After decades of proposals it appears that there's finally going to be Los Angeles to Las Vegas train service again. http://news.yahoo.com/calif-vegas-party-train-could-hit-tracks-2013-082440105--finance.html The obvious customer are those that drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas moreso than those that choose to fly. That's not to say that some that fly to Las Vegas won't use the train but the real advantage is for thousands that drive to Las Vegas and back again every weekend from Los Angeles. While I'm not one of those anymore I used to make this trip about once a month so I'm very much aware of every mile of Hwy 15 than connects Las Vegas to S. California. There are certainly advantages to driving such as the fact that the person has a car in Las Vegas and doesn't have to rent one but that applies equally to someone that flies or takes the train. Of course many don't need a car in Las Vegas and in those cases the issue becomes moot. Often taking a taxi for limited trips away from the hotel/casino is far less expensive than driving to Las Vegas or renting car once there. The biggest issue I see when it comes to how a person gets to Las Vegas is whether they smoke or not. Even taking a plane, which makes the trip in about an hour or so, requires the extended time at the airport getting through TSA and then leaving the airport at McCarren in Las Vegas. Basically a "smoker" can't smoke for two to three hours each way so they'd rather drive. We've seen Amtrak ban smoking on all trains, not even having an isolated smoking car that they once had, and it discourages about 25% or more of Americans from using Amtrak. Even in a spouse doesn't smoke if one person does then neither is willing to take the train doubling the negative impact on Amtrak reducing the customer base. I'd love to take Amtrak to many destinations because I love the casual nature of traveling by trains but effectively the ant-smoking crowd has removed me from the customer base. If this train service wants to be a continuation of the partying in Las Vegas and wants to be inclusive of that then they need to provide a smoking car or they're dramatically reducing their customer base. In spite of arguments to the contrary when states have imposed smoking bans in bars and night clubs it reduces their customer base and revenues driving many out of business. Why have a beer at a bar and watch a football game where I can't smoke when I can have a beer at home and watch the same game while enjoying a good smoke to go with my beer? This issue isn't addressed in the article but it is an important financial issue if this enterprise is to succeed. An enterprise faces an uphill battle if a large percentage of their customer base is unnecessarily eliminated before the enterprise even begins. A "smoking car" can be included and it doesn't adversely effect anyone's health except the smokers that are going to smoke one way or the other either on the train or in their car.
UP is not Amtrak...and look for a patio car if you want to light up. from what i understand of the "Open Air" rule is CA's call, not the rail's. can rail service from LA to LV be profitable? maybe if Government keeps it's hands off it, but what are the chances of that?
The following comes from the same article: That is what alarmed me because Amtrak employees are covered under federal contracts and the federal government bans smoking on all Amrak trains. As I noted that's why I won't take Amtrak anywhere even though I'd love to take the train on vacations. An "open air" car does not imply that it's completely open to the elements. Even a car with open windows or a good ventilation system would meet this requirement IMO. Amtrak could be providing these as well but doesn't and it loses both riders and money because it doesn't. This will be a private enterprise and I support the "open air" concept and I wouldn't even require Amtrak employees to enter the car except at stops when smoking can be stoppred or if they choose to work the smoking cars voluntarily (e.g a smoker employee probably wouldn't care and they can't claim that walking into an "open air" smoking car is harming their health. I'm nor sure that the Amtrak employees union will allow a smoking car as most unions are "liberal" and for them it's all about dictating "what's best for others" in creating mandates such as no-smoking rules. I also believe that it was the Union that forced this businessman to accept Amtrak employees so that the train could stop at an established train station. I can't see him doing that without coercion by the Union.
