High-speed trains are coming to America

Why not? You don't have to go through these checks when getting on BART, Muni, or Greyhound. I regularly board high speed trains here in Europe with only random security checks (usually dogs roaming the stations).

Airplane security for all passengers came about primarily because of hijackings, and was later adapted (badly) to bombs and suicide tactics. Planes are a more suitable target for these types of attacks because of many reasons, including the virtually unlimited amount of possible destinations (unfortunately also including the ground or buildings). Even a small explosion on a plane can bring it down, and there is already an existing factor of fear when flying.

The current level of airline security is still ridiculous, given all of this, but it would be doubly so on a train system. Hijacking a train is borderline pointless, crashing one into something is next to impossible, and derailing from on-board would be a pretty large challenge. Trains are also at ground-level, which is less than ideal for hostage scenarios.

Trains are only a sexy target because they have a large number of people on them, and even then people are relatively spaced out along a long line. In my opinion this makes them even less attractive to a terrorist than any other crowded space.

It has lasted everywhere where there are high-speed trains. Check-in, security checkpoints, and boarding 300 people through one tiny door are all exclusive to air travel. When you take the train, you buy your ticket from a machine, put it in a turnstile to access the platform, and then wait until your train pulls in. Then you board through one of the 20-or-so doors that is closest to your seat. It's really that simple, and it has been that way for years.

Remember, America is almost 45 years behind the rest of the world here. The first Shinkansen in Japan went 130mph and started carrying passengers in 1964. We still don't have anything like that (except Acella), in 2009.

You're correct in the sense that eventually train security will approach airline security and take just as long, but trains still have the advantage of being able to load and unload faster (there are more doors and they are generally more spacious) and baggage doesn't have to be handled by a crew... each passenger can carry on his own bags and stow them.

Also, once you are on a train, the crew doesn't have to spend as much time doing pre-departure stuff like checking seatbacks/belts/tray tables and running through the safety instructions that no one listens to.

Lastly, they have a slight advantage (when run well) of being pretty darn consistent on departure and arrival times, meaning riders don't have to leave as much fudge time. In my experience, if you only have a carry-on, you can catch a plane by showing up an hour early, but you can catch a train by showing up 30 mins early (I'm thinking of the Eurostar, where security is similar to an airport).

Personally I think the big advantage is passenger comfort. The comfort level of a high speed train, even in 2nd class, is better than first class on a plane. There is more space, you can stand/sit/walk at will, and there is actually something to look at besides a white ocean of clouds. Not to mention the bathrooms aren't the size of high school lockers.

Not competitive compared to what?

Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and airports amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Not exactly a profitable enterprise. Throw in the billions spent by end users of these roads on their own vehicles, and it's hard to see why there is such a fuss over the funding of trains.

I'm not saying they are always the best solution in every situation. Planes will continue to win for long distances, and roads will continue to win for short ones, but there is a definite middle ground where trains shine.

Having some double standard about profitability and competitiveness when we subsidize airports and highways to the tune of hundreds of billions a year seems rather disingenuous.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about government involvement leading to perverse decisions, but remember that this is the case whether we are talking about trains or highways or any other big spending project.

> Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies....

This rings true, but I'm not sure.

Isn't the truth the weaker statement that new ventures which can't clearly demonstrate, in advance, that their balance of return+risk is likely to be better than investment in their competitors are unlikely to be funded?

And with larger ventures, which require significant investment in infrastructure, this calculation is skewed against new players (and new approaches - where rail counts as a 'new approach' for these purposes)?

Subsidy can tip the balance by reducing the initial risk, effectively lowering barriers to entry and thus encouraging more competition?

[Your other comments about viability are presumably dependent on passenger volumes/density etc. e.g. Local light rail works well in some cities. It may well be that all intercity services would come under your characterisation tho.]

> I like trains, but as passenger transport, they're not competitive.

That's an awfully broad statement without qualifications...

They work quite well in many places in Europe. I think some components to the recipe for success are: reasonably dense population, lots of car traffic, convenience (train stations have to be fairly close to where people want to go, and connected to other public transport), reasonable distances (less than plane distances, greater than bus distances). Another thing that helps here in Italy is that they're reasonably frequent between major destinations... if I miss one train to Venice or Vicenza, there will certainly be another one in an hour, if not a half an hour.

In other words, in the US, it makes sense to build trains, say, in the bay area, but probably not so much between San Francisco and Los Angeles - there isn't that much car traffic between the two cities, and in LA, which is so spread out, you're screwed if you depend on public transportation. Also, it's far enough that a plane is a lot faster. On the other hand, Milan to Rome is roughly a four hour train ride, center to center - so by the time you factor in going to the airport, checking in, flying, baggage claim, getting back to the center of Rome, they take about the same time, and the train is less stressful.