We have here some Republicans who think there is some money to be made in passenger rail service and are financing Rogich's PR operation. In contradiction to assumptions in the rail riding community, these people could be on to something.
amtraksupporter Member # 5619
posted
Second follow up:
Could the UP be behind this DesertXpress group and Rogich? The idea of starting in Victorville soulds to me like an idea that would someone might have had in Omaha. I sure don't think it came from Southern California.
Rogich is someone the UP would have hired.
Could this be a railroad seeking to get back in the passenger business through a front group?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
maglev is a money pit that loses is luster as soon as realistic cost estimates start being made.
As to DesertXpress: Victorville to Las Vegas?? These people need to quit playing with the wacky tobaccy. By the time someone drives to Victorville the worst is behind them, why not keep on driving? Ditto on the wacky tobaccy for their cost estimate.
At $5 billion, this works out to about $30 million per mile, which if for everything means equipment, stations, construction of the roadbed, tracks and power (assuming electrification) for a 125 mph railroad in some fairly rugged terrain that will mean lots of bridges, tunnels, cuts and fills.
Compare this with the talk of $40 billion for the California High Speed scheme, total 710 miles (I think). This price works out ot $56 million per mile. Yes, there is the problem of accessing urban areas, and lots of tunnels in some areas, but the Central valley is over half the total distance and it is near level and straight.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Question---
To those more familiar with the "lay of the land", could one tunnel under the Mountains connect the LA Basin with both LA-Meadows AND the existing San Joaquin service.
Enquiring mind wants to know; but can hardly elevate the need for passenger rail to that of LA's water supply, which does tunnel under the mountains.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
See this for a general overview of the California High Speed Railroad: http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/meeting_packet_document/agenda_426/StatewideSystemMap.pdf This map is a couple years old. The main difference is that the agency has decided to access the bay area at about the south limit of the cross hatched area for possible routes from the Central Valley to San Francisco Bay.
you can zoom in on this map. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.asp What is shows you is that the current plan is that the hgih speed line more or less follow the old Southern Pacific valley line out of the Los Angeles basin, that is Glendale, Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Mojave, Tehachapi, Bakersfield. Presumably if you wanted a fast line to Las Vegas, you could peel off just north of Palmdale and head northeast across the desert.
This route avoids very long tunnels but will have quite a few shorter ones because the valley is a lot more crooked than a high speed railroad can be and still be high speed.
2) Whither the funding? This to me looks like something California and Nevada need to fund, not the rest of us.
3) What about the environmental concerns which have blocked UP from doubletracking the Los Angeles and Salt Lake line all these years? What's the remediation plan?
4) If I were still living in LA, I could hop a LA-Vegas flight from LAX, Burbank, Ontario, John Wayne, and on and on and on. How many daily frequencies do either of these proposals posit? They'll need a LOT to make any sort of dent in the combined air/auto LA-LV traffic.
5) If I've made it out of LA to Victorville, why expect me to stop there? There needs to be some way to move passengers from multiple origins in the LA greater metro area to Victorville.
6) I'll believe this might happen the day I see a "first tie" ceremony; I'll believe it will happen the day I see a "last spike" ceremony, and I'll believe it's for real when it runs for two years... at a profit.
EDITED TO ADD: From the article: "I remain skeptical that there's sufficient demand to make it appear it could be a market success," said Martin Wachs at the Rand Corp. think tank. "And it would depend ultimately on the willingness of taxpayers to subsidize to some extent that service."
4021North Member # 4081
posted
This kind of arguing and skepticism seems to come up every time high speed rail is mentioned among Amtrak riders, as if the two are mutually exclusive. It distracts from the real issues of planning transportation projects. In fact if anyone wanted to sow confusion and distraction among rail advocates, it wouldn't be hard to do in a climate of mutual exclusion and hostility. On the other hand, if people work together within the rail advocate community and accept that each other has legitimate goals, then the opinions of the community would carry a lot more weight.
I find the proposal to start in Victorville incredible -- the idea of forcing people to drive way out of town to get to a passenger rail station would be ridiculed by most passenger rail planners. I'm not criticizing "incremental" high speed rail, just this particular plan.
Lastly I'm not impressed with the thinking from RAND or anyone else who makes blanket statements about "success," "subsidies," and alleges general doubts about high-speed rail. What has been accomplished during the last few decades of listening to these kinds of ideas?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
4021 North, maybe you need to read the replies a little more carefully. The discussion involves these two particular dingbat schemes, not high speed trains as a concept. In fact, my opinion is that we should be setting up high speed railroad operations between major cities, including building new track on new and in some places existing alignments with the same enthusiasm as went into the Interstate highway system in the late 1950's.
As to Rand: I usually avoid "Think tank" pronouncements as much as possible. A great cure for getting concerned about what they have to say is to look at their pontifications made years ago for what would be going on at a future period that has now arrived or passed. If you find ANY pronouncements that have come to pass as predicted, let me know.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
This should be:
1) Funded by California and Nevada.
2) Run from LAUPT to LV.
3) Have feeders (Can you say existing service) which run from all corners of the LA Metro area.
4) Be built as freestanding rail, vice any reliance on existing ROW. That said, the environmental remediation for whichever endangered species is in the California desert is still a show-stopper.
5) The business plan needs to divert enough passengers from auto and air (in other words, way more than 1 RT per day, more like 12!) that it has a hope of being profitable.
Cue the Mamas and the Papas Please
4021North Member # 4081
posted
Points well taken Mr. Harris, though I wasn't referring to your post, and perhaps more to posts on other threads where people criticized one or another modes of transportation that should really be viewed as complimentary.
hsr_fan Member # 6881
posted
They should just extend the Las Vegas Monorail to LA!
ehbowen Member # 4317
posted
'Twould be cheaper to extend the Disneyland Railroad to Vegas....
hsr_fan Member # 6881
posted
Maybe they should have the Vegas Monorail extend west and the Disneyland Monorail expand east, and when they meet there can be a golden spike type of ceremony!
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
Great idea Matt!
We will expect no less than bagpipes and ponies at the ceremony.
ehbowen Member # 4317
posted
Now just imagine the designs for "dual gauge" rolling stock....
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Matt, I think that's a great idea. It would certainly get lots of free publicity.
posted