--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Not at all, and especially in the case previously
> cited. Because the
> speed of an airplne is so much higher than that of
> even the fastest of
> trains in the best of circumstances, you can eat up
> a lot of prep time
> and still come out ahead in the overall trip if the
> distance is far
> enough: and SF to LA certainly fills that
> requirement.
[WS:] Your argument rests on a questionable assumption that the speed of the vehicle trumps everything (to which Carrol objected_) That this assumption is questionable can be demonstrated, inter alia, by the demise of the supersonioc Concorde - it was replaced by the slower but more economically efficient A-340s and 777s.
If you travel between LA and SF, airplane is indeed the fastest mode, albeit more environmentally costly than train. However, if you travel between, say, Salinas and Bakersfield (about 200 miles), be prepared to spend some 3-5 hours in flight and some 2 more hours on getting to the airport to the tune of $300-$600 if you fly. To cover the same distance by land takes about 3hrs and 40 minutes according to Google maps, which is driving, so I would assume that a fast train would make that distance in about 2-2.5 hrs.
This demonstrates that while air travel is faster and cheaper for those who travel between major cities that are sufficiently far away from each other - it is slower and more expensive for everyone who happen to live outside such cities. Not to mention the fact that air travel is more environmentally damaginging than train travel - but I assume that by the logic of your ilk one can fuck the environment if one can shave off a few minutes off a business trip.
Wojtek