High-Speed Rail from (Almost) LA to Vegas Finally Happening
April 22, 2024 12:44 PM Subscribe
Brightline West is ready to start breaking ground this week, according to The Washington Post. The southwest endpoint will be in Rancho Cucamonga, where it will connect to Metrolink. (Which is definitely better than Victorville, which had been suggested a few years ago.) Connecting to the existing lines here will make it simpler to build than trying to connect all the way to Los Angeles proper. (gift link)
Electric trains will depart every 45 minutes from a Las Vegas station south of the city’s storied Strip and a Southern California station in Rancho Cucamonga, a Los Angeles suburb about 40 miles east of downtown.
Traveling at up to 186 mph — faster than any other train in the United States — Brightline West trains will make the 218-mile trip in about 2 hours and 10 minutes.
In my head, the only way to pronounce "Cucamonga" is the way it is said in pracowity's video, but it enticed me to search for what the word means, and apparently it is named after the Tongva village of Kukamogna meaning "Place of the sand.” #TheMoreYouKnow
posted by AzraelBrown at 1:32 PM on April 22 [8 favorites]
posted by AzraelBrown at 1:32 PM on April 22 [8 favorites]
ah, checking the etymology Azusa is also from the Tongva. (I had assumed it was from an early Japanese-American settlement.)
posted by torokunai at 1:48 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 1:48 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
This has been discussed and promised since the 90s. Break ground all you want, I won’t believe this is happening until the first passengers make their trip!
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 1:50 PM on April 22 [11 favorites]
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 1:50 PM on April 22 [11 favorites]
Honestly, I still find myself slipping into older LA pronunciations all the time due to my media habits.
Now the real question - ok, so the LA->Vegas trip is anywhere between 4 hours to 6 depending on where in LA you are and when you're leaving. That first 60-120 minutes is still in the LA Basin to Rancho. (ok, fine to Victorville, but point still stands). So you shave 1-3 hours off the trip, plus the annoyance of driving.
A flight, of which there are endless gobs, is ~75 minutes with the attendant airport times.
Worth it?
posted by drewbage1847 at 1:53 PM on April 22
Now the real question - ok, so the LA->Vegas trip is anywhere between 4 hours to 6 depending on where in LA you are and when you're leaving. That first 60-120 minutes is still in the LA Basin to Rancho. (ok, fine to Victorville, but point still stands). So you shave 1-3 hours off the trip, plus the annoyance of driving.
A flight, of which there are endless gobs, is ~75 minutes with the attendant airport times.
Worth it?
posted by drewbage1847 at 1:53 PM on April 22
A highly insightful video from CityNerd on Brightline West, well worth its 19 minute runtime:
Brightline West: Rail Revolution or Waste of Time?
posted by tclark at 2:00 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
Brightline West: Rail Revolution or Waste of Time?
posted by tclark at 2:00 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
A flight, of which there are endless gobs
France bans short-haul flights to cut carbon emissions
posted by Horace Rumpole at 2:12 PM on April 22 [31 favorites]
France bans short-haul flights to cut carbon emissions
posted by Horace Rumpole at 2:12 PM on April 22 [31 favorites]
Absent some drastic changes in the real estate situation, expect this to actually happen. The private equity company running the show doesn't much care about the trains beyond wanting them to eventually break even. Like the railroads of yore, the point of building the thing is to increase the value of their real estate holdings.
posted by wierdo at 2:23 PM on April 22 [7 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 2:23 PM on April 22 [7 favorites]
Worth it?
Yes, for a number of reasons.
One, you can then take LA light rail into the city core directly, and on the other side the LV terminus will be at the end of the Strip. In comparison, a flight into LA means that you arrive (at best) at LAX, which either means you a) take light rail that is the same length, b) a not cheap livery ride, or c) you rent a car and prepare to suffer in LA traffic. On the LV side Reid International isn't that far from the Strip, but you still have...
Two, the trains are easier to get on/off of than planes, thanks to a severe reduction in security theater.
And finally, the third point is that it's likely that the cost of tickets will be cheaper as well. Not to mention (as was pointed out) that the trains make more sense emission-wise than short-haul flights.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:25 PM on April 22 [24 favorites]
Yes, for a number of reasons.
One, you can then take LA light rail into the city core directly, and on the other side the LV terminus will be at the end of the Strip. In comparison, a flight into LA means that you arrive (at best) at LAX, which either means you a) take light rail that is the same length, b) a not cheap livery ride, or c) you rent a car and prepare to suffer in LA traffic. On the LV side Reid International isn't that far from the Strip, but you still have...
Two, the trains are easier to get on/off of than planes, thanks to a severe reduction in security theater.
And finally, the third point is that it's likely that the cost of tickets will be cheaper as well. Not to mention (as was pointed out) that the trains make more sense emission-wise than short-haul flights.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:25 PM on April 22 [24 favorites]
CityNerd mentions that Amtrack ended in 1997, but since then Las Vegas metro has more than tripled in population. Also Brightline is good about building and expanding their network. So I think once they get this initial segment built, they will continue towards LA.
Airlines are also cutting back on shorthaul flights because there just isn't that much money in each individual ticket - they are counting on volume and full planes to make them work.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:30 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
Airlines are also cutting back on shorthaul flights because there just isn't that much money in each individual ticket - they are counting on volume and full planes to make them work.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:30 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
I think the main reason this might be worth is is for the Sunday train ride back to LA, vs. the hangover plane ride or hangover traffic nightmare.
posted by samthemander at 2:33 PM on April 22 [7 favorites]
posted by samthemander at 2:33 PM on April 22 [7 favorites]
You have to get to the airport, too. Though if you're flying out of Ontario, that's about the same. Which is pretty cheap on Frontier.
I wonder if it will do anything to stimulate growth in Victorville and Hesperia. Potentially as retirement communities. If it gets built, and those stations do too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:01 PM on April 22
I wonder if it will do anything to stimulate growth in Victorville and Hesperia. Potentially as retirement communities. If it gets built, and those stations do too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:01 PM on April 22
I always thought the difficulty for this project was getting over the pass and through the mountains. Are they building new tracks or leasing from the Class Is? If the latter, why not go to Fullerton or Union?
posted by Huggiesbear at 3:03 PM on April 22
posted by Huggiesbear at 3:03 PM on April 22
And finally, the third point is that it's likely that the cost of tickets will be cheaper as well.
Genuinely asking as someone who has romanticized view of rail travel: Is there anything written that indicated this is actually the case? Every time I look into going somewhere by train I find that I'm looking at a trip that takes five times as long and costs three times as much as flying. High speed rail takes care of the first part, but why would it be any better on the second?
posted by Parasite Unseen at 3:04 PM on April 22 [13 favorites]
Genuinely asking as someone who has romanticized view of rail travel: Is there anything written that indicated this is actually the case? Every time I look into going somewhere by train I find that I'm looking at a trip that takes five times as long and costs three times as much as flying. High speed rail takes care of the first part, but why would it be any better on the second?
posted by Parasite Unseen at 3:04 PM on April 22 [13 favorites]
One, you can then take LA light rail into the city core directly, and on the other side the LV terminus will be at the end of the Strip. In comparison, a flight into LA means that you arrive (at best) at LAX, which either means you a) take light rail that is the same length, b) a not cheap livery ride, or c) you rent a car and prepare to suffer in LA traffic. On the LV side Reid International isn't that far from the Strip, but you still have...
The best way to get out of LAX remains the Flyaway Bus, which is a 30 minute shot to Union Station once you get out of LAX, and also goes to Van Nuys. The Flyaway is not a part of Metro, and LAX hasn't exactly embraced its responsibility to create a thriving bus service--something like five or six additional routes to the Valley, Long Beach, Hollywood and other locations didn't service the pandemic.
Yet and still, I can't recommend the Flyaway enough. It comes to your terminal, picks you up, and takes you downtown or to the Valley. It costs like nine dollars. From Union Station you can get on a Metro rail to South LA or West LA or Koreatown or Hollywood or whatever. It's an important and fairly painless option.
(I think it was created as a result of a consent decree or something.)
But either way, LAX remains arguably the worst airport in the country and certainly the shittiest part of your week on any week you have to use it, mostly due to the nightmare of getting in and out. They had an opportunity to fix it but instead doubled down on keeping "the horseshoe" and instead spending billions and billions of dollars more on making an international terminal with a roofline that mimics the rolling waves of the ocean, or whatever.
posted by kensington314 at 3:05 PM on April 22 [16 favorites]
The best way to get out of LAX remains the Flyaway Bus, which is a 30 minute shot to Union Station once you get out of LAX, and also goes to Van Nuys. The Flyaway is not a part of Metro, and LAX hasn't exactly embraced its responsibility to create a thriving bus service--something like five or six additional routes to the Valley, Long Beach, Hollywood and other locations didn't service the pandemic.
Yet and still, I can't recommend the Flyaway enough. It comes to your terminal, picks you up, and takes you downtown or to the Valley. It costs like nine dollars. From Union Station you can get on a Metro rail to South LA or West LA or Koreatown or Hollywood or whatever. It's an important and fairly painless option.
(I think it was created as a result of a consent decree or something.)
But either way, LAX remains arguably the worst airport in the country and certainly the shittiest part of your week on any week you have to use it, mostly due to the nightmare of getting in and out. They had an opportunity to fix it but instead doubled down on keeping "the horseshoe" and instead spending billions and billions of dollars more on making an international terminal with a roofline that mimics the rolling waves of the ocean, or whatever.
posted by kensington314 at 3:05 PM on April 22 [16 favorites]
They’re running trains every 45 minutes. Amtrak long distance trains run once per day and have, like, 15 sleeper rooms, period. So long as more than 15 people in a day don’t want to fly, Amtrak can charge a hefty price.
posted by Huggiesbear at 3:07 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
posted by Huggiesbear at 3:07 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
"The Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), a French state-owned railroad operator, came to California in hopes of helping the state build a high-speed rail system from Los Angeles to San Francisco but left for North Africa in 2011 because the region was 'less politically dysfunctional' than the Golden State." Better luck this time.
posted by BWA at 3:22 PM on April 22 [13 favorites]
posted by BWA at 3:22 PM on April 22 [13 favorites]
According to Brightline's CEO, r/t fare could be in the ballpark of $400.
Hopefully in the future extending the line to Union Station in LA will be relatively easy since there's already a corridor for Metrolink and it just needs to be electrified.
Also, I'm not super familiar with the communities in the High Desert, but isn't it kind of weird there'll be two stations there? And by the looks of it both stops will be on the peripheries of the populated area. The combined population of the Victor Valley region is a few hundred thousand, so maybe it deserves one station, and surely in a somewhat central location like Victorville?
posted by theory at 3:28 PM on April 22
Hopefully in the future extending the line to Union Station in LA will be relatively easy since there's already a corridor for Metrolink and it just needs to be electrified.
Also, I'm not super familiar with the communities in the High Desert, but isn't it kind of weird there'll be two stations there? And by the looks of it both stops will be on the peripheries of the populated area. The combined population of the Victor Valley region is a few hundred thousand, so maybe it deserves one station, and surely in a somewhat central location like Victorville?
posted by theory at 3:28 PM on April 22
Hope it goes well, and that somehow HS2 one day gets back on track here in the UK. We massively overspent on tunnels to appease NIMBYs, then gutted the project to allegedly fix potholes in roads instead. Worthy of Dickens.
posted by pipeski at 3:35 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 3:35 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
Round trip airfare on Frontier airlines from Ontario airport (just a few miles from Rancho Cucamonga) to Las Vegas can be as little as $48. If you want to do things like check a bag, bring a large carryon, and not be seated randomly, it's more like $200-$300.
That's the actual cost you can pay right now, not a CEO's projections of what something might cost several years from now.
posted by Hatashran at 3:50 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
That's the actual cost you can pay right now, not a CEO's projections of what something might cost several years from now.
posted by Hatashran at 3:50 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
According to Brightline's CEO, r/t fare could be in the ballpark of $400.
Holy shit. This has gotta be a joke. I don't see how this will have many takers.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:31 PM on April 22 [6 favorites]
Holy shit. This has gotta be a joke. I don't see how this will have many takers.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:31 PM on April 22 [6 favorites]
It's worth noting that a good portion of the blame for the failure of California high speed rail can be laid at the feet of a certain South African manchild and his reality distortion field.
Round trip airfare on Frontier airlines from Ontario airport (just a few miles from Rancho Cucamonga) to Las Vegas can be as little as $48. If you want to do things like check a bag, bring a large carryon, and not be seated randomly, it's more like $200-$300.
Ah yes, Frontier Airlines - the worst airline in America. Not to mention that bringing up their low fares without mentioning that they've gone all in on the Ryanair nickel and dime the passenger to death model seems like a bit of an oversight there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:45 PM on April 22 [6 favorites]
Round trip airfare on Frontier airlines from Ontario airport (just a few miles from Rancho Cucamonga) to Las Vegas can be as little as $48. If you want to do things like check a bag, bring a large carryon, and not be seated randomly, it's more like $200-$300.
Ah yes, Frontier Airlines - the worst airline in America. Not to mention that bringing up their low fares without mentioning that they've gone all in on the Ryanair nickel and dime the passenger to death model seems like a bit of an oversight there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:45 PM on April 22 [6 favorites]
Quick — nationalize it!
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:52 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:52 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
I did mention the extra fees that would take you from $48 to $200-$300.
And I'll also note that Brightline in Florida charges $20 for an oversized carryon and $25 for a checked bag.
Your other option for direct flights from Ontario to Las Vegas seems to be Southwest, for $150-$350 round trip.
posted by Hatashran at 5:07 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
And I'll also note that Brightline in Florida charges $20 for an oversized carryon and $25 for a checked bag.
Your other option for direct flights from Ontario to Las Vegas seems to be Southwest, for $150-$350 round trip.
posted by Hatashran at 5:07 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
“At long last, we’re building the first high-speed rail project in our nation’s history" - at long last indeed. Oh, I hope they don't foul this up.
posted by doctornemo at 5:34 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
posted by doctornemo at 5:34 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
The best way to get out of LAX remains the Flyaway Bus
Well, there's also the Big Blue Bus which is a local bus route so super cheap and will take you straight up the coast to the light rail in Santa Monica. Probably takes less time to get you to the trail than driving all the way to Union Station. That trip must take well over an hour. Catching the Big Blue Bus can be a bit of a walk to get to the pickup point, but it's easily the most simple mass transit offering I can think of out of LAX.
posted by hippybear at 6:22 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
Well, there's also the Big Blue Bus which is a local bus route so super cheap and will take you straight up the coast to the light rail in Santa Monica. Probably takes less time to get you to the trail than driving all the way to Union Station. That trip must take well over an hour. Catching the Big Blue Bus can be a bit of a walk to get to the pickup point, but it's easily the most simple mass transit offering I can think of out of LAX.
posted by hippybear at 6:22 PM on April 22 [3 favorites]
I am truly hoping this happens, and the proof of concept makes west coast bullet trains a thing. Lordy that would be something.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:58 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:58 PM on April 22 [2 favorites]
Remember that these days you need to arrive at your airport more then TWO HOURS before your flight. So that 45 minute flight is more like a 3 hour flight. Whereas a 4 hour train ride is a 4 hour train ride. So longer, but give that is only an hour longer, and doesn't have to be spent in a tiny metal tube? (People don't realize how much more leg room you get on trains! And a meal car! And can walk around!) Those seem pretty comparable.
posted by Canageek at 8:06 PM on April 22 [12 favorites]
posted by Canageek at 8:06 PM on April 22 [12 favorites]
I do remember being an exchange student in Europe in the late Eighties [OMG two lifetimes ago!] and having a Eurail pass and being able to just GO places. Like, thanks to how transit worked, I could walk out of my house way out in the exurbs of Hannover, get on a bus, and transfer to light rail which would turn into a subway and then get off at the central train station and take a train to another city and do the same thing in reverse with subway/lightrail/bus and end up nearly anywhere else in Germany!
Now... Granted.. West Germany was about 3/4 the size of New Mexico so it's a much smaller area of land with a lot more people on it, but it felt like a miracle coming from a car culture.
posted by hippybear at 8:25 PM on April 22 [5 favorites]
Now... Granted.. West Germany was about 3/4 the size of New Mexico so it's a much smaller area of land with a lot more people on it, but it felt like a miracle coming from a car culture.
posted by hippybear at 8:25 PM on April 22 [5 favorites]
We've started taking the train in (the other) Ontario and Quebec not because the ticket is cheaper than a flight--it isn't---but because we can rock up 15 minutes before departure and go city centre to city centre. No security, no delays, and no 60 minute, $60 dollar trips downtown in rush hour traffic from an airport out in the burbs either.
posted by bonehead at 8:33 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 8:33 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
Tomorrow, between the airports of LAX/LGB/SNA/BUR/ONT there are 60 flights to LAS. The competition for the trains will be a bit stiff. I would hope this is not a boondoggle like the Springfield Monorail. I think these high speed rail projects have a real "if you build it, they will come" draw to them. I can imagine the tourists who visit California would enjoy the idea of actually seeing the Mojave Desert, or even the Central Valley between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
posted by pthomas745 at 8:44 PM on April 22
posted by pthomas745 at 8:44 PM on April 22
I do think that building a light rail that ran the same route as the Big Blue Bus more or less up to Santa Monica to get to the light rail there would be a wise investment for the greater LA mass transit.
I'd not suggest a monorail because of earthquakes. Although maybe gondolas? A people mover system would be too slow, although quite fashionable for the LA area circa 1990.
posted by hippybear at 8:55 PM on April 22 [1 favorite]
I'd not suggest a monorail because of earthquakes. Although maybe gondolas? A people mover system would be too slow, although quite fashionable for the LA area circa 1990.
posted by hippybear at 8:55 PM on April 22 [1 favorite]
A direct rail line (the K-line) is scheduled to open later this year, and is already testing trains, from the (future) LAX transit center, (which will hopefully massively ameliorate the horseshoe nightmare), to the east/west line (the E-Line) that runs to Santa Monica. Though the rail line connects more mid-city, which is probably more useful for everyone. It will also eventually run further north to the Hollywood subway, hopefully connecting with West Hollywood and completing a badly needed circuit in a high traffic area. The new transit center at LAX, already under construction, will hopefully open right before the Olympics and provide a JFK style tram system, connected to the airport and terminals and light rail.
LA's long range mass transit plan is actually pretty impressive for such a challenging city, and a few very key pieces that will enchance the whole system are very close to finally coming online.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Brightline eventually run to Union Station, instead of the proposed HSR high desert connection.
posted by DarlingMonster at 9:26 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
LA's long range mass transit plan is actually pretty impressive for such a challenging city, and a few very key pieces that will enchance the whole system are very close to finally coming online.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Brightline eventually run to Union Station, instead of the proposed HSR high desert connection.
posted by DarlingMonster at 9:26 PM on April 22 [4 favorites]
I was just looking at the Bay Area options to get to this line and we're talking overnight and $800 for a sleeper. I mean, wtf.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 10:53 PM on April 22
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 10:53 PM on April 22
There's nothing stopping rail from doing dynamic ticket prices just like airlines. In Europe early bird promos are ubiquitous on long distances. Punctuality and predictable intervals are what attracts passengers the most .
The private rail for land development gig is how Japan ended up with all those various railways that usually own big developments in whatever small cities they connect and department stores or office buildings in the city centre stations. The synergy between traffic generators and transport supply worked out pretty well for everyone there.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:59 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
The private rail for land development gig is how Japan ended up with all those various railways that usually own big developments in whatever small cities they connect and department stores or office buildings in the city centre stations. The synergy between traffic generators and transport supply worked out pretty well for everyone there.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:59 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
LAX remains arguably the worst airport in the country
I cannot let this statement stand in a world where Orlando International exists.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 2:41 AM on April 23 [3 favorites]
I cannot let this statement stand in a world where Orlando International exists.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 2:41 AM on April 23 [3 favorites]
Next to zero LAX, LGB or SNA passengers are driving to Rancho Cucamonga to take a train to Vegas.
Zero people who drive to Vegas will switch to the train at any kind of fare. (The people who are afraid of flying take the bus.)
This leaves us an addressable market of the eastern one-third of the Burbank passengers (say five of the 16 daily flights) and all of the Ontario passengers (seven flights a day). 1,800 passengers a day, and maybe a half will choose to ride the train - 900 passengers a day each way. Call it one million one-ways a year. $1.5 billion a year in debt service, maintenance and operating expenses and you need tickets of $1,500 each way.
posted by MattD at 7:21 AM on April 23
Zero people who drive to Vegas will switch to the train at any kind of fare. (The people who are afraid of flying take the bus.)
This leaves us an addressable market of the eastern one-third of the Burbank passengers (say five of the 16 daily flights) and all of the Ontario passengers (seven flights a day). 1,800 passengers a day, and maybe a half will choose to ride the train - 900 passengers a day each way. Call it one million one-ways a year. $1.5 billion a year in debt service, maintenance and operating expenses and you need tickets of $1,500 each way.
posted by MattD at 7:21 AM on April 23
>private rail for land development
yeah if Monopoly were an actual simulation buying a RR would double all the rents on that side of the board.
but IME with high-speed travel around California I think what we really need is to stop integrating the trucks with the passenger cars.
Ideally the 2008 HSR thing could have a been a freight-only automated electric LTL delivery corridor up I-5 between Redding and San Diego.
I took my Model Y to Dallas and back this month, 1600 miles each way, overnighting at the 1200 mile point. Lane-keeping ADAS made the 200-mile segments between charges go pretty smooth, just me and an audiobook.
Not counting depreciation on the car, at 40c/kWh each 200 miles @ 80mph costs around $25 vs ~$40 for gas.
posted by torokunai at 9:00 AM on April 23
yeah if Monopoly were an actual simulation buying a RR would double all the rents on that side of the board.
but IME with high-speed travel around California I think what we really need is to stop integrating the trucks with the passenger cars.
Ideally the 2008 HSR thing could have a been a freight-only automated electric LTL delivery corridor up I-5 between Redding and San Diego.
I took my Model Y to Dallas and back this month, 1600 miles each way, overnighting at the 1200 mile point. Lane-keeping ADAS made the 200-mile segments between charges go pretty smooth, just me and an audiobook.
Not counting depreciation on the car, at 40c/kWh each 200 miles @ 80mph costs around $25 vs ~$40 for gas.
posted by torokunai at 9:00 AM on April 23
I want this plan to work, because air travel is awful for the environment, but I'm not super-optimistic about it, not unless the government puts its thumb on the scale. These things always cost a lot more than they claim up front.
I just wish transit plans were less moonshot and more tweak.
I just wish transit plans were less moonshot and more tweak.
- Take a couple of lanes out of some stroads and run a tram or electric bus up the middle, or take some parking lot space away from businesses and run the lines there. Design for easy local circulation of people going about their daily business.
- Connect downtown and suburbs at a reasonable speed and frequency.
- Plan for gradual and adjustable expansion.
- Connect universities and schools with downtown or ever-popular local destinations (for example, the beach).
- Connect the train/tram/bus stops to bicycle routes.
- Make every train/tram/bus stop a destination itself: if you get out at any stop, it's never a social desert. There's maybe a store, a pub, a restaurant, a shopping center, stuff that's open as late as the line runs.
I really hope this works out and starts a new chapter in North American rail, but it's pretty sad that standards are so low that a train that averages just 100 miles per hour qualifies as high speed rail.
posted by ssg at 10:26 AM on April 23 [2 favorites]
posted by ssg at 10:26 AM on April 23 [2 favorites]
Zero people who drive to Vegas will switch to the train at any kind of fare. (The people who are afraid of flying take the bus.)
I just don't think that's true. I'm fairly close to Rancho (and ONT airport) and I would love to not have to drive though San Bernardino/Riverside counties and the 10/15 traffic to get to Las Vegas. It's also Coachella Festival time and whew...that drive can be a slog when there aren't thousands of festival-goers on the freeways.
Meanwhile short-haul flights like that seem like a huge hassle and an environmental problem.
I am cautiously optimistically TEAM TRAIN at this point.
posted by pantarei70 at 11:58 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
I just don't think that's true. I'm fairly close to Rancho (and ONT airport) and I would love to not have to drive though San Bernardino/Riverside counties and the 10/15 traffic to get to Las Vegas. It's also Coachella Festival time and whew...that drive can be a slog when there aren't thousands of festival-goers on the freeways.
Meanwhile short-haul flights like that seem like a huge hassle and an environmental problem.
I am cautiously optimistically TEAM TRAIN at this point.
posted by pantarei70 at 11:58 AM on April 23 [1 favorite]
Zero people who drive to Vegas will switch to the train at any kind of fare. (The people who are afraid of flying take the bus.)
Oh, this is just patently untrue. I agree that people who currently fly won't take the train instead but I would 40000000% rather take a train than drive, even if the train cost a little more. For my bona fides I will note that I currently take an interstate Amtrak on a regular basis rather than fly or drive, even though the train actually takes LONGER than driving. If the train were also faster? Heck no contest.
Other people have mentioned the advantages trains have over flight, but the advantages over cars are also significant. You don't have to pay 60 bucks a night to park your train in Vegas or worry about breaking down in the desert. And you can start the party in the club car on the way there.
At 400 bucks a pop, they're not going to find many takers. But the "at any price" assumption is faulty.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:53 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
Oh, this is just patently untrue. I agree that people who currently fly won't take the train instead but I would 40000000% rather take a train than drive, even if the train cost a little more. For my bona fides I will note that I currently take an interstate Amtrak on a regular basis rather than fly or drive, even though the train actually takes LONGER than driving. If the train were also faster? Heck no contest.
Other people have mentioned the advantages trains have over flight, but the advantages over cars are also significant. You don't have to pay 60 bucks a night to park your train in Vegas or worry about breaking down in the desert. And you can start the party in the club car on the way there.
At 400 bucks a pop, they're not going to find many takers. But the "at any price" assumption is faulty.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:53 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
Take a couple of lanes out of some stroads and run a tram or electric bus up the middle, or take some parking lot space away from businesses and run the lines there. Design for easy local circulation of people going about their daily business.
The thing that kills me about LA's transit expansion is the focus on trains instead of building off of the 100% built-out infrastructure that we already have, i.e roads road roads. The most impressive public transit route in Los Angeles remains the Silver Line, which is a dedicated bus line that will take you the ten mile journey from downtown LA to Watts in something like 25 to 30 minutes, with maybe 10 stops in between. Similarly impressive feats accomplished daily on the Orange Line in the Valley, another dedicated bus route with no auto traffic.
The train expansions are always like 20 years in the making and seventeen thrillion dollars over budget after knock-down, drag-out fights with various neighborhood constituency groups that lead the planning in the direction of a grade-level light rail which is basically the slowest and most dangerous train option we have, and so it takes 90 minutes to get from downtown to the West side and once in awhile you run over a pedestrian.
Would you also have to have knock-down, drag-out fights with various constituencies to remove a traffic lane, create a road diet, add a dedicated bus lane? Yeah, you sure would. And you'd still have to contend with the fact that while we can find plenty of money to build the infrastructure, we can't find any money to run it in a timely enough fashion that people could depend on it. But man if I could wave a magic wand it would stop train construction and make our really expansive and impressive system of bus routes better funded and better accommodated, that's what I would do. (I'll admit, though, that once in awhile you would still run over a pedestrian, though I don't think there are many examples of this on LA's bus rapid transit routes.)
We have a real prejudice against buses, like "big boy cities that are all grown up use trains," but cities around the world have very impressive bus rapid transit, it bugs me so much.
posted by kensington314 at 1:54 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
The thing that kills me about LA's transit expansion is the focus on trains instead of building off of the 100% built-out infrastructure that we already have, i.e roads road roads. The most impressive public transit route in Los Angeles remains the Silver Line, which is a dedicated bus line that will take you the ten mile journey from downtown LA to Watts in something like 25 to 30 minutes, with maybe 10 stops in between. Similarly impressive feats accomplished daily on the Orange Line in the Valley, another dedicated bus route with no auto traffic.
The train expansions are always like 20 years in the making and seventeen thrillion dollars over budget after knock-down, drag-out fights with various neighborhood constituency groups that lead the planning in the direction of a grade-level light rail which is basically the slowest and most dangerous train option we have, and so it takes 90 minutes to get from downtown to the West side and once in awhile you run over a pedestrian.
Would you also have to have knock-down, drag-out fights with various constituencies to remove a traffic lane, create a road diet, add a dedicated bus lane? Yeah, you sure would. And you'd still have to contend with the fact that while we can find plenty of money to build the infrastructure, we can't find any money to run it in a timely enough fashion that people could depend on it. But man if I could wave a magic wand it would stop train construction and make our really expansive and impressive system of bus routes better funded and better accommodated, that's what I would do. (I'll admit, though, that once in awhile you would still run over a pedestrian, though I don't think there are many examples of this on LA's bus rapid transit routes.)
We have a real prejudice against buses, like "big boy cities that are all grown up use trains," but cities around the world have very impressive bus rapid transit, it bugs me so much.
posted by kensington314 at 1:54 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
I do think that building a light rail that ran the same route as the Big Blue Bus more or less up to Santa Monica to get to the light rail there would be a wise investment for the greater LA mass transit.
I think this would be difficult to justify for the simple reason that you're going to spend $8 to $10 billion on a train line that goes to, from, and through a whole area where close to nobody in the LA area lives. Like this has got to be pretty low population density, top of the charts in terms of income, you can't connect westwards because of the ocean, or northwards because good luck dealing with the mountains or the residents of Brentwood or the Palisades. But again, it's just not a route that serves many people, on that hypothetical route most people are still a train connection and 90 minutes away a place where they can start to imagine how they would get home. And dare I say, the people who do live there are unlikely to nestle up next to your average unwashed massees transit rider for a 45 minute trip when the Big Blue Bus route is already just 15 minutes longer and the drive is 30 minutes.
posted by kensington314 at 2:10 PM on April 23
I think this would be difficult to justify for the simple reason that you're going to spend $8 to $10 billion on a train line that goes to, from, and through a whole area where close to nobody in the LA area lives. Like this has got to be pretty low population density, top of the charts in terms of income, you can't connect westwards because of the ocean, or northwards because good luck dealing with the mountains or the residents of Brentwood or the Palisades. But again, it's just not a route that serves many people, on that hypothetical route most people are still a train connection and 90 minutes away a place where they can start to imagine how they would get home. And dare I say, the people who do live there are unlikely to nestle up next to your average unwashed massees transit rider for a 45 minute trip when the Big Blue Bus route is already just 15 minutes longer and the drive is 30 minutes.
posted by kensington314 at 2:10 PM on April 23
We have a real prejudice against buses, like "big boy cities that are all grown up use trains," but cities around the world have very impressive bus rapid transit,
LA bus stops are terrible (like everywhere else in the US) the light rail stops are fine. This guy(twitter link) has a private group adding bus benches because Oakland/San Francisco doesn't provide those. That's why nobody in the US likes busses, and also why busses are cheaper. Cities half-build the infrastructure. A private group in LA just came out with a new tiny bus stop cover that doesn't block the horrible sun or occasional rain because the city doesn't pay for covers at stops.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:27 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
LA bus stops are terrible (like everywhere else in the US) the light rail stops are fine. This guy(twitter link) has a private group adding bus benches because Oakland/San Francisco doesn't provide those. That's why nobody in the US likes busses, and also why busses are cheaper. Cities half-build the infrastructure. A private group in LA just came out with a new tiny bus stop cover that doesn't block the horrible sun or occasional rain because the city doesn't pay for covers at stops.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:27 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
A private group in LA just came out with a stupid new tiny bus stop cover that doesn't block the horrible sun or occasional rain because the city doesn't pay for covers at stops.
The tiny bus stop shade infrastructure was such an embarrassment. To be clear, what I mean is that our road infrastructure is extremely flexible for building out improved bus infrastructure, because the roads are already built. You do have to dedicate lanes on that infrastructure to buses, improve headway times by funding a better bus schedule, and dramatically improve bus stops and access to shade. (I think the City's dedicated bus lanes show a path forward here, though, for example I think some of the Orange Line stops are just as nice as a light rail stop. The Silver Line stops, by contract, are on the freeway.)
posted by kensington314 at 2:33 PM on April 23
The tiny bus stop shade infrastructure was such an embarrassment. To be clear, what I mean is that our road infrastructure is extremely flexible for building out improved bus infrastructure, because the roads are already built. You do have to dedicate lanes on that infrastructure to buses, improve headway times by funding a better bus schedule, and dramatically improve bus stops and access to shade. (I think the City's dedicated bus lanes show a path forward here, though, for example I think some of the Orange Line stops are just as nice as a light rail stop. The Silver Line stops, by contract, are on the freeway.)
posted by kensington314 at 2:33 PM on April 23
I do think that building a light rail that ran the same route as the Big Blue Bus more or less up to Santa Monica to get to the light rail there would be a wise investment for the greater LA mass transit.
I think this would be difficult to justify for the simple reason that you're going to spend $8 to $10 billion on a train line that goes to, from, and through a whole area where close to nobody in the LA area lives. Like this has got to be pretty low population density, top of the charts in terms of income, you can't connect westwards because of the ocean, or northwards because good luck dealing with the mountains or the residents of Brentwood or the Palisades. But again, it's just not a route that serves many people, on that hypothetical route most people are still a train connection and 90 minutes away a place where they can start to imagine how they would get home. And dare I say, the people who do live there are unlikely to nestle up next to your average unwashed massees transit rider for a 45 minute trip when the Big Blue Bus route is already just 15 minutes longer and the drive is 30 minutes.
Largely I agree, and most of what needs to be accomplished here (getting people out of LAX, north) is already being done so with the nearly finished K Line. That said, some kind of coastal metro line that extends the C further south from Redondo to Long Beach or even Huntington, and up to Santa Monica, connecting to the E and D lines (eventually) with wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. LA's distributed cores will alway be a huge challenge, requiring weird stuff like this. That said, in terms of transit that needs to be built, such a line would be waaaay at the bottom of any ranking I'd put together.
posted by DarlingMonster at 3:13 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
I think this would be difficult to justify for the simple reason that you're going to spend $8 to $10 billion on a train line that goes to, from, and through a whole area where close to nobody in the LA area lives. Like this has got to be pretty low population density, top of the charts in terms of income, you can't connect westwards because of the ocean, or northwards because good luck dealing with the mountains or the residents of Brentwood or the Palisades. But again, it's just not a route that serves many people, on that hypothetical route most people are still a train connection and 90 minutes away a place where they can start to imagine how they would get home. And dare I say, the people who do live there are unlikely to nestle up next to your average unwashed massees transit rider for a 45 minute trip when the Big Blue Bus route is already just 15 minutes longer and the drive is 30 minutes.
Largely I agree, and most of what needs to be accomplished here (getting people out of LAX, north) is already being done so with the nearly finished K Line. That said, some kind of coastal metro line that extends the C further south from Redondo to Long Beach or even Huntington, and up to Santa Monica, connecting to the E and D lines (eventually) with wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. LA's distributed cores will alway be a huge challenge, requiring weird stuff like this. That said, in terms of transit that needs to be built, such a line would be waaaay at the bottom of any ranking I'd put together.
posted by DarlingMonster at 3:13 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
And as for northwards - connect it to the D line, that will eventually have some kind of connection through the Sepulveda pass, in whatever century that project is approved, to the deep valley. There will already be a station in Westwood for the D Line, so Brentwood/whatever other rich pains, won't have any say.
posted by DarlingMonster at 3:17 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
posted by DarlingMonster at 3:17 PM on April 23 [1 favorite]
And as for northwards - connect it to the D line, that will eventually have some kind of connection through the Sepulveda pass, in whatever century that project is approved, to the deep valley. There will already be a station in Westwood for the D Line, so Brentwood/whatever other rich pains, won't have any say.
If, in my lifetime, I could get on a train and take it from UCLA to Van Nuys, it sure would be a nifty version of my lifetime. BUT again, thinking about the Silver Line or whatever letter of the alphabet has now been assigned to it . . . isn't the closest version of that just somehow getting a dedicated bus route over the pass via the 405? I mean, the 405 is built already. It's either a literal freeway or a literal parking lot depending on the hour of the day, so I've never understood why we don't just remove a lane on each side for two-way bus traffic, other than just general reflexive-intuitive opposition to solutions that don't induce more demand through additional car lanes.
Like I'm sure someone has a very complex and nuanced transit model that says we can't remove the lane because . . . reasons . . . but then again how much worse could the 405 get, plus you get to add capacity through bus lines.
posted by kensington314 at 3:23 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
If, in my lifetime, I could get on a train and take it from UCLA to Van Nuys, it sure would be a nifty version of my lifetime. BUT again, thinking about the Silver Line or whatever letter of the alphabet has now been assigned to it . . . isn't the closest version of that just somehow getting a dedicated bus route over the pass via the 405? I mean, the 405 is built already. It's either a literal freeway or a literal parking lot depending on the hour of the day, so I've never understood why we don't just remove a lane on each side for two-way bus traffic, other than just general reflexive-intuitive opposition to solutions that don't induce more demand through additional car lanes.
Like I'm sure someone has a very complex and nuanced transit model that says we can't remove the lane because . . . reasons . . . but then again how much worse could the 405 get, plus you get to add capacity through bus lines.
posted by kensington314 at 3:23 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
...but then again how much worse could the 405 get...
Dear god, don't let them hear you say that!!!
But I hear you - from what I've read about the Sepulveda Pass engineering/route/option studies, it sounds like they're trying to future proof (capacity wise) it a bit and leaning towards either elevated rail, running near/along the 405 or (christ) under the pass), with the assumption that the population of the Valley will only get more massive and it'll be cheaper now than in 30 years. BRT works well in some parts of LA, and is hell in others. I also harbor mistrust of BRTs as a long term solution, or more accurately of our local government, because converting them into extra lanes for cars, or toll roads, etc., is all too easy.
posted by DarlingMonster at 3:32 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
Dear god, don't let them hear you say that!!!
But I hear you - from what I've read about the Sepulveda Pass engineering/route/option studies, it sounds like they're trying to future proof (capacity wise) it a bit and leaning towards either elevated rail, running near/along the 405 or (christ) under the pass), with the assumption that the population of the Valley will only get more massive and it'll be cheaper now than in 30 years. BRT works well in some parts of LA, and is hell in others. I also harbor mistrust of BRTs as a long term solution, or more accurately of our local government, because converting them into extra lanes for cars, or toll roads, etc., is all too easy.
posted by DarlingMonster at 3:32 PM on April 23 [2 favorites]
I also harbor mistrust of BRTs as a long term solution, or more accurately of our local government, because converting them into extra lanes for cars, or toll roads, etc., is all too easy.
Big sigh
posted by kensington314 at 3:33 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
Big sigh
posted by kensington314 at 3:33 PM on April 23 [3 favorites]
...but then again how much worse could the 405 get...
he said it's the first day of spring?
why we don't just remove a lane on each side for two-way bus traffic
You might not even have to do that; there are fire roads that flank the freeway that could probably handle a bus, especially if one direction per side.
That would probably be better than the mono...mono....monorail! But not as good as tunneled heavy rail.
(The unrealistic futurist in me wants elevated rail that goes over the landfill near the Getty and then by the side of the reservoir on the reverse slope.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:16 PM on April 23
he said it's the first day of spring?
why we don't just remove a lane on each side for two-way bus traffic
You might not even have to do that; there are fire roads that flank the freeway that could probably handle a bus, especially if one direction per side.
That would probably be better than the mono...mono....monorail! But not as good as tunneled heavy rail.
(The unrealistic futurist in me wants elevated rail that goes over the landfill near the Getty and then by the side of the reservoir on the reverse slope.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:16 PM on April 23
But either way, LAX remains arguably the worst airport in the country and certainly the shittiest part of your week on any week you have to use it, mostly due to the nightmare of getting in and out.
This is often said, but ORD is probably worse in terms of its airport operations; and the practicalities of getting in and out of NYCs airports are worse by any objective measure. It just doesn't bother people as much because they're resigned to the expense and/or the hassle of taxis or trains or ubers when they visit.
While dealing with LAX is maddening because you're probably personally driving your rental car.
Burbank, Long Beach, Orange County, Ontario are all fairly easy if they work for you and aren't further yet.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:35 PM on April 23
This is often said, but ORD is probably worse in terms of its airport operations; and the practicalities of getting in and out of NYCs airports are worse by any objective measure. It just doesn't bother people as much because they're resigned to the expense and/or the hassle of taxis or trains or ubers when they visit.
While dealing with LAX is maddening because you're probably personally driving your rental car.
Burbank, Long Beach, Orange County, Ontario are all fairly easy if they work for you and aren't further yet.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:35 PM on April 23
I mean, the 405 is built already. It's either a literal freeway or a literal parking lot depending on the hour of the day, so I've never understood why we don't just remove a lane on each side for two-way bus traffic, other than just general reflexive-intuitive opposition to solutions that don't induce more demand through additional car lanes.
Logically, yes. If people standing still in a traffic jam were forced to watch a stream of nice comfortable buses zooming past them in the next lane, a lot of them would switch to the bus. But politicians who want to keep their jobs will never vote for removing lanes from a highway that's already jammed every day just to make room for buses.
If I were going to try such a scheme, I might start by dedicating a lane to electric public buses AND small electric private vehicles. If you aren't on the bus, you have to be driving a 100-percent electric vehicle within certain size and weight limits to drive in that lane. And reserve all the best parking spots for the same vehicles. There are lots of people who would sooner stop going places than ride public transport, but you could get most of those people into small electric cars if it cut their drive time significantly and reserved the best parking for them.
posted by pracowity at 8:56 AM on April 24
Logically, yes. If people standing still in a traffic jam were forced to watch a stream of nice comfortable buses zooming past them in the next lane, a lot of them would switch to the bus. But politicians who want to keep their jobs will never vote for removing lanes from a highway that's already jammed every day just to make room for buses.
If I were going to try such a scheme, I might start by dedicating a lane to electric public buses AND small electric private vehicles. If you aren't on the bus, you have to be driving a 100-percent electric vehicle within certain size and weight limits to drive in that lane. And reserve all the best parking spots for the same vehicles. There are lots of people who would sooner stop going places than ride public transport, but you could get most of those people into small electric cars if it cut their drive time significantly and reserved the best parking for them.
posted by pracowity at 8:56 AM on April 24
I live in L.A. proper and my parents currently live in Las Vegas, so I'm like the prime target for this sort of rail. And the people saying that a southwest endpoint in Rancho, while certainly a lot better than the idiotic Fresno to Merced California highspeed rail project, severely limits the project's utility are completely right imo. If I have to get to Rancho to get on the HSR I might as well just drive. It'll be (apparently) a lot cheaper, more convenient, and won't take much more time.
These high speed rail projects which purport to be between major population centers but choose endpoints nowhere near those centers because its easier remind me of the old joke about a guy who drops his keys getting out of his car in the dark and when his friend sees him searching under a streetlight 30 feet away asks him why he's doing that: "Because the light is better here."
It doesn't matter if it's much easier to build to Rancho (or Fresno&Merced) if it largely negates the entire purpose of the project. Which is high speed rail from LA to LV. Rancho isn't LA, it's not particularly close to being LA. This rail needs to go to at least downtown to be worthwhile.
Sure, people who live out east will use the rail but that's a small fraction of the supposed target population. Either do the more difficult thing and build to the population centers or why bother?
posted by Justinian at 12:19 PM on April 24 [4 favorites]
These high speed rail projects which purport to be between major population centers but choose endpoints nowhere near those centers because its easier remind me of the old joke about a guy who drops his keys getting out of his car in the dark and when his friend sees him searching under a streetlight 30 feet away asks him why he's doing that: "Because the light is better here."
It doesn't matter if it's much easier to build to Rancho (or Fresno&Merced) if it largely negates the entire purpose of the project. Which is high speed rail from LA to LV. Rancho isn't LA, it's not particularly close to being LA. This rail needs to go to at least downtown to be worthwhile.
Sure, people who live out east will use the rail but that's a small fraction of the supposed target population. Either do the more difficult thing and build to the population centers or why bother?
posted by Justinian at 12:19 PM on April 24 [4 favorites]
Either do the more difficult thing and build to the population centers or why bother?
The Inland Empire (admittedly a large area -with variable distance from Rancho) has a population of 4.5 million people, and is growing faster than LA metro proper. #12 in the US and about to surpass the Boston metro area. Bigger than SF/Oakland (though San Jose/Santa Clara is a separate metro) metro. Hence also why MattD's estimation of usage 1m per year is comically low.
Put another way, between LA + IE + LV = NYC metro population.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:45 PM on April 24 [3 favorites]
The Inland Empire (admittedly a large area -with variable distance from Rancho) has a population of 4.5 million people, and is growing faster than LA metro proper. #12 in the US and about to surpass the Boston metro area. Bigger than SF/Oakland (though San Jose/Santa Clara is a separate metro) metro. Hence also why MattD's estimation of usage 1m per year is comically low.
Put another way, between LA + IE + LV = NYC metro population.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:45 PM on April 24 [3 favorites]
LAX is on the coast, it's far from lots of places it serves too. And LA County ends at San Dimas. I live closer to RC than Downtown, and still feel like I live in LA, just a different part of it. (And I grew up on the West Side.)
Even if the line went all the way downtown it wouldn't be high speed; it would need to use the same trackage as Metrolink, Amtrak and occasional freight trains, and there's already capacity issues (and speed limitations due to fatalities).
You should still be able to get there from Union Station, just on a connecting commuter train.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:56 PM on April 24 [1 favorite]
Even if the line went all the way downtown it wouldn't be high speed; it would need to use the same trackage as Metrolink, Amtrak and occasional freight trains, and there's already capacity issues (and speed limitations due to fatalities).
You should still be able to get there from Union Station, just on a connecting commuter train.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:56 PM on April 24 [1 favorite]
Sure, it's possible, but now the trip from much of L.A. to Vegas will take just as long as driving so you've removed the last advantage (after cost and convenience). If it's still going to take most people 4+ hours to get to Vegas, will cost $400, and requires hauling luggage etc through multiple stations on multiple rail lines... what is the incentive to do it?
posted by Justinian at 7:19 PM on April 24 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:19 PM on April 24 [1 favorite]
Well, if it costs $400 no one is going to use it even if it terminates at the foot of their bed. Though it's maybe worth considering where the recurring LV getaway demographic lives, across SoCal. Or, the sectors of it that would consider getting on a train at all. Like, the ones who presently get on a bus.
In any event, having some kind of through-baggage service if originating at Union Station via Metrolink would help.
And, don't under estimate the desert city land-grab aspect. Whether real, or as an illusory motivator.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:44 AM on April 26
In any event, having some kind of through-baggage service if originating at Union Station via Metrolink would help.
And, don't under estimate the desert city land-grab aspect. Whether real, or as an illusory motivator.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:44 AM on April 26
Fair enough. I think we can all agree a $400 fare for a ticket is laughable.
posted by Justinian at 3:00 PM on April 26
posted by Justinian at 3:00 PM on April 26
« Older “members of the Voyager flight team celebrate” | We cherished the girls, grog and laughter Newer »
posted by pracowity at 1:19 PM on April 22 [22 favorites]