High Speed Rail from Los Angeles to Vegas

The announcement of the 13 winners is tomorrow after the state of the union . Obvious Tampa-Orlando is one of the winners since they are flying down there to give the announcement. Rumor is that CA will get 1/3 of money.

It does seem like both projects are attempting to answer the same question of travel demand but from different perspectives, with DesertXpress appearing to be more feasible in the short term while the Maglev is more of a long-term dream if funding and planning come together; the key to the success of either project, though, will likely be how well they are integrated with the current transit system since most people think about the entire journey from point A to point B, not just the train part, and without good connections from Los Angeles and Orange County, the Victorville stop may hinder early adoption, which is a point that has been raised in general transportation circles and even in other areas of discussion that are not transportation-related, such as Bnlboston Limo. Would a Metrolink extension make a big difference in public interest in DesertXpress?

Living in the North-East US rail is an opportunity missed NYC to DC. NYC to Boston is too slow. NYC lines not too good, an example I have heard is New Haven CT to NYC is 2 hours, about the same by car, but is where a big commuter base exists.

Vegas to LA is a mountain (or three) of slow travel. Rail freight rather slow in this area.
JMHO

Quote: Danbury

Living in the North-East US rail is an opportunity missed NYC to DC. NYC to Boston is too slow. NYC lines not too good, an example I have heard is New Haven CT to NYC is 2 hours, about the same by car, but is where a big commuter base exists.

Vegas to LA is a mountain (or three) of slow travel. Rail freight rather slow in this area.
JMHO
link to original post

Pardon me if this was mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread - I didn't notice it - but I think the reason there's no real high speed rail between New York and DC is some combination of (a) having to replace quite a bit of the track, which can't support high speeds at the moment, and (b) right-of-way problems.

The Acela is a high-speed train, but track conditions keep it at low speed for 2/3rds of the trip.
Lots of grade crossings in populated areas and right-of-way issues resulted in railroads making sharp curves not suited for high speed.

It's in no way worth it. If travel time is no big deal to you, then the bus and the existing trains are fast enough and reasonably cheap. If travel time is a big deal to you, then you can fly.

A high speed rail would be as expensive as a plane but not as fast, and a little faster than existing ground transportation but way more expensive. It solves no problems and has no market.

Also consider the intermodal connection requirements of an airport, and the same would be necessary to give a train station the capacity of an airport. Many acres of parking, plus monorail and light rail and buses and access roads to get to and from the station. That's all part of the ticket price too. No good, just a big waste.