In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

"patLB" wrote:

On the other hand, you could always visit Spain, and relax on their
nice, safe, high-speed trains. Or the ones in France.

Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...

The distances are too long. Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
range,

What gave you that idea. High speed trains are effective in the range
of 200 to 500 miles. There are lots of large cities within that
distance. Just draw a circle around Chicago or Washington, and see how
many cities are enclosed. For that distance, trains have a lower
operating cost and aircraft. Don't just think of transcontinental
service, where aircraft have the advantage.

But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*, which
gives them much more flexibility. And the continental US is 3000 miles
across.

Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.

... and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.

The terrorists just picked trains for their latest attack. Trains are
no more at risk than any other place where people congregate.

But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
so on.

Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.