[Raiderman]

I just don't see a need for a train. As you said, people here are going to have cars, or they can opt for a bus or a taxi. Why the need to add another mode?

[winter-rabbit]

Even in cities like Boston/SF/NYC, as soon as young couples have kids, they switch to cars as dominant mode for transportation and recreation. Public transportation modes in LV will never work efficiently.

[BBMW]

Prior to trains, people generally just walked wherever they went. Maybe they had a horse. So really, people didn't go that far. Outside of the big cities, there weren't suburbs. It pretty much went straight to farms.

Then the trains came. Lines were blasted in and out of the big cities, and you got the first development of what we'd think of as suburbs, where you could live outside of the city center and commute into it to work. The suburbs arranged themselves around these train lines. A lot of the cities arranged themselves along them. NYC, which is the closest thing the US has to an ancient metropolis, did exactly that. When the subways were first built, a lot of the places they went to were still farmland, not to mention the non-subway commuter rail lines. But it was all very hub and spoke. It's fine if you want to go to center from the outside. If you want to go from one place outside to another place on the outside, on a different line, you generally have to go to the center, back out to where your going, then back to the middle and back home again. Very goopy. But people just went with the path of least resistance, and arranged their lives around it.

Then the cars came, and you could go from anywhere to anywhere. Maybe you had to arrange your life around the highway system, but a lot of these have developed with rings, not just hub and spoke, and it became a sort of free form network. Some cities had this laid on top of the existing hub and spoke rail system. These cities can move back to rail transit somewhat easily. It also helps that they kept a lot of the railroad rights of way. But someplace like LV, which developed under autocentricity, no way. Even with the strip and a hub, the suburbs are to diffuse too make having a transit system serving the workers be viable. The few that were close to the rail line might use it, but that would be a tiny minority.

Maybe something for the tourists, tying downtown through the strip to the airport would be viable, because it's essentially one straight line. But, why bother, when Vegas has become the biggest tourist destination in the world without it.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

The cities with great transportation existed for centuries -- sometimes millennia -- prior to light rail. They managed to install transportation systems just fine. The only thing Las Vegas lacks is willpower.

[LV10101]

Originally Posted by lvoc

You don't understand this do you?

No it is not a qusarter of our power. We take something less than a quarter of the dams output...but it is only a few percent of the power used in NV and is easily replaced. We are not a big deal in the power using community.

Actually Nevada gets just about 24% of the energy the dam produces...so if you really believe there would be no impact if it stopped generating power you are the one who fails to understand. People want to keep allowing themselves to believe there isn't a huge problem with the drought we are currently experiencing...too bad by the time people start taking it seriously it will be too late.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by LV10101

Actually Nevada gets just about 24% of the energy the dam produces...so if you really believe there would be no impact if it stopped generating power you are the one who fails to understand. People want to keep allowing themselves to believe there isn't a huge problem with the drought we are currently experiencing...too bad by the time people start taking it seriously it will be too late.

The dam provides less than 8% of the peak demand of S Nevada. NV Energy has 6 plants each of which provides more electric capacity than the dam.

As I said you do not understand this stuff.

The only interesting thing about dam power is that it is very cheap.

[LV10101]

Well your "facts" (first stated a few percent, now 8%) don't match the actual facts from the Bureau of Reclamation...I think I will go by their facts.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by LV10101

Well your "facts" (first stated a few percent, now 8%) don't match the actual facts from the Bureau of Reclamation...I think I will go by their facts.

The numbers I quoted are from the Bureau of Reclamation or Nevada Energy. Anyone half competent would find them.

And they represent peak demand rather than actual usage. On annual usage we take anything we can get from the Dam because it is cheap. But the system runs quite comfortable without the dam as it does every night. The dam makes no power at night.

But use your own numbers. It gets to be humorous...

[LV10101]

Originally Posted by lvoc

The numbers I quoted are from the Bureau of Reclamation or Nevada Energy. Anyone half competent would find them.

And they represent peak demand rather than actual usage. On annual usage we take anything we can get from the Dam because it is cheap. But the system runs quite comfortable without the dam as it does every night. The dam makes no power at night.

But use your own numbers. It gets to be humorous...

LVOC...thanks I did find the actual numbers I quoted on the Bureau of Reclamation site...you can disperse the numbers how ever you with but Nevada still receives 24% of the power generated from the dam. They don't turn away that 24% it is used in the State of Nevada. Again keep believing there is no concern for the loss of power generation from the dam. Let's agree to disagree and wait for a year or two when this becomes reality and see the actual outcome.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by lvoc

You are reaching. And you don't appear to understand. The real message is that the Phoenix's transit system is majority funded by taxes. And it is mostly not a very good system. limited hours for instance.

Phoenix is a little better off than LV as it actually has separate but significant centers which can be connected versus the homogeneous sprawl of Las Vegas.

But again it is not an economically viable system. It will require a large and ongoing tax to fund it.

Here we go! The anti-taxites of Las Vegas who would never think 2X about raising the sales tax even further to add more police officers, equating to more jails and prisons!

Light rail does not have to connect to significant centers! Ride the Green line in L.A., and, at the end of the line, in Norwalk (no density whatsoever) you find acres of parking, and at the other end of the Green line it stops well before Redondo Beach, with parking! Or the Gold Line dead ending in Azusa, no density there, but a parking ramp, free of charge to riders.

Ride DART in Texas, the line that ends north of Richardson in Plano, a huge parking ramp, no density, and free of charge to riders.

Along many of these stops along the lines, there's free parking for the riders!

If you look back, at all the city forums, for all the cities that have gained light rail, the same arguments have been used, and surprisingly, once built, they're proud of what their sales tax dollars have wrought!

This city wouldn't even impose a skimpy sales tax to even fund a much-needed medical school!

[winter-rabbit]

I've tried Texas DART and Phoenix rail. Both no good. It doesn't work in spread out / spacious cities.

You might feel good about tax dollars being spent, but in reality it needs ridership for growth and revenue. Tax spending to sustain operations is bad.

I've come from Boston, a very dense city and has extensive public transit system. However, Boston keep raising it's rates despite the strong ridership. A lot of the old rail cars from the 80's are still be used, not replaced but updated.

Originally Posted by tijlover

Here we go! The anti-taxites of Las Vegas who would never think 2X about raising the sales tax even further to add more police officers, equating to more jails and prisons!

Light rail does not have to connect to significant centers! Ride the Green line in L.A., and, at the end of the line, in Norwalk (no density whatsoever) you find acres of parking, and at the other end of the Green line it stops well before Redondo Beach, with parking! Or the Gold Line dead ending in Azusa, no density there, but a parking ramp, free of charge to riders.

Ride DART in Texas, the line that ends north of Richardson in Plano, a huge parking ramp, no density, and free of charge to riders.

Along many of these stops along the lines, there's free parking for the riders!

If you look back, at all the city forums, for all the cities that have gained light rail, the same arguments have been used, and surprisingly, once built, they're proud of what their sales tax dollars have wrought!

This city wouldn't even impose a skimpy sales tax to even fund a much-needed medical school!