> 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.
What makes you think that the same forces that keep an airline from flying non-stop from Salinas to Bakersfield would result in having a fast train being built beetween those two small cities? Did you look at a map before making this pronouncement? The geography doesn't support your claim; my projection is that if you want to ride a "fast train" from Salinas to Bakersfield in some future California, you will be backtracking at least to Gilroy if not to San Jose beforehand -- exactly as you do today in an airplane, or for that matter if you'd like to take a "fast train" from Tours to Lyon (via Paris, changing terminals across town while you're at it, 'natch) -- an otherwise lovely 5hr drive which takes ... wait for it ... about the same on TGV.
[ Of course your beloved Greyhound does this trip in 8:45, with changes in Paso Robles, Hanford, and Visalia ;-) ]
/jordan