California High-Speed Rail - Page 3

BarTopDancer · 06-01-2011, 11:21 AM

Considering driving to SF is around 10 hours (depending how fast you drive and how often you stop) 11 hours isn't terrible.

Morrigoon · 06-01-2011, 11:31 AM

Actually Oakland works better for me, since my family is in Danville. But we couldn't find a route that made sense. Maybe Alex was looking in the wrong spot or something.

Alex · 06-01-2011, 12:05 PM

Yeah, you can definitely get from LA to Oakland on Amtrak with no buses, but you have to take the Coast Starlight.

There is another option it will show sometimes (and often before the Coast Starlight when I've done it) that takes a bus from Union Station to Bakersfield and catches the San Joaquin from there to Oakland.

Note that if your destination is really Danville then in addition to getting off in Oakland (at any of the stops already mentioned), you can also disembark in Martinez, which might be easier if someone is picking you up (though not so convenient for connecting to other public transportation).

keith - SuPeR K! · 06-01-2011, 12:14 PM

The train situation from Vegas to LA is ridiculous. Instead of holding out and building the route they needed to, Vegas bitched out and is building a crap version. Vegas to Victorville! Yeah, that will be useful...

Not Afraid · 06-01-2011, 03:35 PM

When I go on vacation, I want to go to Victorville.

innerSpaceman · 06-01-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

Y Flying LAX-SFO is usually a 4 hour exercise in misery, so I'm thinking if they can get the train time down to about 6 hours it'll be totally worth it.

What makes you say that? I'm flying up later in the month, and I don't see it being a 4-hour process, much less one of misery. What happened to you that was so miserable?

On the real topic at hand (sort of): Is there train service from L.A. to Victorville from which you can catch the wonderful train to Vegas?

Kevy Baby · 06-01-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Considering driving to SF is around 10 hours (depending how fast you drive and how often you stop) 11 hours isn't terrible.

10 hours is a worst-case scenario IMO. I've done it in 6 and Google Maps puts it at 6:50.

Alex · 06-01-2011, 07:28 PM

Missed the 10-hour estimate. How often are you stopping? My average Dublin (10-minutes closer than Danville) to DL time is probably 6 hours.

Also don't consider flying to be a miserable experience but four hours door-to-door probably isn't a huge exaggeration depending on the travel time to and from and airports.

And the Southwest Chief route goes from Union Station through Victorville. But at Barstow it follows the 40 to Needles instead of the 15 to Vegas.

innerSpaceman · 06-02-2011, 06:29 AM

Well, I live really close to LAX and I'm not checking a bag, so I'm gonna cut half an hour off that misery estimate. Still, that's about a third the time of driving, and my airfare was a bit less than what round-trip gas would cost. Plus what would I do with a car in San Francisco anyway?

But if there were a train there, it would have to be substantially cheaper than driving, for me to choose that option. If a bullet train that would cut the time in half, tho, I'd choose the train over both flying and driving. I don't think I'll live to see that. Maybe some young whippersnapper will enjoy the ride in 2075.

RStar · 06-02-2011, 06:42 AM

From Samland on Miceage:

Quote:

Disneyland's Alweg Monorail: Walt Disney's Highway In The Sky
Both companies promised to build the systems for “free” in exchange for the next 40 years of passenger revenues to bond against. The offer meant that the Los Angeles region would have had the backbone of a revolutionary mass transit system for no cost to the taxpayers. Political pressure from the Standard Oil Company dampened the Board of Supervisors and the LAMTA enthusiasm for the project.

Bradbury said in 2001, “Telephone Alweg to accept their offer, made 30 years ago, to erect 12 crosstown monorails – free, gratis – if we let them run the traffic. I was there the afternoon our supervisors rejected that splendid offer, and I was thrown out of the meeting for making impolite noises. Remember, subways are for cold climes, snow and sleet in dead-winter London, Moscow or Toronto. Monorails are for high, free, open-air spirits, for our always-fair weather. Subways are Forest Lawn extensions. Let’s bury our dead MTA and get on with life.” To date, Los Angeles has spent billions of dollars to build 79 miles of fixed rail.

Click here for whole article

This ticks me off that they gave this offer up so the oil companies could sell more gas, and now they are spending billions on rail. Shame on them!

06-01-2011, 11:21 AM	#21
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	Considering driving to SF is around 10 hours (depending how fast you drive and how often you stop) 11 hours isn't terrible. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2011, 11:31 AM	#22
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Actually Oakland works better for me, since my family is in Danville. But we couldn't find a route that made sense. Maybe Alex was looking in the wrong spot or something. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2011, 12:05 PM	#23
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yeah, you can definitely get from LA to Oakland on Amtrak with no buses, but you have to take the Coast Starlight. There is another option it will show sometimes (and often before the Coast Starlight when I've done it) that takes a bus from Union Station to Bakersfield and catches the San Joaquin from there to Oakland. Note that if your destination is really Danville then in addition to getting off in Oakland (at any of the stops already mentioned), you can also disembark in Martinez, which might be easier if someone is picking you up (though not so convenient for connecting to other public transportation). Last edited by Alex : 06-01-2011 at 12:15 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2011, 12:14 PM	#24
keith - SuPeR K! Community Fruit Join Date: May 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 547	The train situation from Vegas to LA is ridiculous. Instead of holding out and building the route they needed to, Vegas bitched out and is building a crap version. Vegas to Victorville! Yeah, that will be useful... __________________ I would hike 10+ hours... and I would hike 10+ more!
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2011, 03:35 PM	#25
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	When I go on vacation, I want to go to Victorville.
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2011, 07:28 PM	#28
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Missed the 10-hour estimate. How often are you stopping? My average Dublin (10-minutes closer than Danville) to DL time is probably 6 hours. Also don't consider flying to be a miserable experience but four hours door-to-door probably isn't a huge exaggeration depending on the travel time to and from and airports. And the Southwest Chief route goes from Union Station through Victorville. But at Barstow it follows the 40 to Needles instead of the 15 to Vegas.
	Submit to Quotes

06-02-2011, 06:29 AM	#29
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, I live really close to LAX and I'm not checking a bag, so I'm gonna cut half an hour off that misery estimate. Still, that's about a third the time of driving, and my airfare was a bit less than what round-trip gas would cost. Plus what would I do with a car in San Francisco anyway? But if there were a train there, it would have to be substantially cheaper than driving, for me to choose that option. If a bullet train that would cut the time in half, tho, I'd choose the train over both flying and driving. I don't think I'll live to see that. Maybe some young whippersnapper will enjoy the ride in 2075.
	Submit to Quotes