U.S. high-speed rail's ship finally comes in

Washington Post ^ | Sunday, April 25, 2010 | John Rosenthal

[a fool in paradise]

At speeds of up to 220 mph, high-speed rail will make it possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours, or half the time it takes to drive

What makes passengeers think that they are going to get through security to get on a train any quicker than it will take them to get on a plane?

And a plane can "make it there" quicker than a car or a train without the infrastructure of "one set of tracks".

[oldbrowser]

because they run on electricity, don't rely on foreign oil imports.

And where does the electricity come from?

[WKUHilltopper]

“What makes passengeers think that they are going to get through security to get on a train any quicker than it will take them to get on a plane?”

LOL! Good point! They won’t.

[wac3rd]

Obama’s Stash...!

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Laughable propaganda from this jerk and the WAPO

[glorgau]

Before the end of the decade, ...

Environmental studies will be through the Appeals process and heading toward the final round of adjudication. Obtaining right of way will then be able to begin.

[BelegStrongbow]

Are they also suggesting that train travel is as safe as air travel per passenger mile? I’ve seen train wrecks. It’s no prettier than aircraft crashes.

[avacado]

"At speeds of up to 220 mph, high-speed rail will make it possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours..."

Oh goody! And just think when they invent airplanes we'll get there even faster!

[psjones]

What would be the cost to get on one of these trains?

[Laserman]

Another Liberal wet dream come true that the American people will be subsidizing for centuries to come!

[tet68]

I want my flying car.

[Willie Green]

And a plane can "make it there" quicker than a car or a train without the infrastructure of "one set of tracks".

A plane can't go anywhere without the infrastructure of someplace to land.

[alexander_busek]

What makes passengeers think that they are going to get through security to get on a train any quicker than it will take them to get on a plane?

Well, for one thing, it could be quicker because - after a superficial security check before boarding - security personnel could move through the cars after disembarcation, conducting a more-thorough search.

You can't do that on an airplane.

Further, a much more powerful explosive charge would be necessary to cripple a train - and even then, there would be survivors (as opposed to mid-air detonations).

Further, it would be much more difficult to hijack a train and/or divert its course.

Finally, in the event of, e.g., a hostage situation, it would be easier to get law enforcement officials onto the train.

So, all in all, less security would be needed, and the consequences of a breach of security would be less severe.

Regards,

[a fool in paradise]

And Chicago will get a lion's share of funding in the initial outlay...

[screaminsunshine]

We call it the Chatahoochee Choo Choo. Anyone who is for this insane idea should be given a padded cell in Chatahoochee.

[Redcloak]

OK... Who has that Simpsons graphic handy?

[a fool in paradise]

Security on a plane ensures that once the plane is airborne, there is little that someone can do to interfere with the flight.

But a saboteur can attack the rails at any stage of the journey or even launch a missile at the train.

[DManA]

Even the fastest trains will never approach the efficiency of an airplane for a cross-country trip, of course.

Of course.

[dirtboy]

Tampa to Orlando will take less than an hour, or 35 percent faster than by car.

Ludicrous. Unless you live within a short walking distance to the Tampa train station and your destination in Orlando is close to that train station, you still have to get to the train and from the train to your destination by some means. That makes this statement completely irrelevant.