As far as I can see, this story is 100% snide comments from Republicans reported as a fact, starting in all places at the Washington Post. Las Vegas to LA is a perfectly reasonable HSR project, however, although of course, not Maglev. Any large City pair less than 350 miles from the other is an excellent candidate for HSR service. TGV service will kill air transport at these distances every time. That includes several possible city pairs in the West.This a a phony non-story dreamed up by Republicans. There is not ONE WORD in the stimulus bill about any train going to or from Las Vegas. Further, it's the DOT that has authority to award the grants on a competitive basis. And, last time I checked, the Secretary of Transportation was a Republican."Republicans regard the provision as a barely disguised earmark for a proposed magnetic-levitation rail line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, in California, championed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). But Democrats said 11 proposed high-rail corridors throughout the country would all have to compete for the money. "Quote from Washington Post.
Folks, this is how the echo chamber works: some pol invents a circumstance out of whole cloth, our ever-vigilant press reports it as gospel without even pretending to determine its truth, then it's repeated endlessly on talk-radio, then it becomes conventional wisdom, then it turns up on AU.
So, no, there is about a 0% of any money going to a Las Vegas train, no matter what the commentariat says.
FRA list seems a little odd to me too.
I believe I saw a report that the HSR has to be in excess of 150 mph, meaning TGV, not mere track straightening.
I hope they federalize the permitting and siting process and then expedite it through special legislation.
I'm wondering what kind of long term committment is with the projects. If its $8 bil per year for the indefinite future, that's 4 big projects over 5 years, with some money left for California.
If it were me, I'd invite the route proponents through their state DOTs to make dog and pony shows and fund the ones that had the most wide-spread support along the entire length of the project, assuming they were sensible city-pairs. I'd designate one project as "first alternate" and if the NIMBY pressure got too high in say, Austin or Vermont, I'd move the project to first alternate in a heart-beat. Say, Las Vegas to LA. Multi-state routes would be a tie-breaker. All things being equal, its better politically to have a line move through two or more states.
Isn't it funny how quickly the public mood changes from "This is outrageous pork!" to "Why are we being left out?"