From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 04-May-14 23:06, Glen Labah wrote:   
   > In article , Stephen Sprunk   
   >  wrote:   
   >> On 02-May-14 00:05, Glen Labah wrote:   
   >>> In article , Stephen Sprunk   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>> They don't go to LA or SF, which means they can't address the   
   >>>> majority of the California market, and regionals are still too   
   >>>> slow to compete with air, though not quite as bad as Amtrak   
   >>>> LD.   
   >>>   
   >>> It means they don't have service between the two major urban   
   >>> areas. However, I'm not sure I would call that the "majority of   
   >>> the California market" when shorter distance trips within those   
   >>> two areas create so much traffic.   
   >>   
   >> "Short-distance trips within those two areas" is just commuting,   
   >> though, which is handled by commuter operators, not intercity   
   >> operators.  We were talking about intercity service.   
   >   
   > Shorter distance trips does not mean they are "short distance trips"   
   > being done with commuter stock.  Due to the size of the LA and Bay   
   > Area it is possible to have trips that are longer than what most   
   > people would do as commuter length but still within the greater metro   
   > area.   
      
   That is precisely why LA or SF are each considered a metro area rather   
   than a bunch of completely separate cities--and there _is_ commuter   
   service within each area; nobody sane would use intercity transportation   
   for such trips, nor do intercity operators want such passengers because   
   they would consume seats needed for longer-distance travelers.   
      
   > For example, Capitol Corridor trains are mostly 133 mile trains   
   > (Sacramento -> Oakland -> San Jose), with one train a day to/from   
   > Auburn, extending the reach of the corridor another 35 miles or so.   
      
   Oakland and San Jose are both in the SF metro area, and there is (or at   
   least will be soon) local transit service between them.   
      
   Sacramento is an entirely different metro area, and yes, that _is_ an   
   intercity trip.  Ditto for SD vs LA, though the furthest reaches of   
   their commuter rail services do happen to touch.   
      
   > Offering this as "commuter service" is a bit like offering commuter   
   > service from Fort Worth to Temple (128 miles via Texas Eagle).   
      
   Temple is not part of the DFW metro area, which is why nobody would even   
   consider such commuter service.  That's clearly an intercity trip.  Even   
   if we managed to double typical average travel speeds, it would still be   
   too far for a non-trivial number of people to make that commute.   
      
   > I know you guys are good at suburban sprawl in Texas, but I think   
   > even there you would want to offer such "commuter" trips using   
   > regional stock like ...   
      
   Unfortunately, the remainder of your reply was garbled on my server.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)