Portion of Stephanie Street in Henderson down to 1 lane as $23M project begins 16%

By Mick Akers36%

7/20/2026, 1:00:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.7% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 302 faulty-reasoning hits from 393 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.5% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,586 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

An often-repaired stretch of Stephanie Street in Henderson is set for a nearly $23 million improvement project. 
The waterline replacement project starts Monday, bringing a portion of the busy north-south road down to one lane. 
The plan calls for a sewer and water reclamation pipeline repaired under a two-mile stretch of Stephanie, which includes a stretch between Windmill Lane and Stephanie adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. 
Starting Monday, Stephanie southbound between Santiago Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks will be down to one lane for two weeks. 
Following that closure, in early August, Stephanie southbound will be down to one lane between Kelso Dunes Avenue and Trail Canyon Road for two weeks. 
Work will continue to move north as the project continues. 
The just over yearlong project replaces a pipeline that was originally constructed in 1990. 
Damage to the over 36-year-old pipeline meant that it was not moving water from the Southwest Water Reclamation facility to the Las Vegas Wash, eventually ending up in Lake Mead. 
The city of Henderson has been bypassing water that would usually be transported by the pipeline into the sewer system. 
The project’s scope includes Stephanie from Windmill Lane and Galleria Drive, which includes busy shopping centers, Sunset Station and the Galleria Mall at Sunset. 
Pavement along the stretch of Stephanie will be replaced to create a better commute for the public. 
Over a five-year period, the city has issued 44 pavement-related work orders and 22 pothole repairs resulting in more than $135,000 in maintenance costs on the portion of Stephanie, according to the city. 
Portions of the road have visible temporary paving strips over some of the most worn parts of the street. 
To eliminate further disruption, the city is carrying out sewer system rehabilitation work concurrently with the pipeline work, to get that work done as one project. 
During the project, traffic limitations will occur at busy intersections on Stephanie, including at Warm Springs and Sunset roads. 
Funding for the road project comes from a combination of city, state Revolving Funds and Regional Transportation Commission dollars. 
The project is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2027, according the project's website. 
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: 8.4%Mick Akers: 1.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 5.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Mick Akers: 2.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Mick Akers: 5.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.3%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Mick Akers: 2.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Optimism Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 3.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 6.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 8.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%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: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.5%Mick Akers: 3.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority12.5%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.7%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: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.6%Mick Akers: 1.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Begging the Question6.6%This article: 7.6%Mick Akers: 2.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.6%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: 1.2%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: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 1.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%Mick Akers: 2.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.3%Mick Akers: 1.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice4.3%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Akers: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Mick Akers: 0.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

393 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.8%attributed speech386writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMick Akers • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mick Akers

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech45% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +97.4 ptsWriter: 2.6%Mick Akers: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%Mick Akers: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Mick Akers: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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