Yes, it just went into service a few years ago.george matthews wrote:I think there is a monorail - a type of transit only used in play sites.
Why not? If the casinos are willing to foot the bill, let them.george matthews wrote:Personally I wouldn't recommend any investment in transport to las Vegas. I don't believe it has a long term future. For one thing alone, its supply of water is under threat from the dessication of the Colorado river. For another, I doubt if its parasitic economy has a long term future.
And an airbase that doesn't officially exist at Groom Lake on the Nellis range, flying planes that don't officially exist!Nasadowsk wrote:Nevada's a weird state anyway, mostly owned by the feds, legalized gambling, legalized prostitution, and dotted with tiny towns between basically two population centers (three?)
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn would seem to be a very functional suspended monorail. It has been running since 1901, so I would hardly dismiss the concept as a "type of transit only used in play sites."george matthews wrote: I think there is a monorail - a type of transit only used in play sites.
Even your truly advocates a return of Amtrak service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, which seems like a most prudent investment.george matthews wrote:Personally I wouldn't recommend any investment in transport to las Vegas.
There are many water use issue in the far west, many of which are associated with irrigated agriculture and power generation, not just urban development. Similarly, the same sort of comment about a "parasitic economy" might apply equally to the Washington D.C. area, where the current employment growth is almost entirely from the public sector, although there are few who would doubt that the area has a "long term future."george matthews wrote: I don't believe it has a long term future. For one thing alone, its supply of water is under threat from the dessication of the Colorado river. For another, I doubt if its parasitic economy has a long term future.
I'm inclined to say that the conventional train is the only practical option for bringing passenger rail back to Las Vegas. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a market for a daylight train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, and with the current recession, the UP might be more amenable to starting with a single daily round trip. Ideally, Amtrak would start with a daily coach only Los Angeles to Las Vegas train, and develop ridership before examining increased frequencies and a replacement for the former Desert Wind, preferably on a daily basis.Nasadowsk wrote:Looks like the project's for real, not just a pipe dream - it's gotten the attention of the latest GAO report (see recent topic in this forum).
It's the most rational proposal of the three - Maglev's a non starter, and even the 'faster' 5+ hour conventional train is a worthless exercise...
There's no sustainable business model for a 5+ hour train, period. Granted, anywhere else in the world, 180 someodd miles in circa 2 hours wouldn't be high speed rail anyway.goodnightjohnwayne wrote: In reality, there is no sustainable business model for high speed rail to Las Vegas without demonstrating the viability of conventional passenger rail.
Well, that would be quite a shock to the millions of passengers who routinely take the train on a trip of more than 5 hours.Nasadowsk wrote:Since the public rejected it a few decades ago.goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
Where did you get that idea? Since when is 5 hours the limit of human endurance in a day coach?