> What makes you think that I would propose building
> a fast train between two small towns?
Just your words :-)
> The train would run between LA and SF (or any other
> major metropolitan areas,) but also serve some smaller
> localities en route ...
The whole point of a "fast" train is that it doesn't stop along the way at every small town. I assure you, no one who is involved in the California HSR effort thinks there will be a stop in Salinas! The train will stop in Bakersfield, but only on the "non fast" runs; you might know of this kind of stop as a "local" ... making that one stop on an otherwise non-stop between SF and LA will add nearly 40% to the running time of said "fast" train ...
Does that sound like a lot? In our hypothetical world where Chuck goes to UCLA for a noon meeting, taking Dennis's suggested train would, after a fashion, get him to UCLA in time for the meeting; making that *one* stop on the way would mean Chuck would be late. You can see this on Acela, too: the fastest DC-NY trip (making 4 stops) is 2:45 ... adding Aberdeen and Newark Airport to some of the trips adds 40 minutes, 25% slower!
[ Dennis writes:
Bakersfield is enroute between San Francisco and Los Angeles
the way Pittsburgh is enroute between New York and Baltimore.
Ah, but that's the beauty of the geography California! Bakersfield IS on the way to Los Angeles ...
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm
But it's an apt metaphor, since going to Baltimore from New York via Pittsburgh -- just like San Francisco to Los Angeles no metter which way you go[*] -- takes you over two very steep mountain passes which are absolute hell to railroad building ...
[*] Contact me offlist for a route that would get rid of one of the mountain ranges ...
Back to Wojtek ...
]
> Another point that you missed (or chose to ignore) is
> that ALL modes of transportation are subsidized ...
And I sure do love pizza! (non sequitur?)
I'm well aware of the economics of transportation, thanks :-)
> The US chose to subsidize airplanes and roads more heavily
> than it does railroads for purely political reasons.
I love your use of the word 'purely' here -- because it makes you sound so absolute. Which makes you, alas, absolutely (and purely!) wrong. They did it for other reasons, too: like geography. But since you never leave your little city neighborhood (or bother to look at a map, for that matter), facts blow completely by you like THERE'S A FUCKING MOUNTAIN RANGE BETWEEN SALINAS AND BAKERSFIELD which no train, not in the future, not in the rosy old past, not with a bajillion dollars to spend by parking every airplane in the country will ever make it across in any reasonable amount of time!
> Arguing that planes are cheaper than trains ...
(which I didn't do, but please do go on)
> ... is the same disingenous bulllshit as arguing ...
Wait, I changed my mind: please don't go on.
> To sum it up, I am not arguing that trains are better
> than planes (that woul dbe obviously preposterous),
> but that they offer certain advantages in certain
> market niches.
Pick a better one next time then, eh? Because the one you picked sucks.
/jordan