• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

More high speed fail in Ca.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,320
5,275
126
I thought they built that? It runs behind the resorts on both sides of the strip right? I have been on it once.
there's a monorail system that's been around for well over a decade. this light rail project sounds like a separate commuter project rather than the disney style tourist monorail.

looking on the intertrons i see they've shot down light rail but are potentially looking into bus rapid transit. which is basically the same thing but runs on plain concrete using diesel rather than on rails and electric. costs about 1/2 the construction cost. i guess rails and overhead line are expensive.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
I rode on some kind of rail that connect the casinos as well. I actually found it pretty convenient.
I like that rail as well, though the rates were astronomical compared jumping down onto the main strip and riding the duece. This rail runs behind the strip, but thats pretty much it.

What was being refereed to originally was a proposed rail project from LA to Las Vegas that was shot down after cost and routing were found to be problems.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
I rode on some kind of rail that connect the casinos as well. I actually found it pretty convenient.
I thought they built that? It runs behind the resorts on both sides of the strip right? I have been on it once.
There is a monorail that runs from the MGM to the Sahara behind those casinos on the east side of the strip.
This a tourist attraction, not a people mover. If it was intended so; they would offer discounts for casino employees :(

The light rail was supposed to go from Henderson (SE of Vegas) along the beltway (bypassing the airport); doglegging to the UNLV campus and then running between the casinos on the west side of the strip and I95 to downtown and then heading NW toward a "future" campus; bypassing both the community college campuses on Cheyenne and Charleston.

Non-consultant recommendations were to develop a dedicated rubber route to see if there was an actual demand for service. This allowed the flexibility of adapting if the routes did not pay out. Not as sexy as rail but cheaper by 90&#37;. Bus stops/transfers could have been built where there would be train stations put up, in order to reserve the land for later use.


I like that rail as well, though the rates were astronomical compared jumping down onto the main strip and riding the duece. This rail runs behind the strip, but thats pretty much it.

What was being refereed to originally was a proposed rail project from LA to Las Vegas that was shot down after cost and routing were found to be problems.
Nope - this was a local trying to get 80% Federal $$ for a boondoggle. They tried to justify the design by equating to SLC. However, Vegas does not have a fixed work schedule unlike most cities and no simple end points
 
Last edited:

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
Why not just drill down 100 feet and dig out a big long tunnel. I wouldnt want to travel in such a thing in fault zone, but hey thats a universal risk at this point. If there is an earthquake, you could die in a plane on the tarmac, you never know. At any rate it has got to be cheaper to run a digger than to mess around on the surface. Especially with the mining equipment we have nowadays.

We should be building something like a vactrain prototype. Someone is going to build it eventually. If we dont do it we're going to become an obsolete wasteland.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
What you are being mislead by is the fact that this figure is for procuring the last few miles of right-of-way in downtown Los Angeles.

Like the rest of the misinformation on the subject the devil in in the details.

But then this is about affirming some folks silly ideology through outrage, not facts, standard "fare" for this forum. ;)
Ok, do you have any idea how much those last few miles cost so we can back that out and get a more accurate figure? I am truly interested in a reasonably accurate cost per mile for high speed rail.

Still, all in that is an absurd amount of money per mile. Why can't they put the end of the line right when you enter downtown LA instead of going a few miles in considering the absurd amount you are saying it will cost?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Actually its more like 175 million per mile if you use google maps distance of 381 miles from SF to LA :p

But to answer your question it just simple math :p

$67,000,000,000/381miles=175million(and change)/mile
The "simple math" doesn't answer the question of WHY it costs so much.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
I rode on some kind of rail that connect the casinos as well. I actually found it pretty convenient.
Not sure if its the same thing but that is the monorail and I am pretty sure it was there before 05 but I could be wrong.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
Nope - this was a local trying to get 80% Federal $$ for a boondoggle. They tried to justify the design by equating to SLC. However, Vegas does not have a fixed work schedule unlike most cities and no simple end points
Thanks for clarifying. Maybe the LA to Vegas rail is still in the works then :sneaky:
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Holy shit! Just for comparison the entire fucking Panama Canal cost $375M in 1907. According to on online calculator that would be $8.6B today adjusting for inflation. Building 8 freaking Panama Canals has to be more expensive than a few hundred miles of high speed rail.

I am not against high speed rail or anything, I am just trying to figure out why its so damned expensive.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I would be all for it, but we can't do it because the State of California has regulated so heavily against itself it lies so far outside of cost-effectiveness that we've been wasting tons on it. I wish we could build it, throw aside all the bullshit environmental and employment regs etc and start up. Won't happen though and that's sad.


Holy shit! Just for comparison the entire fucking Panama Canal cost $375M in 1907. According to on online calculator that would be $8.6B today adjusting for inflation. Building 8 freaking Panama Canals has to be more expensive than a few hundred miles of high speed rail.

I am not against high speed rail or anything, I am just trying to figure out why its so damned expensive.
Because in order to comply with every regulation is an impossibility.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
If you really think the cost is going to be 90b, you need to look at recent public projects.

The Big Dig in Boston. Initial cost - 5-6b, final cost - 22b
SF Bay Bridge east span replacement - Initial cost - 2.6b (current design), current cost - 6b.

If built, expect the HSR to cost 150B+....
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Thank for the link. From the conclusions i'd say that HSR isn't a good solution in California, but then I'm very biased on the subject. It was impossible for the people to make an informed choice on the Proposition to build it though since they were so actively lied to by the proponents of the Proposition.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,320
5,275
126
Because in order to comply with every regulation is an impossibility.
beyond regulations, land acquisition costs in southern california and the bay area are a lot higher than land acquisition costs (if any) in panama.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I personally love the fact that Steeplerot is 100% in favor of a project which probably actually costs about $10B while shoving $80B into the pockets of the 1%.

For the proletariat!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I personally love the fact that Steeplerot is 100% in favor of a project which probably actually costs about $10B while shoving $80B into the pockets of the 1%.

For the proletariat!
To be fair to Steeplerot he's pretty consistent about supporting anything that forces other people to subsidize his lifestyle, especially if those people are in the suburbs.

It's a damned shame we can't seem to do rail in this country.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,799
1,540
136
It's a damned shame we can't seem to do rail in this country.
It's mainly because the country is such a large landmass and everything outside of the Boston-Washington area is so spread out.

Hell, even in the rail proponent's wet dream (Europe) people tend to fly anywhere that's more than 125-150 miles away.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
It's mainly because the country is such a large landmass and everything outside of the Boston-Washington area is so spread out.

Hell, even in the rail proponent's wet dream (Europe) people tend to fly anywhere that's more than 125-150 miles away.
Good points.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
Why not just drill down 100 feet and dig out a big long tunnel. I wouldnt want to travel in such a thing in fault zone, but hey thats a universal risk at this point. If there is an earthquake, you could die in a plane on the tarmac, you never know. At any rate it has got to be cheaper to run a digger than to mess around on the surface. Especially with the mining equipment we have nowadays.

We should be building something like a vactrain prototype. Someone is going to build it eventually. If we dont do it we're going to become an obsolete wasteland.
Im pretty sure digging a tunnel with exits for that entire route would be expensive as all hell.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,338
4,761
126
I'm a non-native Californian, and while I like the idea of a high-speed train from Sacramento to San Diego with stops at major cities along the way, it's just not feasible at this time. The state is having too fucking many financial problems to even consider taking on such a project. Then, you have to factor in all the "NIMBY" folks who don't want it where they're at, and also the "What about me?" folks who DO want it where they're at...even if it means adding a couple hundred more miles to the route...and will bypass other people who also want to have the train in their area. (not to mention that in some urban areas, building/land costs will be MUCH higher, regulations may cause the trains to go much slower, and lobbying will probably require a stop in every small city it passes through.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
I'm a non-native Californian, and while I like the idea of a high-speed train from Sacramento to San Diego with stops at major cities along the way, it's just not feasible at this time. The state is having too fucking many financial problems to even consider taking on such a project. Then, you have to factor in all the "NIMBY" folks who don't want it where they're at, and also the "What about me?" folks who DO want it where they're at...even if it means adding a couple hundred more miles to the route...and will bypass other people who also want to have the train in their area. (not to mention that in some urban areas, building/land costs will be MUCH higher, regulations may cause the trains to go much slower, and lobbying will probably require a stop in every small city it passes through.
I think its a good idea to have it stop in smaller markets. I would love a train that went from riverside to the westside with stops in between. That would be amazing and totally get rid of a lot of congestion.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
I think its a good idea to have it stop in smaller markets. I would love a train that went from riverside to the westside with stops in between. That would be amazing and totally get rid of a lot of congestion.
You think it would, but it wouldn't help as much as you think. The westside is a pretty large place still and your now expecting people to take additional mass transit after their train ride. For LA, thats not gonna happen.

(also, what your proposing is something more regional along the lines of the SF Bart system rather then HSR).
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
You think it would, but it wouldn't help as much as you think. The westside is a pretty large place still and your now expecting people to take additional mass transit after their train ride. For LA, thats not gonna happen.

(also, what your proposing is something more regional along the lines of the SF Bart system rather then HSR).
hey you stupid fuck - i live in west La and we are planning monorail. In fact one of the planned stops is half a block from my studio and the business already moved out of the space.

How about you talk about what you know about and I will do the same.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY