Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

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.

Nobody seriously suggests that trains would be competitive with aircraft
for 3000 miles.

In the 300 to 500 mile range, people won't necessarily want to drive
their cars if a train can make the trip in two or three hours, and at a
cost of say $50 each way. Europeans also have access to cars, and often
choose to take the train because of the convenience and speed. Between
Lyon and Paris, a distance of about 300 miles, the train has about 70%
of all traffic, including autos and air, even though there is a good
autoroute between the two cities, and ten daily non-stop flights.

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.

Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?

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.

Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?