General Discussion

.....Why don't we try to think possitive about it.  Who knows.....something might get started with enough thinking in that direction.

Modelcar:

.....Why don't we try to think possitive about it.  Who knows.....something might get started with enough thinking in that direction.

Because it is more important to be realistic. And the reality is that if this line is built, it will be a huge investment of money our government borrows from others, to be paid back by our children. And if that is not bad enough, the line will require never ending subsidies to fund operations, again from money that our government will have to borrow, or print, with no hope of any end. That is the something that will get started.

Interest in discussing railways is waning.

RWM

Railway Man:

Interest in discussing railways is waning.

RWM

Jeff

.....Yes, politics....I'll take it no farther.

Railway Man:

Interest in discussing railways is waning.

RWM

Seems to me that discussing how a proposed railway service is to be funded is "discussing railways."

Park-and-ride from the FAR side of Cajon Pass?   Already a loser.  It's not easy running trains over the mountains (don't we know!), but making L.A.-area drivers do the toughest 1/3 of the Las Vegas run before getting out of their cars just doesn't cut it.

Mag-lev?  Someday, maybe, but we shouldn't hold our breath.  These exciting concepts are fun to contemplate and explore, but don't necessarily become the practical solution for problems.  I rode the Disneyland monorail back about 1956, and that then-futuristic mode hasn't quite taken over public transportation yet either.

Are they proposing a entirely new line or upgrading a existing route for high speed service?

Jeff

Prior economic planning, preliminary engineering and permitting documents proposed shared, upgraded infrastructure with existing freight railways.  I don't know if that's still the plan.  An all-new line of course solves some problems of using an existing right-of-way, but creates others.  If transportation service results matter more than cost, then a new alignment is often preferable. Cost includes not only the raw construction dollars, but also land acquisition, permitting, legal challenges, regulatory challenges, and political challenges, all of which are usually more expensive and more time-consuming for a new right-of-way.

RWM

....No it sure hasn't, but it is just about the most efficient way to move people within the confines of {Disney World}....They have moved millions of people around and in and out of the Disney complex in Florida.  Monorail, of course, not Mag-lev.

Although there is a Mag-lev "ride" within the Florida complex.

Personally, I believe a monorail system would serve very efficiently if one was available from the Orlando airport to the Disney complex.

This actually was a FRA-proposed maglev corridor, and indeed with a major commitment from the hotels, it might be economically feasible (maglev's cost is comparable to new corridor, true high-speed rail).  How about making the terminal at Disneyland--leave the kids there while the parents go play the slots? 

Honestly, it is time to think outside the box of "we can't afford it."  The reality is that we can't afford Vegas, but we do it anyway.  Many apsects of public surface transportation can have a multitude of economic and social benefits, yet it is viewed as something more painful than a nasty gambling debt (aka bankrupt Highway Trust Fund).

CGW:

Are they proposing a entirely new line or upgrading a existing route for high speed service?

Jeff

Jeff, I'm not sure but IF, if they were REALLY serious about doing SOMETHING, then the powers that be would get together with Union Pacific and start serious discussions about what it would take to have their mainline upgraded to handle 110-115 mph passenger trains.  It's as simple as that.  I'm always LMAO at the zealots who think that totally brand-new infrastructure is going to be built for "high-speed" service.  Ain't gonna happen. 

Los Angeles Rams Guy:

CGW:

Are they proposing a entirely new line or upgrading a existing route for high speed service?

Jeff

Jeff, I'm not sure but IF, if they were REALLY serious about doing SOMETHING, then the powers that be would get together with Union Pacific and start serious discussions about what it would take to have their mainline upgraded to handle 110-115 mph passenger trains.  It's as simple as that.  I'm always LMAO at the zealots who think that totally brand-new infrastructure is going to be built for "high-speed" service.  Ain't gonna happen. 

However BNSF has plans for their ROW to build a third main track from its current end near Hesperia to Barstow. Since UP has trackage rights over this area their freight trains along with BNSF's will make it very difficult to intermingle high speed rail, especially through Barstow where BNSF's line from the SF Bay joins the TRANSCON.

If we are concerned about the need for HSR where if has the most positive affect on jobs and the economy then LA to LV should be well down on the list.