• Nevada State Rail Plan

  • General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

  by Pensyfan19
 
The state of Nevada just released their 2021 rail plan with very interesting proposals for passenger rail service, specifically with figure 3-4 on page 167.

https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showpubl ... 2a62622aaf
  by west point
 
My computer listed it as on page 3-14 and page 3-15 for figure 3-4
  by electricron
 
Fig 3.4 by itself is very misleading. Just looking at the map in Fig 3.4 you might think there are lots of HSR projects being planed in the southwest involving Nevada. I highly encourage looking at the text associated with Fig 3.4 on the page immediately following the Fig 3.4.
A) Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas
Proposals and developments on this corridor are referenced in the section “Brightline West -- Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas” above.
B) S.F./Oakland–Reno
Proposals and developments on this corridor are referenced in the section “Thruway Expansion & C Route” below.
C) Las Vegas–Salt Lake City
Proposals and developments on this corridor are referenced in the section “Amtrak Salt Lake City-to-Las Vegas and Los Angeles Service” below.
D) Las Vegas–Reno
Proposals and developments on this corridor are referenced in the section “Thruway expansion & C Route” below.
E) Reno–Salt Lake City
Proposals and developments on this corridor are referenced in the section “Amtrak California Zephyr” above
F) Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix
This corridor, running from Las Vegas via Kingman, AZ to Phoenix and Tucson, has not engendered further studies or proposals.

Just from the briefest of text of the various lines indicated on Fig 3.4 it becomes apparent not all the rail corridors will be HSR. How about a deeper look? First one to point out is that we learn Thruways mean buses. Next we learn that C Routes is extending existing California Amtrak trains to Reno and/or Las Vegas.

So what does the text added to Fig 3.4 mean.
A)Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas
Brightline West HSR and/or X-Train excursion private train projects
B) S.F./Oakland–Reno
During winter adding cars to California Zephyr and possible extending Amtrak California trains to Reno from Sacramento.
C) Las Vegas–Salt Lake City
The 2014 FRA Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study classified this corridor as a later-phase development, meaning its viability is heavily dependent on other regional rail connections being established first, such as Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Placed aside for later studies.
D) Las Vegas–Reno
The planning here involves three parts. (1) Extending existing Amtrak California trains from Bakersfield to Las Vegas. (2) Thruway Bus services from Bakersfield to Las Vegas instead of rail. (3) Extending potential Amtrak California service from Reno to Las Vegas.
E) Reno–Salt Lake City
Adding one or two stops and/or adding a day service in Nevada to the existing California Zephyr service.
F) Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix
No further studies underway since initial 2014 FRA Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study

So, what looked like many potential HSR lines throughout the southwest in Fig 3.4 turns into a reality of Brightline West after reading the text associated with Fig 3.4. And that just shows how any Figure without the accompanying text can lie. The truth is in the details with the text.

Lost in the Nevada State Plan not included with Fig 3.4 were the other projects in the plan that would benefit Nevada more. Like commuter trains between Las Vegas and Henderson, and between Reno and Sparks, extending the Las Vegas monorail to Brightline's proposed train station, and other improvements to encourage more rail freight traffic within Nevada for Nevada. But no, we have to discuss the red herring of Fig 3.4 instead. :( :(
  by John_Perkowski
 
Anyone who does not read the challenges section of Chapter 3 is a damn fool. Unlike other States, the Nevada plan lays out the challenges accurately, starting with “whither public funding”?