Saturday Open Thread
A few items for the weekend, many of them updates from previous items we wrote about during the week:
- The San José Diridon HSR tunnel lives, as Rod Diridon responds to San José Mayor Chuck Reed’s letter that the CHSRA will continue to study the underground station and tunnel, although it is a “longshot.” This is actually the better outcome, since the CHSRA needs to show its work to the public clearly in explaining why a tunnel is a bad idea, instead of just dismissing it. For its part, San José needs to explain where it would get the money to help build the underground station and tunnel.
- Further north, the San Mateo Council of Cities chose San Carlos Vice Mayor Omar Ahmad for an open seat on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which oversees Caltrain, instead of Burlingame city councilman Jerry Deal. Ahmad is seen as a supporter of HSR, whereas Deal has voiced concerns about the project and has called for a tunnel, an expensive option that jeopardizes Caltrain’s electrification and survival plans. Worth keeping this in mind the next time you see someone claim “the Peninsula opposes HSR unless it’s in a tunnel!” – by this vote, it seems most San Mateo County cities actually want HSR to happen.
- Following up on yesterday’s post about the Transbay Terminal, Jamie Whitaker, who is participating in the comments section to that post, is helping circulate a petition to the CHSRA to stop considering the Beale Street alternative. Also in the comments, Dan Krause makes some more good points about the need to keep HSR at the Transbay Terminal.
- Over at The Infrastructurist Yonah Freemark takes a skeptical look at an Indonesia HSR project that has some shady characters behind it and a questionable technological basis.
- Finally, the date and time for Joe Simitian’s State Senate hearing on HSR in Palo Alto has been set: 7PM, Thursday January 21, at the Palo Alto City Council chambers. It’s possible that the meeting may be moved to allow more people to attend; if so I’ll report that here. See you there!
It feels like we’ve spent the week in the Bay Area when it comes to HSR – tomorrow we’ll go visit the Central Valley.
btw – looks like tjpa just revamped their website
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 9:55 am
It’s pretty sweet! But, it’s not lost on me that the tunnel vid… featuring a Caltrain and an HSR train traveling to the TBT… at what seems to be a high speed relative to what teh turns can support. And, that the last turn, the one that is really sharp, is not animated…. it bleeds out before the curve.
Also on Thursday the 14th, according to the Mercury News:
What: California High Speed Rail Authority leaders will give a presentation on possible routes from Diridon Station north to the Santa Clara County line.
When: 6 p.m., Thursday
Where: Bellarmine College Preparatory, Liccardo Center, 960 W. Hedding St. Signs will direct participants to parking and the venue.
For those who don’t know, the Santa Clara County line is at the San Francisquito creek, the northern boundary of Palo Alto, near the location of the famous tree.
After Schwarzenegger’s speech this week, only a lunatic would believe that HSR is going to see a dime’s worth of funding this year or next. No wonder its CEO is bailing — he see the writing on the wall.
Peter Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Which is why Schwarzenegger has stated in the past that HSR is as important as the water bonds project for the future of CA?
Peter Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Unless he flip-flops the way he did on health care reform.
HSRforCali Reply:
January 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Work on your grammar, it’s “seeS the writing on the wall.” And the reason Morshed is retiring is because he’s about a thousand years old, give the guy a break.
Truth be Told Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Feel better now, Sonny?
Whew, exhausted. Okay well for fun and exercise I took the cam along on a super duper long way around walk to pick up the wash, via all the affected hoods and project areas. I have about 40 minutes worth of raw to edit into 3 minutes and then Ill post. It was eye opening even for me cuz I don’t usually pay much attention. Nice shots of the central subway project areas, market unions square/ the corridor, moscone station area, caltrain/4th mission bay/southbeach/ the 2nd street approach, the beale/main neighborhood/ the temp terminal, eye opening real time distance from tbt to bart/fidi versus beal to bart/fidi and so on, and of course I had to throw in some gratuitous sf for good measure. Ill post it when Im done. Im really impressed with whats gone on in the mission bay mission creek area and also I can see why 2nd street is a much easier tear up than beale or main which are both lined with high rise and high end housing.
still waiting for this vid to upload. how long does it take jeeeez.
wu ming Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 7:18 am
if it’s youtube, it’ll take for-freaking-ever. happy waiting.
Can someone please explain what on earth connecticut needs with a high speed rail system. Isn’t it the size of a studio apartment?
Jathnael Taylor Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Everyone is trying to get a peace of the $8B HSR pie.
Peter Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I’m guessing they’re not looking for Express-HSR. Just anything above 79 mph would be an improvement. That route needs to be double-tracked, as well.
HSRforCali Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Another “vulture”. Still, no other state has plans to pay dollar-for-dollar for their system like we do.
Peter Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Well, they ARE a federally-designated HSR corridor…
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Because there’s a cross platform transfer to the NEC ( or an engine change ) in New Haven which gets them to places like Boston or New York or Philadelphia or Washington DC or Stamford or Trenton or Newark or Wilmington or Baltimore or Woodbridge or Newark Airport or Aberdeen or Harrisburg or Mineola or King of Prussia or Alexandria or …. Or because it’s going to be cheaper in the long run than adding a lane in each direction between Springfield and New Haven on I-91… Or because there’s a million people in metro Hartford who have the kind of jobs that make Hartford a destination….
Alon Levy Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Connecticut has the worst slow zones between New York and Boston, which means that it’s one of the most cost-effective places in the US to invest in HSR in.
Unfortunately, Connecticut doesn’t actually give a damn about those slow zones, and is looking to upgrade New Haven-Hartford from vintage 1920s speeds to vintage 1940s speeds.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Since I had the OGR handy Amtrak is slightly faster New Haven to Springfield than the New Haven was in 1956 on the NY-Boston via Springfield trains. Springfield to Boston was a lot faster than today. 8 trains a day in 1956 which Amtrak manages to do on Friday if I remember correctly. So they will be doing better than 1956 speeds.
Bobierto Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:17 am
CT is the same size as San Diego County measured both by area and population (where are OUR two senators, I ask!). And like Sandy Ego, Conn needs to be connected to the larger economies nearby with which it is interconnected. A state is not an island – except arguably Hawaii! The economy of the entire eastern seaboard would benefit by better rail across CT.
whew, finally. after three file sizes and every freakin upload site on the interwebs, I got it. now Im over it already. so heres the video I made yesterday,
which, after I got editing, i lost track of my point for making it and just started having fun with it..
but, you can get a street view real tiime of the areas around the central subway project, the 4th and king mission bay area which as you will see, certainly warrants both and hse and caltrain hub, and then you can compare the 2 nd street versuse the beale south beach approach and take a look at two things…. not how much housing is on the south beach approach and note how close tbt is to the heart versus the very long walk from a beale station…. enjoy it…. oh and I should dedicate it to adiraondacker since its all nice pics of sf… including those palm trees hope you find it enjoyable..
that wasnt it this is it
jimsf Reply:
January 10th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
well if anyone watched, you saw how housing packed that beale approach it and more importantly, just how very close tbt is to the center of the financial district. Ardiron- now I put those palm trees in just for you….. ;-)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I was hoping you’d do 7th from Market in it, it’s a been a long time since I’ve seen Mr. S. But then I found out they’ve moved to 8th. Otherwise it looks just like I remember it. Toronto without the funny bike racks on the parking meters. Chicago without the El or the Sear Tower and some hills. Newark “down neck”. Brooklyn. Philadelphia. Cleveland. Buffalo. Not very Rochester-y but then Rochester isn’t very dense. Washington DC with buildings that aren’t all the same height. Boston with straight streets. Jersey City! especially the parts with the overhead highway. . .
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 2:09 am
mr s is a couple blocks from here. its still there. a lot of things in sf have been moved around re arranged by the new people. I hate that. I want things to be were I left them in the 80s. Its hard enough to remember as it is…. my very first apt from 1983 is stillhere though
Most of the new development has occurred south of market and mission bay including rincon and south beach. the area from 7th to 4th is an “in between spot” slated for future high density but currently with little in jeopardy in the way of housing versus all the new stuff in south beach. thus the hsr/caltrain andcentral subway construction there followed by increased density and much to our dismay, possible increased height limits.
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 2:16 am
i meant “2nd to 4th”
I was reading the newspaper today, which had an article on the terrible state of Bay Area transit agencies: loss of funding -> higher prices -> loss of riders and revenues. The most important part of that article was the fact that transit was simply way too much slower than driving and had simply become too inconvenient.
The analogy to HSR? Serve places close to the destinations (i.e. not out in the freeways) and have plenty of express trains.
Galgiani lobbies for rail funding
Okay I tweeked it a little more and the solution to the three track approach is so simple….
That approach set up they have drawn onthe current plan. forget it. its not that theres only three tracks, its that they have no idea what they are doing and they are wasting capacity with that set up.
Its simple
three tracks.
west outside, center, eastinside
again, for caltrain.
you bring them in single file on the inside (east) track, to south side of caltrain platform, off board, proceed to tail, swtchback, proceed to outbound (north) side of caltrain platform, board and exit into tunnel to center outbound only track.
HSR, all hsr trains approach on outside (west) inbound hsr track, track fan out at throat to the four hsr platform tracks. Train goes to whichever platform is open. Once train spots, hsr from any other platform can depart to throat, very briefly occupying the inbound track only to the point of a cross over, where it moves to the center outbound only track, single file right behind the caltrain that just departed.
see here. they have to configure the tracks like this. The only conflict is the 30 seconds were a departing hsr uses the same track as arriving hsr from the platform to the end of the throat, but its a very brief, less than a minute, time frame.
this makes so much sense to me. I don’t see the problem except that chsra didnt think it thought. they are wasting capacity thats right in front of them.
Clem Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Inbound HSR has to cross over somewhere against the flow of outbound traffic to reach the west track.
here it is
Joey Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 6:30 am
That diagram shows a single track bottleneck for HSR…
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
When the hsr trains depart they cross over the center track. they share the inbound track but only for the 3- seconds it takes to reach the cross over. even with 3 minute headways it works.
Amtrak wants to run high speed rail in Florida.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/11/amtrak-official-makes-pitch-run-florida-high-speed/news-metro/
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
How come Amtrak only eyes the bad HSR projects? How come it’s not proposing to run trains that could actually work, like the California trains or the Texas trains?
Peter Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I think they’ve already made the pitch to run CA’s trains.
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
well there are some clear advantages there. In spite of some criticisms I have of my employer I’m also 100percent confident that they’d be a good fit for california for a whole list of reasons.
Peter Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Hey Jim, are conductors allowed to use cell phones on the job after the Chatsworth accident?
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
No. We cant even contact them at all. (that wasn’t amtrak btw you know that right?) Amtrak got the contract for metrolink because we have a better safety record than that other company who caused the accident.)
Peter Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Nonono. I know it wasn’t. I’m just curious because I saw a Caltrain conductor playing with his iPhone. I semi-regularly ride the same train, and always with the same conductor. He also has never checked my ticket.
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
@peter, well personally, while I understand that at any job, or any company, american employees are notorious for trying to get by with stuff they shouldnt do, or do less than they should, lord knows I do it sometimes, but when it comes to two things – safety and revenue, thats no joke.
no matter what else……
“be safe and get the money.” so running a train and being on the phone, and being on the phone and not collecting the revenue… to me those are big no no’s. Thats all I can say about that. and thats only my personal opinion. i can tell you that we really do take safety seriously, and thats why I get so pissed when management completely disregards their responsibility to employees personal safety ( while the rest of us are trying to do whats right and keep you and each other safe).
If I were you, well, I can’t tell you what to do- but use your judgement ( don’t get into an argument and get tossed off the train though – go through proper channels if you have a concern)
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Yeah, I’m tempted to contact Caltrain on that.
I was not planning on getting into an argument with the conductor. I would like to be able to continue taking Caltrain in the future.
jim Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Neither California nor Texas has disclosed a contracting strategy. Florida has. Florida is going to use their usual contractors on cost-plus contracts for the civil engineering work — the guys who move dirt for them for roads will move dirt for them for rail. Then they’re going to let a fixed price contract covering laying rails; constructing OCS, signals, comm, PTC etc.; buying rolling stock, and operating and maintaining the railroad for the next 30 years. The contractor gets to keep all farebox revenues left over after depreciating rolling stock and maintaining it and the railroad. Florida wants as many proposers as possible (or even lots of people saying they intend to propose, whether they do or not) since they expect at least some proposers to be willing to break even or even take a loss on the construction part of the contract in order to get the operating surpluses over the next thirty years, and the more people say they’ll bid, the more such firms will be motivated to sharpen their pencils.
I doubt that Amtrak can win such a contract, though, since it isn’t in a position to take a loss on construction.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The problem with Florida is that as per SNCF projections, there isn’t going to be much farebox revenue left after operations, maintenance, rolling stock depreciation, and expected contributions to further construction. Those projections include the extension to Miami.
Even those figures are optimistic, because they assume wrong population figures for Miami. The study assumes 7 million people today in Miami plus 1.4 million in West Palm Beach; in reality, Greater Miami has 5.4 million people including Palm Beach.
jimsf Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
good. I know they’ll end up running the midwest corridor but I didn’t think they’d go for florida first.
other news nationwide upgrades wow a entire new fleet!
bombardier gearing up
and maglev just won’t go away I mean are they really serious or what?
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Isn’t DesertXpress supposed to break ground early this year?
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I seriously doubt that DX will break ground now until they’ve figured out how to integrate with CAHSR. Their investors would have to be idiots to allow DX to move ahead without figuring out a connection and compatibility with CAHSR.
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
At this point, a connection with CAHSR is irrelevant, because they are planning on only going to Victorville. A connection to CAHSR would come later.
Walter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant–DX would be a million times better if it connected smoothly to CAHSR. That said, it is true that DX defends Victorville to the death and has made it very clear that they intend to build a track whether or not it reaches LA.
But when DX terminates in Victorville, so close to Riverside (I’m not giving up on an I-215/Cajon Pass route via San Bernardino), or more likely, Palmdale, the link will be built. Either way, it will be one of the most-demanded 50 miles of track in the country and someone will build it. We don’t need a maglev for this, we’d be sitting pretty with timed transfers in Palmdale or Riverside from CHSR trains to DX trains.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I doubt it’s irrelevant to their investors. The DX plans were put in place before prop 1A was passed. Victorville was all they could afford to build – they didn’t have enough money to bring rail to LAUS.
Now that 1A passed, DX is likely to be heavily revising their plans. There were rumors/statements that they wanted to run through trains to LAUS, that would require platform, signaling, loading gauge, acceleration and speed compatibility with CAHSR rolling stock (if DX wants to run their trains from Sylmar to Palmdale, they will need faster trains than 150mph EMUs they originally specced as the CAHSR trains are slated to be operating at full throttle through that segment).
Given that the CHSRA hasn’t made those decisions yet, I don’t imagine that DX is forging ahead with their own ideas.
Quite frankly I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see DX reborn as just another segment of the CAHSR system, with a single operations center and the DX investors owning the track and a share of the operations contract.
Peter Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
True. I’m still stuck in the European mindset where it doesn’t really matter whether the trains all have the same platform height, for example. I forgot about the insane ADA requirements.
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
ADA is not insane. What, so screw the disabled?
dejv Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 12:27 am
ramps and lifts (figure 5). Building brand-new system that would require lifts would definitely be insane but there’s nothing wrong with ramps.
In case of DX with dominant end-to-end ridership, lifts shouldn’t impact travel times though, just dwell times in termini.
jimsf Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 12:40 am
california rail cars are all equiped with lifts. ll newer stations are ADA already, and older stations are using stimulus money for upgrades as we speak.
access is important and its not just about a handful of disabled folks, first many of us have or will have family members who are disabled and america is aging across the board. If you are under 35, you don’t think of these things cuz younger folks are always in a rush and think they are invincible.
i wan’t to know that if I wind up with a mobility issue later on, that the proper infrastructure will be in place.
I find it very interesting that a nation of people who blather on endlessly about morality, have such a strange way of prioritizing things. its funny how the taking care of the downtrodden is always so low on the list. I was under the impression it was suppose to be at the top.
dejv Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 4:26 am
@jimsf:
Imagine this scenario:
- CHSR goes for Shinkansen loading gauge (3400 mm) and 1000-1220 mm platforms, DX and Caltrain follow. (This configuration allows level boarding and full-length 2+3 seating, allowing single-deck trainset to have roughly the same capacity as 2+2 configured double-deck train.)
- Metrolink will take advantage of through LAUS and nearby CHSRA 200 km/h lines to run express commuter trains partially through them. They’d be stuck to legacy 3000-3200 mm wide loading gauge, making gap at HSR stations 100-200 mm (4-8 inches) wider
- Your employer realizes that overnight service between CA and Pacific Northwest like this would be fine. Talgos are requirement for this because they’re the only trainsets that can fullfill FRA regulations and run fast on both conventional curvy track and HS lines. Their floor height is AFAIK around 800 mm and carbodies are 2960 mm wide.
Joey Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 6:44 am
Wouldn’t it be easier to just choose a common loading gauge and floor height rather than go through all the trouble to install lifts?
dejv Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 8:28 am
It would. But it requires either running totally isolated system or not to take full advantage of opportunities of new system.
Note that even Japanese have to deal with different widths, because they run Mini-Shinkansens (2947mm wide) directly to Tokyo.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 8:49 am
ADA is not insane. What, so screw the disabled?
Plus, the issue here isn’t even platform heights, ADA has nothing to say about that. The ADA just says the gap for level boarding has to be, well, level. And small. Level boarding is good for everyone as it can reduce dwell times and makes it easier to roll luggage on and off the train. Good for timmay, good for everyone else. It’s not a zero sum game, people.
The CHSRA should do one of three things:
1: Use the Shinkansen wide loading guage and 4′ level boarding platform heights
2: Use the NEC defacto standard of 4-foot platform heights and US Passenger railcar loading gauge of 10′6″
3: Since there doesn’t appear to be a European high platform standard, use a 4-foot platform height and European loading gauge and ask the train manufacturers to modify their trains to match the loading height, most of them appear to be close enough to make 4′ work.
The common theme here is 4 foot platforms. There’s no reason to pick anything else. It’s used on the NEC, it’s used in Japan (essentially, it’s an inch different), it’s used in China, it’s used in Taiwan, there’s no competing European standard and the European trainsets are all close enough to 4-feet that they could be built to match it.
As for loading gauge, I’d like to see compatibility with the NEC. The CAHSR system won’t run to NY, but eventually there could be enough systems stretching across the US that different loading gauges could cause issues.
But whatever they choose, DX is going to need to match it.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Don’t forget that the Velaro is 3250 mm (=10′8″) wide, compatible with the US freight loading gauge.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Yeah, the Velaro is produced in 2.95m width for Spain and 3.27m width for China and Russia. It’s been mentioned before that customizing car body width isn’t a huge deal. US Passenger loading gauge of 10′6 should be the target, IMO. Unless there’s some technological reason why 10′6″ wide cars with 4′ high platforms doesn’t work, I think it’s important to keep compatibility with the NEC. I understand that they want to buy off-the-shelf trains, but those numbers should be feasible. I was a bit disappointed that the tech memos clem linked to didn’t say as much. Hopefully they’ll still go that direction.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 9:35 am
“What, so screw the disabled?”
No. My wife raises service dogs. I’m very much in favor of supporting the disabled as much as possible.
Not my argument. I understand that level boarding is preferable. My argument is that it is impossible to harmonize ALL the different operators that use a single facility. You would have to replace all the equipment for every operator that would possibly use that platform. Some variation in loading height, admittedly should probably not be more than an inch, will have to remain acceptable.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Caltrain and HSR are the only operators that will be sharing facilities, and they are both due to replace their equipment. DX and any future Metrolink EMUs could and should be built to whatever standard is chosen by Caltrain and the CHSRA. So it not only will be possible to harmonize the operators, it should be a requirement since everyone is building new stations and buying new trains anyway.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Does Metrolink have any plans to run EMUs?
jimsf Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:13 am
you wife raises service dogs? hey my mom uses service dogs. we’ll shes had two over the years. the last one is retired now to some doggy retirement ranch.
for ADA at teh stations, requirements will vary based on the location fo course. elevators will be needed at tbt and laus, other ground level stations can use ramps. on the trains, there has to be wheelchair space. at amtrak we reserve lower level for folks with mobility issues.
by the way, the state has a love affair with bilevel rolling stock and Ill bet dinner at butterfly that they are gonna pick something like the duplex.
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Does Metrolink have any plans to run EMUs?
There have been rumblings, at least from CHSRA, that there is capacity on the lines from Sylmar-LAUS-Anaheim and Riverside-LAUS for a commuter service. It will depend on who ends up operating HSR and whether the commuter service happens, and whether it’s branded Metrolink.
Metrolink shares most of it’s track with freight (and amtrak), and unlike Caltrain, there’s a large number of freight trains and “train movements” across those tracks each day. AFAIK Metrolink has no announced plans to electrify their fleet. Metrolink gets about the same ridership as Caltrain, IIRC, but they do it with more trains on far more track. It is my personal opinion that metrolink is the missing link in Southern California’s transit plans and should get more attention and funding.
jimsf Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
integrating dx with chsr goes beyond making sense. to propose anything else is madness.
Peter Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 9:36 am
How much could DX build without knowing what standards CAHSR is going to choose in terms of platform height and loading gauge, etc?
AndyDuncan Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
A lot, really. They could build everything up to and including trackwork. Just no stations or control systems. But I just don’t see their private investors allowing that to happen until they have some better idea of how the system is going to integrate with CAHSR and who’s going to get what out of the deal, and I don’t see that happening until the operations bids come in.
dejv Reply:
January 13th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Maglev-Transrapid would make sense if they had ROW in LA basin. Transrapid allows tight curve radii and steep grades, so they could construct cheap at-grade mountain crossing.
Las Vegas is so 20th century, an artificial product of California puritanism. Now that everyone is legalizing gaming Sin City is redundant.
Let Steve Wynn pay for the Desert XPress. LV can’t even support one Amtrak train.
oh good news. I knew it seemed busier than normal
and I love this… it could be transportation in the world of the future…. or not. transbay