tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post6917178444151133692..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Arnold Schwarzenegger + Jim Gibbons = Maglev to Vegas?Robert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-67811799606649720732008-12-30T22:43:00.000-08:002008-12-30T22:43:00.000-08:00High speed train is very necessary in today's cont...High speed train is very necessary in today's contest in the USA. This will provide alternative to slow and high traffic highway system. <BR/>The most importand thing is it will not consume gas and make us free from foreign oil and use our own electricity which will save billions of dollars in our country and help to create new jobs and technologies.<BR/>this will also provide safe and cheaper transportation than avaitation.kabitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03924802050822034080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86362544461242360872008-12-30T22:38:00.000-08:002008-12-30T22:38:00.000-08:00hihikabitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03924802050822034080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-86618420927861421852008-12-28T10:48:00.000-08:002008-12-28T10:48:00.000-08:00@ Alon Levy -yes, maglev does support greater acce...@ Alon Levy -<BR/><BR/>yes, maglev does support greater acceleration. However, on a non-stop trip from Las Vegas to e.g. LA, that makes little difference in terms of line haul time.<BR/><BR/>It's only when you have short lines or want to make lots of stops that the additional acceleration is useful. There simply aren't enough dense population centers in close proximity to one another between LA and Las Vegas to justify the premium. There will be have to be quite a few trains each day anyhow or, building any type of high speed line will be too expensive.<BR/><BR/>Again, it's not about which features are available but about which you actually need for a given application. For the SoCal-Vegas connection, very high acceleration isn't one of them.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-17192011063154387472008-12-26T13:51:00.000-08:002008-12-26T13:51:00.000-08:00Pretty much the only compelling technical advantag...<I>Pretty much the only compelling technical advantage maglev has is that it can climb gradients of 8%.</I><BR/><BR/>It also accelerates faster.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-39121786197762798442008-12-26T02:59:00.000-08:002008-12-26T02:59:00.000-08:00@ Alon Levy -the 2:38 figure is for non-stop servi...@ Alon Levy -<BR/><BR/>the 2:38 figure is for non-stop service from SF to LA. Only about 25% of daily trains will be at this service level. The others will be semi-express (some stops), semi-local (most stops) and local (all stops). These will take longer.<BR/><BR/>Maglev consumes slightly less energy than steel wheels technology at the same speed. However, the whole point of maglev is that you can go considerably faster. At high speeds, the dominant factor is aerodynamic resistance, which applies regardless of propulsion system. Energy consumption rises with the square of velocity, rated power requirements with the cube.<BR/><BR/>Note that at speeds in excess of around 140mph, aerodynamics are also the dominant factor in noise emissions. At high speeds, maglev is anything but quiet, though the sound is admittedly less harsh.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFpEA" REL="nofollow">Maglev test train at 581km/h</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIR3-yN7T2Q" REL="nofollow">TGV test train at 574km/h</A><BR/><BR/>Now that <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt9SQ-HjtAQ" REL="nofollow">reliable broadband internet access</A> is possible on bullet trains, time spent in transit can be spent much more productively. While high speed still makes sense, IMHO super-duper extreme high speed no longer does - the capital investment and energy consumption penalties are too high.<BR/><BR/>Pretty much the only compelling technical advantage maglev has is that it can climb gradients of 8%. That means less tunneling in mountainous areas. It's still more expensive overall, though.<BR/><BR/>CHSRA decided against maglev early on for two reasons:<BR/><BR/>(a) there in't enough room in the Caltrain and LOSSAN ROWs to fit in maglev and retain legacy steel wheels services<BR/><BR/>(b) the only viable vendor at the time (and still) is Transrapid from Germany. Unlike Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier et al, they have never invested in a commercial implementation of their own technology. Indeed, after several failed attempts in Germany, the one and only commercial implementation of any kind is the 20-mile section between Shanghai and its airport at Pudong. Maximum speed is only sustained for a very short period.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-74933134188940862342008-12-25T19:14:00.000-08:002008-12-25T19:14:00.000-08:00Also note that maglev's 20 years in the future is ...<I>Also note that maglev's 20 years in the future is one with abundant energy, since maglev is less energy efficient ... with steel wheel on steel rail, you are far better placed to trade off energy efficiency and time efficiency, because steel rather than electricity is holding the train up.</I><BR/><BR/>First, I'm not so sure this is true: maglev has less friction to deal with.<BR/><BR/>Second, maglev is considerably faster, so it displaces more airplane traffic. At current speeds and acceleration rates, conventional HSR can't compete with air on routes like New York to Chicago; maglev can.<BR/><BR/>In fact, maglev might actually reduce construction costs, by making local trains fast enough. There is no way a train with top speed of 350 km/h can do LA to SF in 2:38 without skipping stops. This will require building straight even through intermediate cities, so that express trains will not have to slow down near each station they skip. With maglev, the same type of construction will result in a train that can do LA-SJ-SF in 1:45. However, it's feasible to forgo that construction and require trains to stop at all stations, which will result in end run times of about 2:20, and allow tighter curves near stations.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-83243914705290368442008-12-25T06:26:00.000-08:002008-12-25T06:26:00.000-08:00"For services at higher speeds to make economic se..."<I>For services at higher speeds to make economic sense, on-road and aviation fuels would have to be a lot more expensive.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Language: you mean <I>commercial</I> sense. They make <I>economic</I> sense today, but the commercial bottom line also depends on the distribution of public and private capital investment. Virtually 100% private investment for rail versus heavy direct subsidy and cross-subsidy for the infrastructure used by road freight obviously tilts the balance toward the higher operating cost road freight.<BR/><BR/>However, put rail electrification infrastructure on a level playing field with road infrastructure, and the diesel prices we will see if/when we come out of recession will be ample for long haul high speed freight to make commercial sense.<BR/><BR/>Since public ownership of long-lived infrastructure tends to cut capital costs in half, and federal ownership eliminates the property tax burden on that portion of the infrastructure, it can be self-financing well before petroleum gets back to $100/barrel, let alone $200/barrel.<BR/><BR/>"<I>perhaps it might be useful to consider this map of US megaregions, defined as clusters of metropolitan statistical areas.</I>"<BR/><BR/>While very useful in considering where to start a true HSR trunk line, its still necessary to look at the trip times with different classes of rail and the mean population per route mile for different potential trips within a class to work out the lines of expansion from the trunk. <BR/><BR/>And for a region with a population distribution like the Midwest and Transappalachian Northeast (it continues to be silly to call a state that borders on an Atlantic Seaboard state, with an Atlantic port, and with the first city due west of NYC, "midwestern"), under the megaregion thesis, a Rapid Rail system to interconnect the region would take first priority over an HSR system to connect it with neighboring regions.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-39293624559943632052008-12-25T03:21:00.000-08:002008-12-25T03:21:00.000-08:00@ Francis -did you see the Google Earth maps that ...@ Francis -<BR/><BR/>did you see the Google Earth maps that commenter Loren <A HREF="http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Sites/Pix/HSR/HSR-Proposals.html" REL="nofollow">published</A>?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-38728639841753530982008-12-25T01:14:00.000-08:002008-12-25T01:14:00.000-08:00This map is pretty weak.This <A HREF="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png" REL="nofollow"> map</A> is pretty weak.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434798037034661505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-88409299306512853782008-12-25T01:05:00.000-08:002008-12-25T01:05:00.000-08:00Probably, Chula Vista's foreclosed neighborhoods m...Probably, Chula Vista's foreclosed neighborhoods might be the first step in that direction. <BR/><BR/>Of course any HSR connecting out of California realistically will be after 2030, even at the earliest possible that's hopeful. Las Vegas is the closest and most logical. Plus everyone can rally around not driving home after a weekend in Vegas and chillax on a high speed train, so finding political support for that should be easy. <BR/><BR/>I personally doubt there will be a large maglev system anywhere in 20 years. There probably will be many maglev lines that are less than 100 miles long. But that is a glorified shuttle run, which would work well, but I dont believe I would see a true network soon.<BR/><BR/>I bet a great publicity tool would be to create the HSR routes in all designated HSR corridors proposed by congress recently with that Google map software. Post it to wikipedia and over the next year or so it will very likely generate some buzz all over the country in different circles. I dont think there is a good map out yet.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434798037034661505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72463311859138442312008-12-25T01:00:00.000-08:002008-12-25T01:00:00.000-08:00The Next Slum? by Chris Leinberger offers a glimp...<A HREF="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime" REL="nofollow"> The Next Slum? </A> by Chris Leinberger offers a glimpse of the future. Not all suburbs will become decrepit. But the most recent exurban settlements are in for a long decline. No wonder those exurbs are losing home values faster than any other region. Meanwhile, city houses/apartments with access to transit etc. are keeping their value. <BR/><BR/>If suburbs are able to reinvent themselves as mixed-use self-contained villages with access to transit they will probably be OK (no guarantees). There is a <A HREF="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/what-is-the-future-of-suburbia-a-freakonomics-quorum/" REL="nofollow"> diversity of opinion </A> about that.<BR/><BR/>On a different note (@rafael), I think it's one of the great tragedies of our time that the US (and other industrialized nations -- e.g. Europe to a lesser degree) didn't get a head start on weaning themselves from oil. President Carter was the one guy who was willing to tell the truth to people's faces. Mind you, he was wrong about his worldwide peak-oil estimate and he was ineffective as a politician but he was one of the few who told us to rethink our priorities. Of course they voted him out of office and elected someone who preached denial and profligacy when it came to energy. Once oil gets to 200$, 300$, ... a reordering of our priorities will happen very fast (in people's heads) but with our built environment in suburbia and highways, we are locked in. It will be an exciting and interesting time albeit an ugly and horrible one. Meanwhile, we should all go back and read the prophetic <I>"The Irony of American History"</I> by Reinhold Niebuhr. <BR/><BR/>But enough of that! We're talking about HSR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-57686501861229483842008-12-24T16:39:00.000-08:002008-12-24T16:39:00.000-08:00I heard that the suburbs will become the new ghett...I heard that the suburbs will become the new ghettos. Any truth to that?Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-18791113964041011242008-12-24T15:36:00.000-08:002008-12-24T15:36:00.000-08:00@ BruceMcF -perhaps it might be useful to consider...@ BruceMcF -<BR/><BR/>perhaps it might be useful to consider this map of US megaregions, defined as clusters of metropolitan statistical areas.<BR/><BR/>http://www.spur.org/documents/article110107_images/001.jpg<BR/><BR/>Of course, you can argue about where the boundaries should be drawn but three things should be glaringly obvious: first, there aren't a whole lot of people west of the Rockies and most of those live in the coastal states.<BR/><BR/>Second, a megaregion needs at least one really big city to act as an anchor. The only one that doesn't in this particular classification is Montreal, which is debatable but probably a result of the language barrier and the fact that it isn't part of the US (but then, neither is Toronto so go figure).<BR/><BR/>Third, those megaregions that are very close to one another (Northern & Southern California, Texas Triangle & Gulf Coast, Midwest & NEC) are the best candidates for passenger-oriented high speed rail interconnects.<BR/><BR/>Between the NEC or the Midwest and Piedmont Atlantic, it might make more sense to seek rapid rail interconnects that support a mix of freight and passenger services.<BR/><BR/>Between Southern California and the Midwest, heavy freight makes a lot of sense. For services at higher speeds to make economic sense, on-road and aviation fuels would have to be a lot more expensive. Europe and Japan both heavily tax their on-road fuels and run their trains on electricity, mostly because they have very little in the way of domestic oil supplies.<BR/><BR/>In the US, the domestic oil industry has managed to persuade the body politic that higher fuel taxes would be akin to economic suicide. The result: generous income tax deductions for mortgage holders lead lots of people to buy McMansions out in the boonies on the twin assumptions that gasoline will always be cheap and that houses can always be flipped before teaser rates on ARMs expire. How's that working for you right about now?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24622635233173026002008-12-24T07:23:00.000-08:002008-12-24T07:23:00.000-08:00Also note that maglev's 20 years in the future is ...Also note that maglev's 20 years in the future is one with abundant energy, since maglev is less energy efficient ... with steel wheel on steel rail, you are far better placed to trade off energy efficiency and time efficiency, because steel rather than electricity is holding the train up.<BR/><BR/>Given the CAHSR up and running, LA/LV branching at Mojave seems a natural extension ... a good example of network economies, in fact, as that makes far more sense than a free-standing LA/LV line.<BR/><BR/>However, NV and AZ really are the eastern ends of the line as far as a true HSR goes ... Albuquerque is too small and in the wrong place for a true HSR extension from either, Las Cruces / El Paso arguably in the right place but way too small, and then its a long, long way across Texas until you get to Dallas.<BR/><BR/>In my first diary exploring HSR on Agent Orange, that "coast to coast" impetus came out in full force ... very few Americans have a mental map of the country in terms of where are there big cities / metro areas within 500 miles of each other, but the mental image of the national map is well ingrained, and its fun to fill it in with maps. Proposals like the Apollo Alliance fall into the same trap.<BR/><BR/>Transcontinental makes sense for rapid rail, because that's where rapid rail can leverage the most substantial advantages in freight markets, but true HSR should be built starting with a strong corridor and extending from there, and if the physical and social geography says that the process stops with a regional cluster, than that's the system.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-3358189068705870802008-12-24T03:58:00.000-08:002008-12-24T03:58:00.000-08:00@ Francis -personally, I think connecting to Vegas...@ Francis -<BR/><BR/>personally, I think connecting to Vegas is a borderline proposition and Arizona may well be a bridge too far, at least at this point. I just explored the option to see if the result would be something useful. It seems that whenever someone talks about HSR in the US, the discussion almost immediately jumps to national ambitions, which makes no sense at all. At distances over 600 miles or so, it will always make more sense to fly.<BR/><BR/>In particular, there may be value in connecting Chico and Redding to Sacramento with rapid rail someday. The terrain is reasonably flat and there's plenty of available water along the eastern flank of the Central Valley. It makes a lot more sense to encourage people to settle where there is water than it does to pump that water hundreds of miles across the state at stupendous expense and energy consumption.<BR/><BR/>Eugene to Portland is another rapid rail candidate, the Willamette valley is fairly flat. North from there it could be HSR to Vancouver BC. However, the 200+ miles between Redding and Eugene are very mountainous and would require a lot of very expensive tunnels to support high speeds. There is no justification for that investment at this point, with so many more populous areas in the North America still without any form of decent passenger rail service at all.<BR/><BR/>As for maglev, it's like the hydrogen fuel cell car. Always 20 years in the future because it makes no sense yet. Old geezers like Specter get all excited about shiny new baubles but the truth is infrastructure is supposed to be boring, i.e. just work. That's why you stick with the tried and true and let someone else take the technology risk. I'd rather have a slower conventional train with reliable terrestrial broadband internet access. Running HVDC transmission wires above or next to new HSR lines would be another small but very useful innovation.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52997053600018601782008-12-24T00:26:00.000-08:002008-12-24T00:26:00.000-08:00I am having another HSR/Maglev discussion here . ...I am having another HSR/Maglev discussion <A HREF="http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/22/1m22jenkins194958-future-high-tech-transport-withi/" REL="nofollow"> here </A>. Maglev 2008 was a convention in San Diego last week and it got an article in the paper. Arlan Specter is a huge supporter of Maglev, along with Reid. Anyway let me know what someone thinks of the arguments, and what points I may be skipping over.<BR/><BR/>Rafael - <BR/>The map with Tucson and LV was such a beautiful vision for the future, I just came back from Tucson. Just for kicks you should have connected it to Seattle.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434798037034661505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20630521113881907222008-12-23T21:41:00.000-08:002008-12-23T21:41:00.000-08:00I'm just glad that multiple HSR networks are being...I'm just glad that multiple HSR networks are being discussed at once. My dream for the future is that one day, the entire west coast is linked up by HSR with compatible systems. It would be relatively easy to use the ROW that the Amtrak Coast Starlight uses and have a HSR train running from Sacramento where it could link up with our system, all the way up through Oregon going through Eugene and Portland, then onto Seattle, and maybe even BC in the future (making it an international HSR network like in Europe). The system could run in my places at 220 mph as well because it goes through rural areas that aren't heavily populated, although there are some turns that would have to lengthened, the Amtrak route zip-zags in places. LA would be linked to Las Vegas, San Diego/LA to Phoenix, and maybe more. Of course this is all dependent on how well our system does and if the FRA can put together a HSR board that pushed for a unified HSR specification for the USA. Although many of these distances aren't viable distances that HSR attempts to compete in (i.e. nobody from Seattle would take the train if they were going to San Diego), it does provide the citizens of the west coast with a variety of options on a variety of busy connections. I think CA has begun the long and hard task of putting out the word as to the need of upgrading the USA's most densely populated regions into areas connected by fast, efficient, safe rail transport. I think because our states on the west coast are more open, as opposed to the east coast where everything is very densely populated, it allows us to maintain higher speeds for longer which means the system will be more viable in more places.Alex M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04082494097195214427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9332329411441364122008-12-23T21:33:00.000-08:002008-12-23T21:33:00.000-08:00You may already know of this Maglev proposal by Ap...You may already know of this Maglev proposal by Applied Levitation.<BR/><BR/>http://www.appliedlevitation.com/index.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.fastransitinc.com/passenger.html#<BR/><BR/>http://www.fastransitinc.com/GRT%20rotation.mov<BR/><BR/>http://www.fastransitinc.com/second.html<BR/><BR/>It looks like a better approach for the magnet array. I was concerned about computer control of the levitation itself which has been very challenging over the past decades of Maglev development. This proposal uses direct levitation and lets the computers do the relatively less demanding task of keeping the vehicle centered on the track.<BR/><BR/>Steel wheels on rail is still orders of magnitude less demanding and less reliant on high tech. We have a few expensive and limited Maglev hopefuls vs. the modern HSR of which we have several good products to choose from.<BR/><BR/>Maglev seems to be another 10 or 20 years from being ready for true commercial service and would benefit from a few breakthroughs like room temp superconductors. And as this company says, when it is finally ready and when it makes economic sense, Maglev can be retrofit to existing ROWs.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02542258682255350426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-92167155098784713922008-12-23T20:41:00.000-08:002008-12-23T20:41:00.000-08:00@ Alon Levy - It's also massively expensive to bui...@ Alon Levy - <BR/><BR/>It's also massively expensive to build.Alex M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04082494097195214427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-32642107451461307882008-12-23T18:06:00.000-08:002008-12-23T18:06:00.000-08:00You could just as well build the entire system as ...You could just as well build the entire system as maglev. The main disadvantage of maglev is that it can't run on conventional tracks, at all. Because of FRA safety rules, CAHSR will have to run entirely on its own tracks anyway, eliminating the interoperability advantage of conventional HSR.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-53361604096220665272008-12-23T14:49:00.000-08:002008-12-23T14:49:00.000-08:00"I think reviving the Desert Wind would be too slo..."I think reviving the Desert Wind would be too slow to make a dent in short-haul flights into McCurran"<BR/><BR/>I don't think a revived Desert Wind would make a dent in short-haul flights.<BR/><BR/>However I believe it's a good short-term solution for LA-Vegas. I would prefer taking the train to driving and I think many others will too. <BR/><BR/>I think a once-a-day Desert Wind should be reconsidered by Amtrak and implemented as soon as possible.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-13061130936173586282008-12-23T13:55:00.000-08:002008-12-23T13:55:00.000-08:00@ spokker -I think reviving the Desert Wind would ...@ spokker -<BR/><BR/>I think reviving the Desert Wind would be too slow to make a dent in short-haul flights into McCurran, but it could be useful as a weekend special and whenever there's a big convention on.<BR/><BR/>I'd suggest going with the FRA-compliant <A HREF="http://www.talgoamerica.com/" REL="nofollow">Talgo XXI</A> (in development) so it can run on the existing freight tracks. It shouldn't stop everywhere, though. LA US, San Bernardino, Victorville, Las Vegas.<BR/><BR/>Note that there is local bus transit (<A HREF="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbrti.org%2Fmedia%2Fevaluations%2FLas_vegas_final_report.pdf&ei=I1tRSYXUMIn40AW5rIiEBA&usg=AFQjCNES-on-eliBu1XaGmjeLCp3tLPg9Q&sig2=A9L6LvSmcL6fre55G-b5rA" REL="nofollow">MAX BRT</A>, <A HREF="http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/route/" REL="nofollow">RTC</A>) hub station one block east of the old <A HREF="http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/lasvegasnv.htm" REL="nofollow">Las Vegas Amtrak station</A>.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72940005579710115442008-12-23T13:30:00.000-08:002008-12-23T13:30:00.000-08:00Conventional HSR to Vegas is ideal, but I would ra...Conventional HSR to Vegas is ideal, but I would rather revive the Desert Wind than build a Maglev line to Vegas at this time.<BR/><BR/>We really need to stick to standard gauge railroads if we want interoperability. Transfering sucks, especially if you have bags.<BR/><BR/>If the HSR line to Vegas was standard gauge, then you could do Sac-Vegas runs, SF-Vegas runs, LA-Vegas, San Diego-Vegas, Inland Empire-Vegas, whatever.<BR/><BR/>Our transit network is way too segmented as it is. Let's not add yet more agencies and transfers to our rail network. It's not a competition it's a cooperation!Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64656656911303383222008-12-23T12:54:00.000-08:002008-12-23T12:54:00.000-08:00@ Jim -yes, that's precisely the proposal. Coming ...@ Jim -<BR/><BR/>yes, that's precisely the proposal. Coming from Vegas, your first station may or may not be Barstow, the one after that would be either Bakersfield or Palmdale, depending on where the train is headed.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand what the communication problem on this is. Any Vegas spur should be fully integrated into the HSR network. It would be funded a separate project, but in technical terms it would be no different than the spurs to Sacramento and San Diego.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20023435384384540582008-12-23T12:43:00.000-08:002008-12-23T12:43:00.000-08:00Here's a map of existing ROW - makes sense to use...Here's a map of existing ROW - makes sense to use what's there. Perhaps a "wye" in the desert for serving norcal vegas from bfd-mojave and socal vegas via palmdale http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/states/california/california-railway-map.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com