Flying is the worst form of transportation imaginable (versus, downtown, railway)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets see 638,000,000 people(trips) fly each year in the US, 30,000,000 Take Amtrak, Since most people don't take trains a event on a train who not have the effect the terrorists, Fear... Would be a news story, and scare 15,000,000 people off Amtrak, and on the planes and driving/bus.
Lets see 638,000,000 people(trips) fly each year in the US, 30,000,000 Take Amtrak, Since most people don't take trains a event on a train who not have the effect the terrorists, Fear... Would be a news story, and scare 15,000,000 people off Amtrak, and on the planes and driving/bus.
Why isn't there more terrorist attacks on the trains in Europe where rail travel is much more popular?
If a terrorist wants to blow up a train he could just get on the subway where there's no security screening at all to go through to get on-board. But even without security screening subway attacks are still very rare compared to attacks on airlines where there has always been a great deal of security.
Lets see 638,000,000 people(trips) fly each year in the US, 30,000,000 Take Amtrak, Since most people don't take trains a event on a train who not have the effect the terrorists, Fear... Would be a news story, and scare 15,000,000 people off Amtrak, and on the planes and driving/bus.
The NYC Subway has 1.64 billion trips each year. And as I said, it's impractical to have security screenings for local rail transit.
Amtrak currently serves 30 million passengers a year. Why isn't the TSA all over Amtrak?
Have you ever heard of a train-jacking? I haven't. But as we all know, there have been dozens of airplane hijackings in modern history. Hijackers like to target airplanes because they are easier targets.
They aren't easier targets. They are more lucrative if they are successful.
Have there been any hijackings since 9/11?
I do not see how it would be difficult to derail a train if someone wanted to. That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or that the risks aren't there.
The question is, who benefits from this particular type of fearmongering?
I just think that if high-speed rail became the preferred method of travel for most US residents, there would be increased security and eventually it could/would reach the levels of TSA security in airports today.
I am definitely for high speed rail in general and specifically for the California High Speed Rail. I think there is a place for plane traveling and a place for HSR commuting, so not sure I totally agree with the OP but I would rather be on a train than on a plane FWIW.
They aren't easier targets. They are more lucrative if they are successful.
Have there been any hijackings since 9/11?
I do not see how it would be difficult to derail a train if someone wanted to. That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or that the risks aren't there.
The problem is that derailing a train doesn't take it very far off the tracks--you can't just take it off the rails and deliberately drive the train in a direction the tracks don't go, for example.
I just think that if high-speed rail became the preferred method of travel for most US residents, there would be increased security and eventually it could/would reach the levels of TSA security in airports today.
Right now cars are the preferred method of travel for most US residents, but they are not subject to TSA-like security measures.
I just think that if high-speed rail became the preferred method of travel for most US residents, there would be increased security and eventually it could/would reach the levels of TSA security in airports today.
I still don't see why high speed rail would be any more of a target than local rail, which doesn't and can't have much security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
I do not see how it would be difficult to derail a train if someone wanted to. That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or that the risks aren't there.
As I said, it's happened in other countries already on local rail. Still, the fatality rate from terrorist attacks on train is likely quite small compared to the fatality rate from car accidents.
A train attack disables an entire rail artery so it is effective in bringing travel to an absolute halt. Still, I'd rather be on the ground than in a tin can up in the air. I'm supposed to be on a cross country red-eye tomorrow night and should be packing now. I dread it. I dread flying. A younger me, as adventurous as anyone can claim to be, would never have imagined this. It's not about being packed in with strangers, it's the general task of it. Travel is not freeing anymore. It's stressful. I suppose I've become a homebody and I'm good with that.
On balance flying is far more convenient. A train would take far too long and would be far, far more expensive.
I do wish though, if the timing of this trip had been right, I could go down to DC (taking the Bolt Bus) and volunteer to drive my sister's car back across the country to deliver to my niece. I would not mind staying on the ground, making my own way of my own volition back West. If only, if only...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
