L. A. to Vegas. Why not?

[blue streak 1]

ROW width is a good question. I suspect it is diffeerent amounts and the width of buildings from the ROW is Vegas might give a clue. Those places where geometry would not allow  high speeds and require a new ROW woould be subject to more stringent enviromental rules.

[diningcar]

Do they need a reason?

With our taxpayer money they pay attorneys to protest any issue. And the attorneys are always ready to take the money.

[spectratone]

I have another question. How wide is the railroad right of way? 100 feet wide? 200? Why would envirementalist fight to stop a project that would reduce fuel consumption and pollution and increase safety in a 200 mile stretch of land 200 feet wide that you can look left or right and see for hundreds of miles with NOTHING on it?

[oltmannd]

DesertXpress quote $3 to $5 billion for their scheme - to build 190 miles of double track 125mph railway!  Sounds far too cheap to me!

That might pay for the initial survey, the IAS, permitting and part of the land acquisition.

The other problem is starting the service at Victorville rather than L.A. Will enough people park their cars at Victorville and take the train to make the venture profitable? 

Once a driver climbs Cajon, the temptation to just keep going will be all but irresistable!  As for reverse traffic (Las Vegas residents wanting to go to LA,) if there isn't a rent-a-car service at Victorville, that simply won't happen - and is very unlikely to happen even if there is a rental counter right in the station.

Surely any venture should be targeting the L.A to Las Vegas airlines? The new Madrid - Barcelona high speed line in Spain is a good example of this.

What seems to be getting overlooked is that Madrid-Barcelona (and London-Paris, and Tokyo-Osaka on the original Shinkansen) will be attracting BUSINESS travelers, not pleasure seekers.  Sin City is NOT a center of commerce.

Also, if anyone expects the Las Vegas casinos to pay any part of the cost of LA-LV rail they're hallucinating.  The big operators would rather spend that money opening 'branch offices' in Macau.

Chuck (Clark County, NV, resident)

I dunno.  The same "big operators" are springing for all the costs of new NY - AC service...

[spectratone]

The hell with everyone else, just build the *** thing and be done with it.  I live right between the I-210 and the I-15 and seeing this parking lot every weekend is crazy.  If UP, Sante Fe and BNSF has a problem with running high-speed trains pass colton yard, San Bernandino yard and thru the el cajon pass then tell them to come see me!

Expand it to LA! not many people would like to drive to Victorville and besides, the wind blows to much dirt on nice clean cars

Finally, Southwest is afaird of the competetion but hey, at least you can look sexy or wear nice short clothes on a train and not get kicked off for being beatiful

I,m with you, build it. Stop in victorville and pick me up. how many lanes wide is that 15 going over the hill? And on the weekend it's bumper to bumper. lets all pitch in and rent a billboard on the 15 that says, next time take the train!  And put amtraks phone number on the bottom!!

[JT22CW]

Your arguements (sic) are so full of holes it would take a book or more to address them

IOW, you can't refute them. Just say so. Claiming that it will "take a book" (which it wouldn't, if there were any arguments that could refute them that is) is a poor copout.

I stand by my statements completely particularly that the government does create wealth it takes it from every producing American

You can stand by it if you wish, but it won't make it true.

The government is not continuously cutting taxes and when they do the revenues increase - every time without exception

If it were true, you'd be able to cite examples off the bat. Instead, you throw rhetoric at me.

Furthermore, our major industries would still be within the USA. Have you gotten confused about what you originally said?

If cutting taxes is so bad how come the current stimulus package will work since they are giving us back our money to spend?

Who says it will work? Most people are going to use it to pay down their debts or put it into savings as a "rainy day" fund, not send money into the "consumer economy". Not to mention, it's mostly borrowed money anyway (or do you pay no attention to the level of public debt the USA is holding?)

All those people ranting about oil company profits seem to forget that the major reason they have increased is the oil companies are simply selling more oil. If a company can sell more of its products, of course its going to make more money. And since they are among the largest corporations in the world, of course they are going to have large profits when running at or very near full capacity.

Nope. If that were the case, then they would not have to raise oil prices, which should be an unrelated factor, never mind retail fuel prices, which various sources claim are due to refining capacity instead of crude oil prices (but retail fuel prices have been rising right along with crude oil prices, hmm-hmm).

The real culprits behind the huge run up in oil prices not due to just supply and demand are the (1) OPEC members who seem to be believe that $90 a barrel oil is now their God given right and (2) the environmentalists, and their political allies, almost all of the Democrats and a few NE Republicans, and almost all of the press--all of whom keep pushing for alternative fuels but refuse to do one thing to increase the US domestic supply of oil and natural gas that's needed for the next 20-30 years! Nothing wrong with alternative fuels, although ethanol from corn and other grains in US is turning out to be a disaster for consumers, but you also need to increase the US supply of oil and natural gas if you want to have any clout with OPEC and stop the spiraling prices

Um, not exactly.

OPEC is indeed a valid factor to cite when it comes to the price of oil (remember what they did all the way back in 1973), but that is due to their being stingy with the oil supply, not selling more of it. The only "clout" that OPEC deserves is a military one, right across their collective faces.

OPEC is not the only danger when it comes to energy supply. Russia has become a major player of late, and Putin has recently nationalized the industries thereof.

Would it not serve the environmental lobby poorly to increase the profits of oil companies? You're claiming that this lobby is being a boon to Exxon-Mobil and the rest of them, never mind OPEC. I don't see a logical connection. The oil lobby is far more dangerous to the US economy than the environmental one.

As I've stated before, I retired from a major university and I can't tell you of the number of academics who have told me that the best thing for the country is $5-6 gallon of gas "so the environment will be cleaner". The idea that what they want could throw this country into chaos unseen since the 1930's never crosses their mind. The fact that the "common man" is already hurting, as are most businesses, and would really get clobbered under their scenario also never crosses their mind

Like these "academics" are the source of this? How many of them are US representatives or senators?

The "common man" is "hurting" due to the status quo, not due to policies that such academics had nothing to do with.

I suspect your "academics" were pointing to Europe, which is not a good example of a cleaner environment, but are far less oil-dependent for transportation in their larger countries. European countries have made do quite will with retail motor fuel prices at the $4-5/US gallon level for decades (yes, decades) and are currently tackling retail prices around $8 per US gallon.

And "chaos unseen since the 1930s" may indeed be fomented in the USA due to far different policies unrelated to transportation, policies that loudmouth academics, again, have had absolutely nothing to do with.

Anyway...as far as the LA-LV trains go, this ought to be a given. Greyhound certainly has no problems selling their "Lucky Streak" bus service between the two cities, which has twelve daily departures (and takes over six hours one-way). There is also Lux Bus America. Not to mention the 69 or so flight options between the two cities, not all of which are nonstop. To even insinuate that Amtrak cannot compete with a frequent service against all of this (or, to be more fair, complement all of this high demand service) by adding a track to the UP's main line has very low merit, if any merit at all.

[blue streak 1]

Bet the casinos would wat truly high speed on the UP. Does UP have cab signaling on that line?

[Amtrak77]

The hell with everyone else, just build the *** thing and be done with it.  I live right between the I-210 and the I-15 and seeing this parking lot every weekend is crazy.  If UP, Sante Fe and BNSF has a problem with running high-speed trains pass colton yard, San Bernandino yard and thru the el cajon pass then tell them to come see me!

Expand it to LA! not many people would like to drive to Victorville and besides, the wind blows to much dirt on nice clean cars

Finally, Southwest is afaird of the competetion but hey, at least you can look sexy or wear nice short clothes on a train and not get kicked off for being beatiful

[al-in-chgo]

DesertXpress quote $3 to $5 billion for their scheme - to build 190 miles of double track 125mph railway!  Sounds far too cheap to me!

That might pay for the initial survey, the IAS, permitting and part of the land acquisition.

The other problem is starting the service at Victorville rather than L.A. Will enough people park their cars at Victorville and take the train to make the venture profitable? 

Once a driver climbs Cajon, the temptation to just keep going will be all but irresistable!  As for reverse traffic (Las Vegas residents wanting to go to LA,) if there isn't a rent-a-car service at Victorville, that simply won't happen - and is very unlikely to happen even if there is a rental counter right in the station.

Surely any venture should be targeting the L.A to Las Vegas airlines? The new Madrid - Barcelona high speed line in Spain is a good example of this.

What seems to be getting overlooked is that Madrid-Barcelona (and London-Paris, and Tokyo-Osaka on the original Shinkansen) will be attracting BUSINESS travelers, not pleasure seekers.  Sin City is NOT a center of commerce.

Also, if anyone expects the Las Vegas casinos to pay any part of the cost of LA-LV rail they're hallucinating.  The big operators would rather spend that money opening 'branch offices' in Macau.

Chuck (Clark County, NV, resident)

 

Chuck, you make an excellent point about those routes in other countries whose HST's thrive and profit by catering to the business set (and I could say that as well of Acela in this country).  And a major reason the business set will pay screechingly high fares to ride first class on Acela (along with the who-cares aspects of some expense accounts), is that a lot of business travel can't be planned, and they have to have the quickest transport to another NEC city Right Away  and d**n the expense.  Call it impulse purchase, impromptu, unplanned or spur-of-the-moment, that's what makes the profits, if the Amtrak accountants allow there's any to be made at all.  

I'm going to suggest that in the medium-to-far future there might be a sustainable or profitable market for an L.A. - N.V. highspeed train.  If such is to occur, I for one would expect the people who pay amazingly high fares, besides wanting a more comfortable seat, expect a higher (for lack of a better term), "exclusive" class of service.  Maybe there could be three classes:  Coach, First Class and Luxury (or "High Roller").  The High Rollers car could be like the Metroliner-and-earlier-vintage parlor cars, swivel chairs two across (everyone gets an aisle seat AND a window seat.  The real draw would be, along with a lot more personal space, plush, and personal attention (waiter service and meal included); for lack of a better term), a dose of Vegas-style "vice" would bring the hard core in.  Maybe there are enough people willing to brush up on their Blackjack before hitting the tables at the casinos that they wouldn't mind the Luxury Car ("house") holding on a soft fifteen.  Cigarettes, mixed drinks and such would be suitably exorbitant, just as they are getting to be in Vegas itself.  Blackjack and Hold'em don't need an awful lot of room.  I'd avoid craps and roulette for sure!     

Two huge hurdles present themselves:  the first, as was so well brought up in earlier posts:  capitalization.  And number two: all but the last roughly sixty miles would be in California, where specific laws against smoking and gambling exist, and even rolling cocktail lounges might have a lot of hoops to jump through before the state licenses them.  (Anyone out there ridden the Amtrak trains that do offer wine or mixed drinks??)  Point being, even people who act like the stereotypical drunken sailor will balk if the indulgences exist only through the last third of the trip -- about 35 mins. at HST speed.   

After those close-to-impossible barriers, real-life objections present themselves.  California is not about to pay to build part of most of an private-capital high-speed line to carry their citizens out of state.  And my guess would be, as expensive as acquisition costs would be, three- and four-laning the Interstate, even the roughly one-third of the line that runs within the state of Nevada, (or building a parallel toll road) would be as naught compared to HST planning, surveying, laying track, buying state-of-the-art trainsets, electrification etc etc etc. 

For this to work our imaginary capitalist would have to get at least some of the "official" Vegas of big casinos, hotels and related services to get on board, pardon the pun.  Up until now that highly specialized city has dealt with the problem of transportation in some classically American ways:  run longer city busses more frequently, buy up old housing or parking lots to buy high-rise parking decks, encourage the rental of cars.  Oh, and next time you really should book that car ahead.   Sadly, IMHO, the powers that be have re-laned Las Vegas Boulevard (The Strip) so that it is almost impossible to take a cab for a very short distance: multiple right-turn-only lanes at most intersections force cabbies into the right turn, from which another turn ensues to take the Interstate or a side road, sometimes describing a shoe-box pattern, just to reach the palace "just a couple of buildings down."  But those of us who are slow to acclimate to 105-degree (F) temps (never mind the low humidity) might find those little third-and half-mile taxi rides the only feasible options (watch carefully:  those buses stop at places more useful to the employees than the tourists).  Between 1999 and 2005, by my traveling companion and my lights, the cost of cab fares per mile did not go up all that much, but what used to be a three-dollar fare is now a seven-dollar fare due to all the circling (shoeboxing?) around.  So the short trip with tip cost four bucks less than ten years ago; as of 2005 it was seven or eight (and so easy to let the cabdriver keep a ten) -- in effect more than doubling the price of convenient transportation over short distances -- not to mention overcrowding already-crowded local roads and wasting hydrocarbons in a way that would make even the Exxon tiger blush.

Short of adding diamond lanes for Vegas-bound buses which is probably politically untenable and about as expensive as adding extra lanes on the superhighway, at some point, assuming Vegas grows steadily, I would guess that some sort of rail would come to the fore (the faster the growth, the more acute the need, of cours

[alphas]

All those people ranting about oil company profits seem to forget that the major reason they have increased is the oil companies are simply selling more oil.  If a company can sell more of its products, of course its going to make more money.   And since they are among the largest corporations in the world, of course they are going to have large profits when running at or very near full capacity.   The real culprits behind the huge run up in oil prices not due to just supply and demand are the (1) OPEC members who seem to be believe that $90 a barrel oil is now their God given right and (2) the environmentalists, and their political allies, almost all of the Democrats and a few NE Republicans, and almost all of the press--all of whom keep pushing for alternative fuels but refuse to do one thing to increase the US domestic supply of oil and natural gas that's needed for the next 20-30 years!   Nothing wrong with alternative fuels, although ethanol from corn and other grains in US is turning out to be a disaster for consumers, but you also need to increase the US supply of oil and natural gas if you want to have any clout with OPEC and stop the spiraling prices. 

As I've stated before, I retired from a major university and I can't tell you of the number of academics who have told me that the best thing for the country is $5-6 gallon of gas "so the environment will be cleaner".   The idea that what they want could throw this country into chaos unseen since the 1930's never crosses their mind.  The fact that the "common man" is already hurting, as are most businesses, and would really get clobbered under their scenario also never crosses their mind.  

That's my rant for today. 

 

[conrailman]

We need the Desert Wind back.

[tomikawaTT]

DesertXpress quote $3 to $5 billion for their scheme - to build 190 miles of double track 125mph railway!  Sounds far too cheap to me!

That might pay for the initial survey, the IAS, permitting and part of the land acquisition.

The other problem is starting the service at Victorville rather than L.A. Will enough people park their cars at Victorville and take the train to make the venture profitable? 

Once a driver climbs Cajon, the temptation to just keep going will be all but irresistable!  As for reverse traffic (Las Vegas residents wanting to go to LA,) if there isn't a rent-a-car service at Victorville, that simply won't happen - and is very unlikely to happen even if there is a rental counter right in the station.

Surely any venture should be targeting the L.A to Las Vegas airlines? The new Madrid - Barcelona high speed line in Spain is a good example of this.

What seems to be getting overlooked is that Madrid-Barcelona (and London-Paris, and Tokyo-Osaka on the original Shinkansen) will be attracting BUSINESS travelers, not pleasure seekers.  Sin City is NOT a center of commerce.

Also, if anyone expects the Las Vegas casinos to pay any part of the cost of LA-LV rail they're hallucinating.  The big operators would rather spend that money opening 'branch offices' in Macau.

Chuck (Clark County, NV, resident)

[Chafford1]

DesertXpress quote $3 to $5 billion for their scheme - to build 190 miles of double track 125mph railway!  Sounds far too cheap to me!

The other problem is starting the service at Victorville rather than L.A. Will enough people park their cars at Victorville and take the train to make the venture profitable? 

Surely any venture should be targeting the L.A to Las Vegas airlines? The new Madrid - Barcelona high speed line in Spain is a good example of this. 

  

 

[spectratone]

A recent article from the Associated Press on rival high speed links to Las Vegas is attached below:

http://asp.usatoday.com/travel/GCITravel/InsidePage.aspx?sUrl=/travel/news/2008-02-25-vegas-disneyland-train_N.xml&cId=theithacajournal

The DesertXpress project plans to use 125mph British Class 222 Meridian Diesel Multiple Units

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_222

 

I think they made a mistake when they said 10 million a year. I was on the freeway when all 10 million decided to go to vegas on one day.  seriously, I live in the high desert, about 50 miles from victorville. I thought how nice it would be just to hop on a train in barstow/victorville and let someone else drive while avoiding the traffic, accidents, idiots driving 90mph, and weather plus wear and tear on my car and the high price of gas/diesel. Flying is out of the question becuase by the time I get to and waste time at an airport I could have driven.  I don,t see maglev working unless we start stealing copper back from the chinese. The old desert wind took too long to get to vegas and was not reliable. if all your going to do is gamble and see shows in vegas you don,t need a car. they have taxies and busses.  You can't hardly drive down the strip with all the traffic anyway. The only problem I see is making  victorville the starting point. If your in LA You still have to drive over the cajon pass. Unless they bus you from selected areas around LA to victorville. And make it affordable and compedetive with airline travel. I say build and stop screwing around. The way the price of fuel is going up alot of us won,t be able to go anywhere soon.  And for cryin out loud stop worring about the turtles, rats, and bugs, they either have legs, wings, or can crawl away. Doesn,t anybody see these guys know how to work the system? They get money from bleeding heart fools and then spend years in court fighting any progress till the moneys all gone then they look for another big venture . These guys don,t care about the desert or they would all be out here on the weekend picking up trash that is everywhere. I would be more then happy to post pictures to show you the garbage. 

[Chafford1]

A recent article from the Associated Press on rival high speed links to Las Vegas is attached below:

http://asp.usatoday.com/travel/GCITravel/InsidePage.aspx?sUrl=/travel/news/2008-02-25-vegas-disneyland-train_N.xml&cId=theithacajournal

The DesertXpress project plans to use 125mph British Class 222 Meridian Diesel Multiple Units

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_222

 

[ndbprr]

Your arguements are so full of holes it would take a book or more to address them.  I stand by my statements completely particularly that the government does create wealth it takes it from every producing American.  Tne government is not continuously cutting taxes and when they do the revenues increase - every time without exception.  If cutting taxes is so bad how come the current stimulus  package will work since they are giving us back our money to spend?

[JT22CW]

Union Pacific doesn't want it operating on their freight corridor, and any high speed rail proposal is just pie-in-the-sky because there is no funding for it, public or private .

Let's not forget the environmentalist whackos that will oppose and sue to stop any additional rail lines that might offend a scrub weed, an insect or a tortoise.

IIRC, the desert tortoise argument was shot full of holes when the environmental report came back. Adding the second track to the UP corridor (which would put Amtrak out of UP's way) would not harm the desert tortoise, and was actually found to be more beneficial to said turtle species than not adding the track.

It isn't the greed of the investors. It is the greed of the government. Anybody who makes money should send it to them so they can redistribute it. The wealth for ALL employees of a company is generated by producing a product. The wealth of the government is gotten by taking it from the producers and diluting their profits. Nearly all the people I know in corporate America are not greedy. they are very generous. With declining revenue you have to do what you have to do. the government has destroyed one major industry group every ten years since FDR's entitlement programs began to pay for them. textiles, Steel, Auto, etc. That is why you hear them badmouthing oil and Pharmaceuticals. they want to get their hands on the money. And before anyone talks about oil I agree it is high but the oil companies are making less than 5 cents profit per gallon. the government is taxing it in excess of $1.00 per gallon so who is greedy? Who caused the subprime mortgage mess? the very Congress that say's they will investigate it. If you make money you will wind up giving it to them one way or the other. Rant now over.

Um, what? The government has destroyed our major industry?? It was all the investors' lobbying that induced the government to facilitate the moves to China and other countries to begin with! So please don't tell me that the investors are not greedy, because they wanted this very badly due to the increased profits they could garner from the cheaper labor in these countries (often well over the thousand-percent mark). CEO pay levels rose, from the 1980s through now, from between 15 and 20 times the average employee salary to well over 300 times the average employee salary. If these same people were not greedy, then they would keep all of their production domestic.

$1.00 per gallon? What are you talking about? Federal gasoline tax is 18.5¢ per gallon, states charge their rates per gallon (which are higher), and most of this either goes to highway building/repair or (in some very small cases) public transportation. As for the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of 1980, that was repealed in 1988 with the passing of the Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act; I haven't heard of any other major tax on crude oil other than the new one that has been proposed of late. Crude oil fees and taxes are in fractions of cents per barrel, for domestic oil production. For a mere 5¢/gallon at the pump, the oil companies are still making out like bandits, aren't they? or perhaps their profits are far higher than that estimate...? (Five years ago, regular gas was still well under $2/gallon; I still have receipts that state $1.78/gallon.)

Furthermore, if the government has been continually cutting taxes, how are they "greedy" after a fashion? Their greed has been reflected through all the borrowing they've been engaged in, if anything. If the government can make a ton of money via taxation alone, the budget would have been remarkably balanced. Consider which years we went from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation.

[Railway Man]

The reaosn it isn't done is the problem with the equipment required.  From LA to Vegas, you need an American Orient style and service consist.  To return, third class coaches reclaimed from India will suffice.      

[Dakguy201]

The reaosn it isn't done is the problem with the equipment required.  From LA to Vegas, you need an American Orient style and service consist.  To return, third class coaches reclaimed from India will suffice.      

[al-in-chgo]

It isn't the greed of the investors. It is the greed of the government.  Anybody who makes money should send it to them so they can redistribute it.  The wealth for ALL employees of a company is generated by producing a product. The wealth of the government is gotten by taking it from the producers and diluting their profits. Nearly all the people I know in corporate America are not greedy.  they are very generous.  With declining revenue you have to do what you have to do. the government has destroyed one major industry group every ten years since FDR's  entitlement programs began to pay for them.  textiles, Steel, Auto, etc.  That is why you hear them badmouthing oil and Pharmaceuticals. they want to get their hands on the money.   And before anyone talks about oil I agree it is high but the oil companies are making less than 5 cents profit per gallon.  the government is taxing it in excess of $1.00 per gallon so who is greedy?  Who caused the subprime mortgage mess? the very Congress that say's they will investigate it.  If you make money you will wind up giving it to them one way or the other. Rant now over.

 

Yes, yes, yes!  Absolutely I agree with you.  Or as one of my bosses mentioned (back when I worked for the federal gov't):  "The problem with this country is that we already have socialism but nobody wants to admit it."  That's because everyone says they're philosophically opposed to socialism, but since the end of World War II, roughly, and intensifying during the Great Society years of the Sixties, and NOT abating though successive Republican and Democrat admnistration, the amount of money manipulated in such manner as ndprr mentions ever grows, hence the proportion of the economy federally manipulable grows, hence we become more and more dependent on our elected officials for succor; and, perhaps even worse, we become heir and prey to dopey decisions made by unelected bureaucrats who not only have no sense of the market (indeed, why should they?), but also lack a national viewpoint of what people seem to want and need; they can't get outside their little mind-views. 

Example:  even Consumer Reports admits that the best-quality of new toploading washing machines has deteriorated to the point of nearly unacceptable.  Why?  The feds made the washer manufacturers limit the amount of hot water by dialing top temperatures down to below warm/hot wash standards?  Why?  Not even to save energy, strictly speaking.  The notion was to FORCE consumers to buy the expensive new Euro-style front loaders for the home.  Why?  To conserve water, anticipating a trend toward scarce water that doesn't affect eighty-five percent of the population.  And look what's happened:  the people most hurt are those with the least ability to shell out $1,100 for a new washer instead of an unacceptable model for $500:  the working poor, in other words.  No wonder people can get so resentful, sometimes to the point of paranoia.  It's the POWER that representatives of both parties assure us is necessary to do for us what we couldn't do for ourselves.  There's a heck of a lot of B.S. included in this posture, especially since the more "innovative" solutions so often just transfer even more power to even more unelected folks -- if not defense, health care; if not health care; education; if not education, passing special kissy-poo laws to protect their pet (lobbying??) clients' corporations, such as extending patents on drugs that previously BY LAW were scheduled to expire.  Where's the logic or justice to that?  Only the modus operandi that arrogation of power leads to more, leads to more, as various core constituencies have more and more to do with power coalitions (PAC's, corporations, unions, fed. workers themselves), than with us . . .  small wonder that individual rights and freedoms are so often blithely ignored or abrogated these days.

Wow  . . .  how'd I wash from subsidized transport to home appliances?  Not to prove a point or indict democracy -- far from it.  Wouldn't it make more sense, though, for the people who benefit (lodges, restaurants, motels, guide services) to find some way to bring in the people cheaper than has been assumed?  For all that, wouldn't it even make more sense to give Amtrak more than the usual amount of fare discretion and ability to innovate as to entertainments offered, types of seating (the old parlor-car concept at LOTS of money?) -- and if Amtrak can't do it, to let some luxury-tour operator try by using its otherwise laid-over (in L.A.) equipment?  What's going on now -- zero subsidy for an L.A. to Vegas train -- is apparently OK with the casino's so can I really say they are being shortsighted?  I can, but consider the alternative -- more and more federal guessing and aggrandizing coming out of Washington, which is about as far away from the realities of drunk-driving in the desert as can exist in this land mass.  [A similar who's-to-benefit argument is going on re the Empire Builder on an adjacent site--this is just IMHO but I wonder if to directly subsidize the U.S. Parks Service (Dept of Interior?) at Yellowstone so that they can bring in more people during shoulder seasons and fewer during summer peaks might be better than subsidizing civil aviation to the tune of $65 plus -- up to hundreds -- per passenger into these remote public airports?] 

Instead, what we have going on in this thread is something that concerns many elected officials (and I won't say it doesn't thrill a few) -- us fighting over scraps, proving to their minds at least that the taxpayers are a bunch of emotional boobies who must needs be cared for.   -

- thanks for hearing me out,

[ndbprr]

It isn't the greed of the investors. It is the greed of the government.  Anybody who makes money should send it to them so they can redistribute it.  The wealth for ALL employees of a company is generated by producing a product. The wealth of the government is gotten by taking it from the producers and diluting their profits. Nearly all the people I know in corporate America are not greedy.  they are very generous.  With declining revenue you have to do what you have to do. the government has destroyed one major industry group every ten years since FDR's  entitlement programs began to pay for them.  textiles, Steel, Auto, etc.  That is why you hear them badmouthing oil and Pharmaceuticals. they want to get their hands on the money.   And before anyone talks about oil I agree it is high but the oil companies are making less than 5 cents profit per gallon.  the government is taxing it in excess of $1.00 per gallon so who is greedy?  Who caused the subprime mortgage mess? the very Congress that say's they will investigate it.  If you make money you will wind up giving it to them one way or the other. Rant now over.

[oltmannd]

Who is going to accept the liability for a high speed rail line especially where it crosses the San Andreas fault? 

40 years of bullet trains in Japan - the most earthquake prone country in the world - including some ridiculous bridges and tunnels.  I don't think San Andreas is would be an obstacle to construction.

[oltmannd]

It isn't the cost it is the return on investment.  When I started my career in order for a project in industry to get management approval it had to have a payback of ten years.  Then it went to five years.  Now it is two years.  Lots of reasons but it all comes down to when do I start to make a profit on this.  No passenger service makes a profit anywhere in any industry.  This project is DOA.

The return on investement depends on how wide a net you cast around the returns.  If you include the net benefit to the casinos, you might clear the ROI threshold needed to get the money.

Casinos in AC used (and might still) to pay people to ride buses to their casinos.  The bus operation had costs but zero direct revenue.  They are also directly subsidizing impending NJT NY to AC train service. 

So, why not Las Vegas?

[vsmith]

It isn't the cost it is the return on investment.  When I started my career in order for a project in industry to get management approval it had to have a payback of ten years.  Then it went to five years.  Now it is two years.  Lots of reasons but it all comes down to when do I start to make a profit on this.  No passenger service makes a profit anywhere in any industry.  This project is DOA.

2 years? Jeez, no wonder everything here is so messed up if investors are that impatient, or should I say greedy...or both.  

[ndbprr]

It isn't the cost it is the return on investment.  When I started my career in order for a project in industry to get management approval it had to have a payback of ten years.  Then it went to five years.  Now it is two years.  Lots of reasons but it all comes down to when do I start to make a profit on this.  No passenger service makes a profit anywhere in any industry.  This project is DOA.

[Prairietype]

Anyone who promotes a billion dollar rail project has no grasp on reality.

Anyone who promotes a 100+ million dollar rail project is only setting themselves up for disappointment and expending effort on futility.

Those who promote projects in the $3-$23 dollar range may have a 50/50 chance of success, and those odds may be marginally better if it is in the $3-$12 million dollar range.  

 

[tomikawaTT]

There is a project to do exactly this:

 

http://www.desertxpress.com/need.php

 

So let me get this straight, I am going to drive from LA to Victorville, get out of my car, and get on a train?  I don't know about most people but if I have driven that far, I am just going to keep going in my car.  Sounds to me like it is doomed to fail.

Here in Sin City, where everything having to do with tourism is HOT NEWS, I can't remember when anyone last mentioned high speed rail to LA without laughing.  In the meantime, there have been some serious improvements to I-15 on both sides of the Nevada-California border.  And McCarran, already one of the world's busiest airports, is building new terminal facilities.

The idea of leaving a car in a park-and-ride in the approximate heart of nowhere just to take a train (and then have to rent another car at the train's destination...)  Angelinos may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.

Chuck

[Southwest Chief]

It took around 7 hours.  Looking to a 1994 timetable I have, it left Los Angeles at 10:55 AM and arrived in Las Vegas at 5:45 PM.   A 15 minute layover in Vegas is all this timetable has, but I recall it being longer in the 80s.

The schedule used to have it come into Las Vegas later.  This is the one I'm more familiar with since that's when I used to take the train a lot.  Not sure exactly when but the train (eastbound) came through Fullerton in the afternoon, maybe around 1:30 or so.  So figuring the same schedule roughly estimate around an 8:00 PM arrival into Vegas.  That seems about right since dinner was before Vegas.

Of course this train was never great for on time performance.  In the early days it had only one F40.  Unfortunately more often then not, either the HEP would go out, or the loco itself would die.  When the loco would die a freight loco would typically be called to help (either UP or Santa Fe).  Meaning max speed was then limited to freight speeds.  When the HEP went out the train was annulled and you'd be bussed to your destination...not a great alternative.

[spectratone]

does anybody remember how long it took for the old desert wind to get to vegas from L.A. ?