the ones that continually tear me down on the internet. 

Leici Hendrixwrote:

Hi all,

It’s been a few days since I’ve looked at this thread, so my apologies for the delay.

In my initial Google research, the only information I could readily find was that the Red Rock Loop Rd was the same thing as the Red Rock Scenic Byway. Thanks John for the photos and the further research. I see that your initial research and post was incorrect as well, as your original claim was that the RR Scenic Byway was the section of 159 from Charleston to Fort Apache, rather than the 8.8 mi section you clarified in your later comments. Not sure that matters much, but my point is that Google research was a bit futile and John actually had to get out and drive the road and take photos to clarify which part of the road was the 8.8 mi section that is called the Red Rock Scenic Byway. (Again, thanks for doing that and for the clarification John).

That statement was not intentionally false, but intentions don't seem to matter much amongst this crew :) I am sorry that I said it and wish I had done more thorough research before posting.

Also, I want to say that despite the fact that I'm the VP of the SNCC (I was voted into that position by SNCC members), these opinions are my own. I don't want 159 or Calico Basin gated either and I disagree entirely with the reservation system and worked my ass off to try and get changes made to it after the BLM surprised us with that announcement. 

I personally talked to John on the phone about 8 months ago and clarified my stances on the above, and clarified that the SNCC is against the reservation system, as well as more toll booths. I invited John to be on the Board (by running for a position in the 2022 elections). John said he would consider it, but did not run for a position. I also invited him to attend our trail clean ups or to volunteer by replacing wag bags, etc, but he hasn’t joined us yet. 

At the time, John said that he didn’t believe me and that he thought I was a part of a large conspiracy to gain private access for people that live in Calico Basin. It feels to me that John wants to paint a picture of me that serves his narrative that I’m intentionally spreading misinformation and lies to SNCC members in order to (and this is a guess, based on his and others posts) help residents of BD and Calico cut off access to rock climbing via toll booths. 

It’s pretty funny to me— the idea that I’ve spent 20 years of my career and personal life dedicated to protecting access to rock climbing, all so that I could help BD/Calico Basin residents have a gated community, when I don’t live in either of those communities and don’t intend to do so anytime in the future.

Either way, this portion of my comment, "In addition, this is just ONE group's comment. There's no proposal, no actual plan, and NVDOT is just looking for comments. So go and make your voice heard….there is NO ACTUAL PLAN to put toll booths on 159/Charleston and 159/Fort Apache (on the BD side). That's absolutely absurd and NVDOT is NOT going to even consider that. Spend your time commenting on the things that will actually make this road safer. Many, many people trying to recreate and get to recreation on this road have died because it is incredibly unsafe due to increased usage. There's no reason to freak out about this. Improving the safety of this road is a good thing and has NOTHING to do with closing off access to rock climbing." remains true. 

Save Red Rock is one organization making one comment to NVDOT, amongst what will hopefully be thousands of other comments from other users and other organizations. There's no plan in place from NVDOT to gate the 8.8 mi section of the Scenic Byway. Yet the fear mongering continues. 

The SNCC cannot force Save Red Rock to share the same beliefs as SNCC members. We have put out calls for comments on this plan on all of our channels and asked our members to comment on what they want to see on 159 and 160 to improve road safety. 

Once there is an ACTUAL proposal from NVDOT, if it includes ANYTHING that will affect climbing access negatively, the SNCC will absolutely stand up against that.

In the meantime, for those that are worried about losing access or restricted access to the amazing climbing we have in the Vegas area, please get involved by doing more than just commenting on the NVDOT proposal— there’s so much you can do to help and that will have a much larger impact on our access to climbing. Clean up trash every time you’re out climbing. Pick up after your dogs. Respect other user groups. Stay on trail. Volunteer for trail days. Use wag bags when you’re out climbing and hiking. Buy some wag bags for the Wag Bag stations all over Red Rock and go refill them when they’re empty. Join the board of the SNCC. Attend our board meetings (open to anyone and everyone). 

I’m not perfect, but I do care deeply about access to recreation and protecting our public lands. It’s okay if some of you don’t believe that. I’ll keep trying to be a better steward and advocate for all climbers, even the ones that continually tear me down on the internet. 

Actual facts are a touchy subject these days. The whole "I was wrong but fuck you for saying so" reminds me of living in NYC.