Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

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.

Chad Irby wrote in
om:
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.

Not necessarily. Cars have to be parked somewhere, which
can be very expensive and just finding a place to park
can be a nightmare in a larger city. Let alone a safe place
for your car.

Put that on top of a slow and uncomfortable ride, relative
to a train, and that you are dependent on having a driver
for it as well. And it's easy to get some work done on a
train -- you can't work on your laptop driving a car.

Besides you also need to find your way in and out of a city,
which is often not desirable, and pray you don't get clogged
up in traffic. That will make the trip even slower.

For short to medium haul, city to city, there is nothing
that can beat the modern highspeed train. At least provided
it's well integrated into the overall public transportation
system. Then interrailing becomes a joy.


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.

I think trains are still the safest means of transportation.
Besides it's more environmentally safe than anything.



Regards...

"Chad Irby" schreef in bericht
om...

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.

I own a nice car. But I travel by train often when it is more convenient. I
get to read a nice book or the newspaper, I can stare out of the window and
relax, I arrive fresh, I get to chat to interesting people of various age
groups, etc, etc. Many advantages of travelling by train.

Sjoerd

Sjoerd wrote:

"Chad Irby" schreef in bericht
om...

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.

I own a nice car. But I travel by train often when it is more convenient. I
get to read a nice book or the newspaper, I can stare out of the window and
relax, I arrive fresh, I get to chat to interesting people of various age
groups, etc, etc. Many advantages of travelling by train.

I lived in the US for 11 years, and had a car for about 1 of them. I
don't recall feeling stranded in those ten years! To tell the truth,
when I did have the car, I tended to use it for unnecessary trips. I
believe in public transport, refuse to own a car, and make choices about
where I live as a result- that is, I live close to good public transport
links. If people thought a little bit more about that, we might have
cleaner air to breathe- instead, the focus on building new housing
complexes in the UK tends to depend on the occupants having cars- the
government really seems to have abondoned public transport- rural
railways and bus routes have been decimated in the last 40 years.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:14:00 +0200, "Sjoerd"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" schreef in bericht
. com...

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.

I own a nice car. But I travel by train often when it is more convenient. I
get to read a nice book or the newspaper, I can stare out of the window and
relax, I arrive fresh, I get to chat to interesting people of various age
groups, etc, etc. Many advantages of travelling by train.

Sjoerd

The pity of it is that the US rail network, even in the Boston -
Washington corridor, is uderused in my experience. The Amtrak "Acela"
expresses (French built btw) seem to run two-thirds empty. Pity -
they're comfortable and fast.

Older Amtrak coaches are comfortable, lots of legroom - fine way of
seeing the country.

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?

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

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

Actually, people in this thread have. Look back a couple of days.

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?

Not as flashy.

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

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?

Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
fittings).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

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?

Not as flashy.

You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident? Especially given the national pride in their high
speed rail systems.

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

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?

Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

No, it doesn't have to be that exotic. They simply carry something
aboard in the crowd, like they did on the Madrid trains. No place where
the public gathers is immune from that type of attack, and we can't
protect them all.

On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

Yes, they are exposed, but they don't seem to be the target of choice
for sabotage. Occasionally, they are successful, but it hasn't been too
often, and the results have usually been relatively minor.

And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
fittings).

It's not as easy as it looks, given that it has been tried, and has only
rarely been successful. Trains manage to hit things left on the track
all the time without too much damage in the normal course of their
operation.

James Robinson wrote:
You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident?

In the USA, Amtrak derailments are common place and attract just a mention in
the national newscasts. The terrorists would have to warn of bombs on tracks
in advance so that when it happens, the media would go into a terrorist frienzie.

But if there were a new york subway derailment or fire, people would
immediatly suspect terrorism.

The real question is whether Al Queda want to keep Bush regime in power or
not. If they make an attack against the USA between now and the election, it
would influence the outcome.

But I am not sure how. Would americans wake and and see that all the measures
the Bush regime has done did nothing to protect them, or would they fall back
into the protective custody of their Bush "father figure" who would tell
americans to trust him and that he would work even harder to protect them from
the evil doers ?

My guess is that an attack now on the USA would result in the Bush regime
sending more troups to Iraq and finding some sort of way to tell americans
that this is to prevent further attacks against the USA.

Following up to James Robinson

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

Its worth noting that even adding in terrorist casualties its
still much safer in a train than in a car.

Were we to stop using trains to defeat terrorism, it would just
move somewhere else where groups of people are together until we
just hid alone in our homes.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap