Quote:

---

Particularly Minute Maid Park where everybody is basically just standing on the street.

---

The cops camoed out in tacticool gear during the playoffs added to the existing discomfort.

Again, the solution isn't to spend money on a fixed route boondoggle guaranteed to lose money. It's to change the way we handle air travel. There is no reason air travel should be as inefficient as it is. Whatever security is sufficent for a train terminal should be sufficient for a air terminal.

TriAg2010 said:

---

blindey said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Trains will never require TSA except through sheer paranoia.

---

uh, hi. Have you ever been on the Eurostar? Every person and every item you bring is metal detected/x-rayed. Everything.

If you think the TSA would just roll over and let more agency expansion and regulatory creep go away, I've got a bridge to sell you.

---

Then sell me a bridge. TSA performs no security screening for Amtrak Acela, which has been an operating high-speed train for more than 15 years now. You just walk-up and board.

I've road the Eurostar, TGV, ICE, NSB, Trenitalia, and Italo. Eurostar is the only one that performs any security screening. They do so because of the increased safety risks traveling through a long undersea tunnel and because the train crosses the Schengen Area. Smugglers have tried to exploit the Chunnel since it first opened.

---

ok here goes: rail is point to point fixed infrastructure that necessitates large, uninterrupted surface use. Since it's high speed, turn radii are massive. High speed also means that grading, ballast, rail, and catenary all have to be within extremely tight specs. Same issue for rolling stock. Then you have to partition the right of way in such a manner that kids playing around couldn't throw sticks or rocks or whatever else onto the track itself.

Basically, high speed rail is super high specification version of technology from 150 years ago. In a place where population density is so low, it would have been a waste 50 years ago and it's certainly a waste now given that air travel is so cheap and efficient and we are on the cusp of self driving cars.

And speaking of the other high speed offerings in Europe and elsewhere (even the Acela): i know that they don't all have high security. But I disagree with you. TheTSA will want their finger in the pie.

jamaggie06 said:

---

Again, the solution isn't to spend money on a fixed route boondoggle guaranteed to lose money. It's to change the way we handle air travel. There is no reason air travel should be as inefficient as it is. Whatever security is sufficent for a train terminal should be sufficient for a air terminal.

---

Airport security could surely be improved, but that last part is crazy. Aircraft are way more vulnerable to bombings than trains. Additional precautions and screenings for air travel are totally justified.

It took just 12 ounces of high-explosives to down a 747 in the PanAm 103 bombing. The bomb that downed Metrojet 9268 was believed to have been smuggled inside a soda can.

Equivalent bombs on a train might kill or injure those in close proximity, but they wouldn't derail the train or cause mass casualties for those passengers in other cars.

So the only relevant comparison is a bomb?

Ok, well, by your logic, trains should require far more security bc on a plane, a madman can only kill X number of people, but on a train, if a madman or two brings a couple of AK-47s and spare mags, they can walk up and down all the rail cars, gunning everyone down at their leisure.

So, just bc a specific weapon localized on a plane may kill everyone board, doesn't negate that there are other threats specific to trains that pose greater potential loss of life. I see estimates of 1,000 seats per train for Caltrans proposed rail.

blindey said:

---

TriAg2010 said:

---

blindey said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Trains will never require TSA except through sheer paranoia.

---

uh, hi. Have you ever been on the Eurostar? Every person and every item you bring is metal detected/x-rayed. Everything.

If you think the TSA would just roll over and let more agency expansion and regulatory creep go away, I've got a bridge to sell you.

---

Then sell me a bridge. TSA performs no security screening for Amtrak Acela, which has been an operating high-speed train for more than 15 years now. You just walk-up and board.

I've road the Eurostar, TGV, ICE, NSB, Trenitalia, and Italo. Eurostar is the only one that performs any security screening. They do so because of the increased safety risks traveling through a long undersea tunnel and because the train crosses the Schengen Area. Smugglers have tried to exploit the Chunnel since it first opened.

---

ok here goes: rail is point to point fixed infrastructure that necessitates large, uninterrupted surface use. Since it's high speed, turn radii are massive. High speed also means that grading, ballast, rail, and catenary all have to be within extremely tight specs. Same issue for rolling stock. Then you have to partition the right of way in such a manner that kids playing around couldn't throw sticks or rocks or whatever else onto the track itself.

Basically, high speed rail is super high specification version of technology from 150 years ago. In a place where population density is so low, it would have been a waste 50 years ago and it's certainly a waste now given that air travel is so cheap and efficient and we are on the cusp of self driving cars.

And speaking of the other high speed offerings in Europe and elsewhere (even the Acela): i know that they don't all have high security. But I disagree with you. TheTSA will want their finger in the pie.

---

Sticks and rocks are not going to derail a high-speed train. Come on. High-speed trains have been operating for nearly 40 years with excellent safety records. Nobody would board a train that might derail if kids threw something on the track.

I am in total agreement that the use-case for high-speed trains doesn't make sense for Texas. See my post above where I listed very similar reasons.

But in terms of TSA security. Again, come on. Acela high-speed trains have been running in the United States for 17 years. The TSA has existed for 16 years. The TSA has never been involved with Acela. The TSA has never shown any interest in screening Acela passengers. You're doing the "I reject reality and substitute my own" thing.

jamaggie06 said:

---

So the only relevant comparison is a bomb?

Ok, well, by your logic, trains should require far more security bc on a plane, a madman can only kill X number of people, but on a train, if a madman or two brings a couple of AK-47s and spare mags, they can walk up and down all the rail cars, gunning everyone down at their leisure.

So, just bc a specific weapon localized on a plane may kill everyone board, doesn't negate that there are other threats specific to trains that pose greater potential loss of life. I see estimates of 1,000 seats per train for Caltrans proposed rail.

---

Well it's a pretty damn important comparison.

Trains can stop. People can get off. There are emergency brake handles throughout the train. Your emergency options 7 miles up in the sky are far more limited.

You think there's a passenger brake on a 200mph bullet train?

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

You think there's a passenger brake on a 200mph bullet train?

---

believe it or not there is. I've seen them.

It's not like it automatically slams on the brakes anyway. It sends a signal to the driver who can clear it and assess the situation, or if the driver doesn't respond then it brakes.