Regular Passenger Service From San Jose to Sacramento?

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
don't you have any reasonable public transportation? I thought there is a
train going along the coast connecting major cities (?).

Generally speaking, we don't have trains like exist in Europe, Japan, and
perhaps elsewhere. I know there's a high-speed rail on the East Coast, but
as far as I know, nothing like that on the West Coast.

So, in answer to your question, no...generally speaking we have no
"reasonable public transportation". There are certainly exceptions in
certain metro areas, but as a rule, Americans prefer to spend tax dollars on
pavement, not trains and buses.

Pete

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
On 21 Nov 2004 20:57:09 -0800, Bob Fry
wrote:


Speaking of useless projects and bullet trains...well, we are now.

Last June, I tooks the Amtrak whatchamacallit from Penn Sta in NYC to
the Rte 128 stop near Boston. About the same time as the EWR/BOS
shuttle and half the cost.

I live in BOS and it's gotten to the point that I wouldn't take the shuttle
unless I had to, which you still do if you need to make a 9am meeting in
Manhattan. It's simply more comfortable.

That being said, I can hardly praise Amtrak for it all. They spent 8 billion
IIRC to electrify all the rails and to build the new trains. In the end
though they can't actually run them at top speed except for twenty or thirty
miles of the route because the tracks are too close together most of the way
to allow trains to pass safely at higher speeds. And they didn't realize
this until *after* spending all the money. So, how come the "Acela Express"
is faster than the old Metroliner? Simple: it makes fewer stops. And it
still makes too many- at least three between Boston and New York. They could
easily make the trip in under three hours if they offered a true "express"
service. ANd they could have done it ten years ago with the equipment they
owned then.

Of course, another big problem with Amtrak is that while everyone in
Washington loves to grandstand and cut its operating subsidies, but then
anytime Amtrak tries to cut service on a line through Senator Pothole's
district, he makes sure it doesn't happen. The result is that there are
bridges up and down the Northeast corridor, which is viable and useful,
which are way behind in maintenance because Amtrak is running lines in
between Wisconsin and New Orleans and god knows where else that lose $100
for every passenger that gets on. This makes no sense. Oh wait, it's
Washington DC- makes perfect sense.

-cwk.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
hm, I asked because I remember some train signs when I was overnight on
the west
coast - they pointed out something like a high speed connection between
some populated areas.

Around here, "high speed" is a relative term. A "high speed" train is
generally simply one that doesn't make that many stops, and is more "point
to point".

AFAIK, the highest speed train in the US is the Acela Express, between DC
and Boston. It's apparently similar to the TGV and other "bullet" trains,
but due to a variety of reasons, even that train does not approach the speed
of its relatives, at least for most of the route. But other than that, we
have plain old trains for connecting between cities, where there is train
transportation at all.

Pete

Martin Hotze writes:

hm, I asked because I remember some train signs when I was overnight on the west
coast - they pointed out something like a high speed connection between some
populated areas.

There is a train service--Amtrak--along the US Western States.
Certainly not high speed by anyone's measure, except Amtrak
executives.

I can't believe all this talk about trains - this is r.a.p!

Control your own destiny - go get a pilots license, purchase a plane and fly
yourself. Its a lot more fun!

Seriously, for about $7K over 6 months or so you can be a pilot. Add another
$4K and a couple of months and you'll have your instrument rating. You can
buy a very reasonable plane for $100K that will go 160 MPH (there are lots
of cheaper older planes but you will quickly want something that goes faster
and is good for bad weather). Most days of the year you'll make the trip in
45 minutes of flying time (SAC to SJC). Sometimes you'll be grounded by the
weather, a bad winter storm will keep you on the ground unless you invest in
a much more expensive plane that can handle ice and sometimes very low fog
in SAC could prevent you landing. Other than that its a milk run most of the
time.

-Brenor

Is there any small airline that is running regular passenger service
between
San Jose and Sacramento?
:
I just can't believe that no one can make the economics of this work at
$150/passenger using something economical to fly like a Caravan.

"Brenor Brophy" wrote in message
. com...
I can't believe all this talk about trains - this is r.a.p!

Control your own destiny - go get a pilots license, purchase a plane and
fly yourself. Its a lot more fun!

Maybe you should read the whole thread before replying. For example, the
original post might have been helpful to you. The train conversation was
simply a minor tangent those of us already "acquainted" from this newsgroup
engaged in.

In particular, practically everyone participating in this thread already has
their pilot qualifications.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

AFAIK, the highest speed train in the US is the Acela Express,
between DC and Boston. It's apparently similar to the TGV and other
"bullet" trains, but due to a variety of reasons, even that train
does not approach the speed of its relatives, at least for most of
the route.

....and that is due mainly to track design. The train itself is very fast
(however you want to measure it), but even with tilting cars, it has to slow
down for much of the route due to curves in the track that are too sharp.
With the level of development on the East Coast and the price of real
estate, straightening the tracks is a very expensive proposition -
especially for a railroad that can't turn a profit.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

don't you have any reasonable public transportation? I thought there is a
train going along the coast connecting major cities (?).

I'd have to say that "reasonable public transportation" doesn't exist
on the U.S. west coast - unless you live in one big city and want to
go to another (like SFO-LAX). And then you have the hassles of going
through all the airport nonsense.

Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA. They
wanted $400 or so for a flight. Forget that. I went to two different
Greyhound terminals - and couldn't get a straight answer out of either
one. I wound up hitchhiking to Chemult, OR to catch the train. It was
an hour late, and I stood on an open platform in a snowstorm waiting
for it. After some time there some people waiting in a car took
pity on me and offered me a seat. The train ride itself was fine -
but I got off in Redding, CA at 4 AM - and NOTHING was open (except
the Greyhound bus station). BLNT.

More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
sure, there are flights - by way of SFO. Figure on the usual airport
hassles times two - including getting reinspected in SFO despite
never having left the transit lounge. I found that I could rent a
car and drive it at about half the cost and maybe an hour more
door to door.

More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like. If you want
Amtrak it's a bus at 7 AM to Martinez (across from Vallejo), then
a train to Bakersfield, followed by another bus to SBA. Total 16
hours (barring delays, which are not uncommon). I can drive it in
12 hours and fly it in 3. Which would you choose?

By the way - the trains are just fine - clean and comfortable.
Pretty cheap, too. However, they are few and far between, frequently
late, and way too slow.

David Johnson

Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA.

More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
sure, there are flights - by way of SFO.

More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like.

I have no idea what RDM, SBA, and FOT are, and I live in the state.
Well, SBA I can guess is Santa Barbara. Why should I guess though?
Why not just type out the friggin' city names?

It's much worse when someone posts "I took a trip from SLW to CMI via
WPC, SQP, and XCS and the views were great" and you have no idea even
what part of the country they're talking about, 'cause it turns out
it's on the East Coast 3000 miles from you. I mean c'mon, type out
those place names so we can all read along.

Personally, I think a better practice would be to post both the airport code
and the name of the MAJOR city the airport is associated, much as is done in
the A/FD. Something like "XXX (Chicago)". Here in Chicago we have several
large airports that are just outside the city limits, but are considered
"Chicago" airports.




"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
Some years ago I wanted to travel one way between RDM and SBA.

More recently I needed to travel between the SAC area and SBA. To be
sure, there are flights - by way of SFO.

More recent still was travel between FOT and SBA. You can take the
airlines from ACV with the usual SFO stop if you like.

I have no idea what RDM, SBA, and FOT are, and I live in the state.
Well, SBA I can guess is Santa Barbara. Why should I guess though?
Why not just type out the friggin' city names?

It's much worse when someone posts "I took a trip from SLW to CMI via
WPC, SQP, and XCS and the views were great" and you have no idea even
what part of the country they're talking about, 'cause it turns out
it's on the East Coast 3000 miles from you. I mean c'mon, type out
those place names so we can all read along.