California bullet train plan likely to run out of money before completion
latimes.com
latimes.com
Clearly you have never been on a decent train. Its massively preferable to driving.
A two hours train trip is generally much shorter than a one hour plane trip.
No it wouldn't. You can't redirect a train into skyscrapers.
And the failure modes of taking out the "pilot" on a train are much safer than those of a plane.
So you can threat the driver, but I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops.
Now I agree that terrorist can be creative sometimes
Stop the train between stations, in an area with free views all around for at least a hundred meters, put two terrorists with a gun and night vision devices on each end of the train, one on each side.
Because of the height of the step down to the track, many people would already find it difficult getting out of the train if there is no platform, even if they wouldn’t be shot at.
With trains, you need an army of guys spread along the train to shoot at people trying to get out. Each one of this guy can be neutralized by the police from outside or even or passengers from the inside (see thalys train attack). I'm not saying it's impossible but it certainly qualifies as more difficult.
Well anyway, trains are more comfortable. That's the main reason why I like them better.
1. I doubt you’ll need an army. Chances are most of the passengers will be too scared to even try running away.
2. You probably can afford to lose a few of the most adventurous passengers.
3. In many trains, it isn’t that hard to lock the doors using chain locks you bring in. You can even (partly) do that before your hijack starts.
4. If you don’t start shooting hostages, the police won’t go in for the obvious reason that they want to keep the hostages alive.
From the viewpoint of a terrorist big disadvantage of hijacking a train is that you give up leaving the scene alive and free (airplanes used to have that as a possibility, as you could negotiate for kerosine and fly to a friendly country)
Europe and Asia have tons of passenger trains that millions of people ride on every day. Why do you think the risk is that great? These trains already exist and they don’t get hijacked all the time.
There are reasons to be against trains I suppose but fear of terrorism seems very farfetched. There are much softer targets around. It’s not like a train is a force multiplier like a plane is, you can’t take it anywhere.
Where do you get the impression I do? I just replied to a remark ”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops” with an IMO (but not in HN’s opinion, it seems) reasonable scenario.
If they just want to kill people, they can shoot them at any public event.
An airplane is a way more vulnerable target than a train is.
Hijacking historically wasn’t primarily aimed at killing people.
CAHSR would also have the benefit of reducing the need for short haul flights to use up landing slots at busy airports like SFO and LAX.
LA falls within the ideal distance for HSR.
Your monthly travel is also cheap because you scheduled it far ahead of time. Spontaneous flights to LA are expensive. If I want to fly to LA tbis saturday (one way) it will be $140.
Going by car, which I did recently in Benelux, is so much more pleasant. You stop by local restaurants when you're hungry, you check out culture outside the city center, you see how regular people live. You get to smell the environment. You really experience the country you're in.
As far as HSR in America, thank goodness there's no need to argue about it anymore, as even the people who have embraced it wholeheartedly have decided to abandon the idea. We probably won't see HSR ever in the United States, as self driving cars will make it a silly idea in the next couple of decades.
Instead, you should compare the high-speed train with a motorway journey, stopping at the rest area for a McDonald's.
Slower trains are available if you want to better enjoy the view.
This is definitely not true. SFO's Terminal 1 cost $2.4 billion. Let's not forget the huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions from airplane fuel.
It's the compulsory land purchases and expensive consultants which are the main expense.
It's not just this one project, it's all the infrastructure in the US. It's horrifically expensive to build (compared to countries like Germany and Japan, which themselves are not low-cost-of-living places), it takes forever to build, there's massive cost overruns, etc. America is really just politically broken and unable to build the infrastructure it needs to continue as a world-leading economy.
a payout to the union’s and bureaucrats to tide them over until the legislature can think up another boondoggle.