The problem with the usual implementation of that approach is that it involves a massive, centralized electricity generating facility that disburses electricity through a grid to the end user.
Which is to say that this implementation, like all implementations of "mass transportation," is extraordinarily vulnerable to terrorism.
One of the ironies of 9-11 is that the United States is, maybe after Australia, the industrialized nation LEAST susceptible to terrorism, because our population is so widely disbursed [in the suburbs] and shuns mass transportation in favor of the family automobile.
Nations like England, France, Germany, Japan, and Taiwan [or, worse yet, Hong Kong] are just sitting ducks for terrorist attacks, because their populations are so highly concentrated, so highly dependent on mass transportation [compare Spain on 3-11], and because their power grids also tend to be highly centralized [think of the nuclear power grid in France]. Of course, the poster-child for a highly concentrated population that's highly dependent on mass transportation would be none other than Israel herself.
You could do electricity as a source of propulsion, but to shield it adequately from terrorist attack, you're gonna need a generator in every backyard across the United States, and judging from how loud those things can get, that could cause some serious insomnia.
I disagree. On-board generation using liquid hydrocarbon fuel provides an immediately available backup for the transportation electric grid in this plan. Yes, I understand that as soon as it went in there would be a clamor to make grid use mandatory inside cities, but an exception for grid outage ought to be part of the plan.
Good argument, though.