General Discussion

Maglev:

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. 

Well, "Let's Pretend" was fun when I was a kid.  It kinda tends to get people in trouble when they play it as adults.  A sane adult will only "Do Vegas" if they can afford to "Do Vegas".   Otherwise, they'll get in money trouble. (The last time I  "Did Vegas" was in August, 2008.  I lost $55 at the tables in five days.  And I was playing pretty gosh darn regularly.  "Let's Pretend" in Vegas is a bad road to go down.)

Thinking outside the box when it comes to money is a very bad idea.  It's like there's this toy you want (A high speed train to Las Vegas.) and you want to pretend there's money to get it.  There isn't.  You can't have it.  It cost too much.  We can't afford it.

Seems to me that when Hussein's $8 billion passenger train bill passed the Democrats fell all over themselves to assure us it had nothing to do with this route.  Now SURPRISE, SURPRISE it is listed.

Those of you who think that railroads and politics ought not mix have not been paying attention.  Railroads have been political ever since Baltimore started one to compete with the Erie canal.

Mac

My fantasies are tempered by the reality of a nation where there isn't even one train a day connecting Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Denver.  Without support for a national rail network, we will eternally be playing catchup when "long distance" routes become "corridors."  I think New York State is having this problem now, insisting that the Empire corridor is an Amtrak responsibility; and I guess the Adirondack is threatened. 

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Scenic+train+route+between+Montreal+peril/1752306/story.html

Why is Boston to Montreal via Concord on the HSR map?  Is there really any talk of developing that route?  It would be scenic and fun, but why all of a sudden?

Maglev:

My fantasies are tempered by the reality of a nation where there isn't even one train a day connecting Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Denver.  Without support for a national rail network, we will eternally be playing catchup when "long distance" routes become "corridors."  I think New York State is having this problem now, insisting that the Empire corridor is an Amtrak responsibility; and I guess the Adirondack is threatened. 

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Scenic+train+route+between+Montreal+peril/1752306/story.html

Why is Boston to Montreal via Concord on the HSR map?  Is there really any talk of developing that route?  It would be scenic and fun, but why all of a sudden?

And that is just the state subsidy-how much federal money is going toward keeping this train alive?

This is not indicative of there being a high demand for an exensive new HSR route here. "It would be scenic and fun" seems to be the way decisions to spend government dollars are being made.

Cutting the time by 2.5 hours will double ridership? At what ticket price? More goes into that formula than just transit time. What would ridership be if ticket prices covered expenses?

I don't understand the lack of logic in many of these proposals.

PNWRMNM:

Seems to me that when Hussein's $8 billion passenger train bill passed the Democrats fell all over themselves to assure us it had nothing to do with this route.  Now SURPRISE, SURPRISE it is listed.

Those of you who think that railroads and politics ought not mix have not been paying attention.  Railroads have been political ever since Baltimore started one to compete with the Erie canal.

Mac

Who is Hussein?

RWM

Sorry, I brought up three different routes.  LA to Vegas seems like a no-brainer; but the train that would be "fun and scenic" is the Boston-Concord-Montreal route.  Any comments out there?  Why such a new venture, instead of a proven market like Vegas or Florida?    

htgguy:

Maglev:

My fantasies are tempered by the reality of a nation where there isn't even one train a day connecting Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Denver.  Without support for a national rail network, we will eternally be playing catchup when "long distance" routes become "corridors."  I think New York State is having this problem now, insisting that the Empire corridor is an Amtrak responsibility; and I guess the Adirondack is threatened. 

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Scenic+train+route+between+Montreal+peril/1752306/story.html

Why is Boston to Montreal via Concord on the HSR map?  Is there really any talk of developing that route?  It would be scenic and fun, but why all of a sudden?

Thanks for the link. The numbers in the story are clear-$5,000,000 annual subsidy by the State of New York, 112,000 riders. That's $44.64 per rider on a train where a one way ticket end to end costs $62. Taxpayers are kicking in a pretty substantial portion of the operating cost for this train. 

And that is just the state subsidy-how much federal money is going toward keeping this train alive?

This is not indicative of there being a high demand for an exensive new HSR route here. "It would be scenic and fun" seems to be the way decisions to spend government dollars are being made.

Cutting the time by 2.5 hours will double ridership? At what ticket price? More goes into that formula than just transit time. What would ridership be if ticket prices covered expenses?

I don't understand the lack of logic in many of these proposals.

You need to compare to the costs of the no-build case to determine if the subsidy is more costly than the avoided cost of building and maintaining more highways, etc.  The no-build case would be public record.

By law, federal funds in the ARRA cannot be used for operation and maintenance costs of a HSR corridor, only for capital expenditures such as construction, equipment, design, permitting, etc.

RWM

PNWRMNM:

Seems to me that when Hussein's $8 billion passenger train bill passed the Democrats fell all over themselves to assure us it had nothing to do with this route

"Hussein".....??  Don't you think it would be better to keep this kind of politics out of the discussion.....

Fascinating discussion, especially to someone who, unlike most of the posters here, actually lives in the Las Vegas valley.

Reality check time:

• The casinos aren't interested in spending a lot of THEIR money on something that won't produce immense profit by nightfall.
• The local media consider the whole idea a joke, if they mention it at all.  (Most of them don't.)
• I-15 has recently been widened to three lanes each way, and isn't even thinking about being as congested as (fill in urban freeway or toll road of choice.)
• The I-15 profile isn't conducive to high speed operation - there is one heck of a hump just south of the NV/CA border that has, and needs, special truck lanes so the 18-wheelers roaring along in low-low can stay out of the way of vehicles with better power-to-weight ratios.
• Park-and-ride makes sense for a commuter traveling from his home to his job.  It doesn't make sense for a vacationer traveling several hundred miles and crossing into another state in search of entertainment.

This sounds like a poison pill to be used when the time comes to put our (tax) money where their mouth is.  I can see the headline - LAS VEGAS RAIL LINK DEFEATED!  Maybe nobody will notice that what sank was the whole ship, not just the figurehead.  (Translation - quietly scrap the whole HSR idea, then CYA by pointing to the boondoggle that shouldn't have been part of it in the first place.)

Chuck (Clark County, NV)