Los Angeles To Las Vegas (CA and NV Sponsored Possibilities?)

[seat38a]

It seems most of the private sector ideas for a train to Las Vegas from LA seems to be DOA. Could a model like the Amtrak Cascades with dual state support work for a multi frequency daily "Amtrak Desert", or "Amtrak Sin City" work between LAX -> LAS? The freeway is a joke and a parking lot most of the time and flying takes a good 4 hours when you take into all the little things together. It seems like the perfect distance for a train. Also, not 100% sure, but most of the distance outside of say Barstow would be non stop since there is nothing to stop at past Barstow. Hypothetically of course assuming that CA and NV both decided to fork out the money to start this service.

 

[the_traveler]

I think part of the problem is getting UP to agree without oodles and oodles of cash. (Didn't they want close to a Billion dollars to restart the Pioneer or to make the SL daily? :huh: ) If I remember, the line north of Daggett is mostly upgrade and single tracked - and that is the UP main line. At least from PDX to SEA is multi tracked.

 

[Karl1459]

If irrc, this has been discussed numerous times.

UP apparently wanted to double track Daggett to LV on its own, but was stalled due to enviromental concerns in the Afton (Mojave River) Canyon.

 

[AmtrakPDX]

All of your points are well founded. Unfortunately, this is suggestive of a powerful airline lobby. (Great book about this: Waiting on a Train.) You're so right though, this would be a train route. I think we'll 'eventually' see it, just needs more citizen/political pressure.

 

[afigg]

I think part of the problem is getting UP to agree without oodles and oodles of cash. (Didn't they want close to a Billion dollars to restart the Pioneer or to make the SL daily? :huh: ) If I remember, the line north of Daggett is mostly upgrade and single tracked - and that is the UP main line. At least from PDX to SEA is multi tracked.

The sums that UP wanted for track upgrades for passenger trains to Las Vegas was on the order of $60 million total from X-Train, IIRC. X-Train signed an agreement with UP for ~$30 million (again, IIRC) in upgrades that would allow X-Train to start service. But X-Train's financing fell through, so the agreement with UP expired. There should be a lot about this in the X-Train Chugging Along? thread in the General Rail discussion forum.

There is a Nevada funded 2007 study titled "Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study" (6 MB PDF, 213 pages) which is available on-line. To get to competitive trip times, the study recommended a number of track upgrades. However, in the years since the study, many of the track improvement projects on the Southern CA / Greater LA end have been completed or are funded so the barriers to a LA to Las Vegas conventional passenger rail service are lower than in 2007. But with 2 private investor groups still around with vastly different plans for SoCal to Las Vegas service, they apparently undercut any moves that the NV government might make to start an subsidized Amtrak corridor service.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What would be the benefit to California for paying into a train to Vegas? Seems like 90% of the initial benefit would be going to Nevada. I suppose if you could provide a study to show that intrastate pollution levels would be substantially reduced by implementing an interstate passenger rail link to compete with cars and aircraft then maybe they'd consider it. Other than that I'm not sure why they'd consider this to be any sort of priority.

 

[seat38a]

What would be the benefit to California for paying into a train to Vegas? Seems like 90% of the initial benefit would be going to Nevada. I suppose if you could provide a study to show that intrastate pollution levels would be substantially reduced by implementing an interstate passenger rail link to compete with cars and aircraft then maybe they'd consider it. Other than that I'm not sure why they'd consider this to be any sort of priority.

Whats the benefit to Washington State for shouldering the cost of the Cascades to Portland? From what I read, Portland Union Station is the splitting point of which State pays for what, so Washington is paying for the train south to Portland and Oregon is paying for the service south of Portland.

 

[seat38a]

Funding wise, I think the bulk of it would come from the California side. Probably through another ballot initiative like Prop 108 and 116 that paid for all the equipment used by Amtrak California. We here in California are good at taxing ourselves when it comes to public transportation.

 

[Paulus]

I would very much object to California spending money on a rail link to Las Vegas (or to increased spending on the highway to it for that matter). There's no benefit to California from it. If Nevada wants the tourism dollars, they can pay for it themselves.

 

[seat38a]

I would very much object to California spending money on a rail link to Las Vegas (or to increased spending on the highway to it for that matter). There's no benefit to California from it. If Nevada wants the tourism dollars, they can pay for it themselves.

I think a good split could be CA LAX -> Barstow and NV Barstow -> LAS

The CA dollars would be used to say operate multiple frequency's connecting Barstow / Victorville to LA and then NV money can be used to fund it the rest of the way to LAS. Also, Barstow is the "ALMOST EXACT" halfway point between LAX and LAS.

 

[seat38a]

"Just Me Thinking Out Loud"

Maybe NV can add a "Casino Car" say a refurbished bi level car with slots on the upper level and a bar with video poker machines on the lower level. It would be only open for the Non stop portion from Barstow to Las Vegas which NV would fund. "Creative Revenue" generation that may cover the cost of the subsidy required.

Between the ticket revenue, Casino Revenue, and Over The Top Las Vegas Casino Advertisement plastered on the side of the cars, it could be a very profitable train! :giggle:

 

[afigg]

I would very much object to California spending money on a rail link to Las Vegas (or to increased spending on the highway to it for that matter). There's no benefit to California from it. If Nevada wants the tourism dollars, they can pay for it themselves.

How much of I-15 between San Bernardino and Las Vegas is in CA? Most of it obviously, so CA is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of most of the heavily used highway between LA region and Las Vegas. If it were possible to widen I-15 to Las Vegas, CA would be picking much of the state portion of such a project. Besides, I expect most of the people using I-15 between LA and Vegas are CA citizens. If NV were to get serious about state financial support of a LA to Las Vegas corridor service, pretty sure they would be looking to CA to pick up a portion of the costs.

If Xpress West HSR does not come to pass, LA Union Station with the run-through tracks will have a lot more capacity by 2019-2020. Adding a LA to Vegas corridor service could be more viable by then for the track capacity and acceptable trip time. The politics of NV and CA financial support is another matter.

 

[afigg]

"Just Me Thinking Out Loud"

Maybe NV can add a "Casino Car" say a refurbished bi level car with slots on the upper level and a bar with video poker machines on the lower level. It would be only open for the Non stop portion from Barstow to Las Vegas which NV would fund. "Creative Revenue" generation that may cover the cost of the subsidy required.

Between the ticket revenue, Casino Revenue, and Over The Top Las Vegas Casino Advertisement plastered on the side of the cars, it could be a very profitable train! :giggle:

A passenger train will be subject to CA state law until it crosses the NV state border. So a casino car would be able to operate only during the 30-40 miles from the border to Vegas. Not enough time to be practical.

 

[Paulus]

I think a good split could be CA LAX -> Barstow and NV Barstow -> LAS

The CA dollars would be used to say operate multiple frequency's connecting Barstow / Victorville to LA and then NV money can be used to fund it the rest of the way to LAS. Also, Barstow is the "ALMOST EXACT" halfway point between LAX and LAS.

California has no real interest in providing a high speed rail link to Barstow.

How much of I-15 between San Bernardino and Las Vegas is in CA? Most of it obviously, so CA is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of most of the heavily used highway between LA region and Las Vegas. If it were possible to widen I-15 to Las Vegas, CA would be picking much of the state portion of such a project. Besides, I expect most of the people using I-15 between LA and Vegas are CA citizens. If NV were to get serious about state financial support of a LA to Las Vegas corridor service, pretty sure they would be looking to CA to pick up a portion of the costs.

If Xpress West HSR does not come to pass, LA Union Station with the run-through tracks will have a lot more capacity by 2019-2020. Adding a LA to Vegas corridor service could be more viable by then for the track capacity and acceptable trip time. The politics of NV and CA financial support is another matter.

I don't think California ought to be investing in a wider I-15 and I think that it ought to consider reducing maintenance and even the size of I-15 where possible.

As for additional capacity, Coachella Valley, Coast Daylight, Surfliner, and Metrolink could all easily make better use of that capacity.

 

[BCL]

How much of I-15 between San Bernardino and Las Vegas is in CA? Most of it obviously, so CA is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of most of the heavily used highway between LA region and Las Vegas. If it were possible to widen I-15 to Las Vegas, CA would be picking much of the state portion of such a project. Besides, I expect most of the people using I-15 between LA and Vegas are CA citizens. If NV were to get serious about state financial support of a LA to Las Vegas corridor service, pretty sure they would be looking to CA to pick up a portion of the costs.

If Xpress West HSR does not come to pass, LA Union Station with the run-through tracks will have a lot more capacity by 2019-2020. Adding a LA to Vegas corridor service could be more viable by then for the track capacity and acceptable trip time. The politics of NV and CA financial support is another matter.

I don't think California ought to be investing in a wider I-15 and I think that it ought to consider reducing maintenance and even the size of I-15 where possible.

Federal dollars partially pay for I-15 and it's a major route for long-haul truckers. It's designated the "Economic Lifeline" corridor as a high priority corridor by the Federal Highway Administration.

http://dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/15-215-reconfig/index.htm

There is no way that the feds are going to allow I-15 to be narrowed and maintenance reduced. Doing so would probably result in an increase in traffic incidents as well as an increased amount of traffic deaths. People are going to be using this route, and the combination of tourists going up to Vegas as well as all the trucks transporting goods (to Nevada, Utah, Idaho, etc) from Mexico and ports in Long Beach mean that there will be lots of trucks traveling the same route with cars.

 

[seat38a]

"Just Me Thinking Out Loud"

Maybe NV can add a "Casino Car" say a refurbished bi level car with slots on the upper level and a bar with video poker machines on the lower level. It would be only open for the Non stop portion from Barstow to Las Vegas which NV would fund. "Creative Revenue" generation that may cover the cost of the subsidy required.

Between the ticket revenue, Casino Revenue, and Over The Top Las Vegas Casino Advertisement plastered on the side of the cars, it could be a very profitable train! :giggle:

A passenger train will be subject to CA state law until it crosses the NV state border. So a casino car would be able to operate only during the 30-40 miles from the border to Vegas. Not enough time to be practical.

Hey we allowed Indian Gaming through the ballot, anything is possible if it gets enough signatures to get on the ballot.

 

[seat38a]

I think a good split could be CA LAX -> Barstow and NV Barstow -> LAS

The CA dollars would be used to say operate multiple frequency's connecting Barstow / Victorville to LA and then NV money can be used to fund it the rest of the way to LAS. Also, Barstow is the "ALMOST EXACT" halfway point between LAX and LAS.

California has no real interest in providing a high speed rail link to Barstow.

How much of I-15 between San Bernardino and Las Vegas is in CA? Most of it obviously, so CA is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of most of the heavily used highway between LA region and Las Vegas. If it were possible to widen I-15 to Las Vegas, CA would be picking much of the state portion of such a project. Besides, I expect most of the people using I-15 between LA and Vegas are CA citizens. If NV were to get serious about state financial support of a LA to Las Vegas corridor service, pretty sure they would be looking to CA to pick up a portion of the costs.

If Xpress West HSR does not come to pass, LA Union Station with the run-through tracks will have a lot more capacity by 2019-2020. Adding a LA to Vegas corridor service could be more viable by then for the track capacity and acceptable trip time. The politics of NV and CA financial support is another matter.

I don't think California ought to be investing in a wider I-15 and I think that it ought to consider reducing maintenance and even the size of I-15 where possible.

As for additional capacity, Coachella Valley, Coast Daylight, Surfliner, and Metrolink could all easily make better use of that capacity.

I'm sure there are people who live in San Bernardino county would disagree with you.

 

[BCL]

I don't think California ought to be investing in a wider I-15 and I think that it ought to consider reducing maintenance and even the size of I-15 where possible.

As for additional capacity, Coachella Valley, Coast Daylight, Surfliner, and Metrolink could all easily make better use of that capacity.

I'm sure there are people who live in San Bernardino county would disagree with you.

Yeah - there's a lot more to highway contruction and maintenance than the thought of facilitating the flow of tourist dollars. There's interstate commerce, traffic safety, economic losses due to traffic, etc. The traffic along I-15 is already there. The concern now is about providing a service for the people who use it. Of course California wants to see I-15 run smoothly up to Nevada. It's where truckers transport containers that were offloaded in Long Beach or Los Angeles as well as ship containers from inland areas back to load onto container ships. It provides jobs to long-haul truckers based in California. They sell fuel to commercial and private vehicles traveling over that road.

We build airports that partially subsidize the flow of people from one area to areas where they might spend tourist dollars.

It's a far more complicated issue than can be solved by denying funding to I-15 because Californians use it to get to Las Vegas.

 

[Paulus]

Discouraging trucking in favor of rail is a goal that ought to be pursued by the state of California as well.

 

[BCL]

Discouraging trucking in favor of rail is a goal that ought to be pursued by the state of California as well.

I've worked in rail transport as a summer job. Not quite so easy. It's already "heavily impacted". Moving more freight over the rails we have now would probably create an incentive for the freight railroads to prioritize those over passenger traffic - even more so than now. The fact is that all forms of transportation are needed.

 

[seat38a]

I don't think California ought to be investing in a wider I-15 and I think that it ought to consider reducing maintenance and even the size of I-15 where possible.

As for additional capacity, Coachella Valley, Coast Daylight, Surfliner, and Metrolink could all easily make better use of that capacity.

I'm sure there are people who live in San Bernardino county would disagree with you.

Yeah - there's a lot more to highway contruction and maintenance than the thought of facilitating the flow of tourist dollars. There's interstate commerce, traffic safety, economic losses due to traffic, etc. The traffic along I-15 is already there. The concern now is about providing a service for the people who use it. Of course California wants to see I-15 run smoothly up to Nevada. It's where truckers transport containers that were offloaded in Long Beach or Los Angeles as well as ship containers from inland areas back to load onto container ships. It provides jobs to long-haul truckers based in California. They sell fuel to commercial and private vehicles traveling over that road.

We build airports that partially subsidize the flow of people from one area to areas where they might spend tourist dollars.

It's a far more complicated issue than can be solved by denying funding to I-15 because Californians use it to get to Las Vegas.

I have to say, your response so far is the most "thought out" than most of the "Let Nevada Pay For Everything" attitude that I am seeing.

 

[afigg]

As for additional capacity, Coachella Valley, Coast Daylight, Surfliner, and Metrolink could all easily make better use of that capacity.

I'm sure there are people who live in San Bernardino county would disagree with you.

Coachella Valley corridor service and Metrolink upgrades would both improve San Bernardino to LA train service options. San Bernardino to Vegas passenger rail service will need lifting from either X-Train, Xpress West, or eventually the state of Nevada. None of which I would rule out yet.

 

[Anderson]

One thing to remember is that an LA-Vegas service would save capacity at LAX for longer-haul flights, much as CAHSR intends to do the same for LA-SF flights. There's also another market, and that's Victorville-Los Angeles. While I do not foresee this being a massive market, you've got enough folks driving into LA over the pass that pulling some of them off with a train (even a high-speed one that runs downtown via Burbank) would do wonders. The Vegas traffic may be the bread and butter of this service, but if they're discharging folks at Victorville and Palmdale, grabbing commuters would improve load factors by quite a bit.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't think California ought to be investing in a wider I-15 and I think that it ought to consider reducing maintenance and even the size of I-15 where possible.

As for additional capacity, Coachella Valley, Coast Daylight, Surfliner, and Metrolink could all easily make better use of that capacity.

I'm sure there are people who live in San Bernardino county would disagree with you.

Yeah - there's a lot more to highway contruction and maintenance than the thought of facilitating the flow of tourist dollars. There's interstate commerce, traffic safety, economic losses due to traffic, etc. The traffic along I-15 is already there. The concern now is about providing a service for the people who use it. Of course California wants to see I-15 run smoothly up to Nevada. It's where truckers transport containers that were offloaded in Long Beach or Los Angeles as well as ship containers from inland areas back to load onto container ships. It provides jobs to long-haul truckers based in California. They sell fuel to commercial and private vehicles traveling over that road.

We build airports that partially subsidize the flow of people from one area to areas where they might spend tourist dollars.

It's a far more complicated issue than can be solved by denying funding to I-15 because Californians use it to get to Las Vegas.

I have to say, your response so far is the most "thought out" than most of the "Let Nevada Pay For Everything" attitude that I am seeing.

I would say his point makes sense up to and including maintaining the route as is. However, when it comes to building more lanes or routes I would be surprised to see California volunteer any serious money or to be coerced into doing so by Nevada. The federal government could potentially force the issue as a prerequisite for funding but other than that I would expect the route to follow the status quo for now. Although the passenger rail option does not seem to have met with much success as of yet I would think that such an option has a bit more chance of receiving funding from California, at least compared to new road construction.