As more trains catch up to air travel, time-wise, one thing that can put them over the top is the time saved avoiding the hassles of getting to the airport, parking, security, waiting, etc.
But what if one of the first mid- or long-range train systems suffers some kind of attack, or even threat of attack? A pipe bomb, a lone gunman, what have you. Immediately would come the metal detectors, shoe examinations, long lines, and the rest of it. Train travel would become frustrating too.
Cheap mass travel -- safe enough to satisfy American anxieties -- is probably just fated to be annoying.
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining
Comments
View as Flat
greentiger Posted 7:06 am
16 Sep 2008
From the issue of security, I think people are inherently a bit less scared when they're on the ground (rather than 30000 ft off it), but on the other hand, you can imagine a bomb or such on a train being a much bigger deal--the bomb could take out something like a tunnel or bridge and stop traffic for a long period of time (I suppose this is of course possible with cars too, it's just that I don't forsee as many alternate routes with major rail lines). So for long distance high speed routes, I think some degree of security is inevitable (and important)
Rail has the advantage, however, of being less traffic and weather dependent (not sure about the super-cool new high speed stuff, but I don't know it to be much affected by weather). So the typical landing and takeoff delays could be avoided. This of course assumes major stations don't overextend their depot's capacity... which I agree is a big assumption.
Related to the safety issue, a broken down train could be a huge pain in the neck for the system as compared to flying. That's something that for longer routes will necessitate some clever thinking.
I think one big inherent advantage of rail vs. plane is the comfort factor; while aerodynamics for high speed trains are important, weight is not such a critical concern so as to cramp people in tiny seats and separate them from their baggage. I think this could be a huge selling point for the industry--travel in comfort for the same price for routes in competition with flight routes.
At the end of the day I think the most important factor will be whether they can 'make the trains run on time'. I think this will be easier to achieve than with planes; let's hope so anyway.
Great topic Dave, I'm curious to see what others' thoughts are. This is definitely something to consider critically while rail remains pretty small-scale... Perhaps the inconveniences with flying can help them design this system better.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:42 am
16 Sep 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:11 am
16 Sep 2008
I think there's a big reason why trains need not fear as much as planes: Al Qaeda seems to be obsessed with airplanes, and that seems to include other fellow-traveler terrorists, at least for the time being, they just seem to think that airplanes are very symbolic and attention getters, since society is fairly obsessed with air travel.
There was the attack in Madrid though; I don't know how much more security the Spanish are doing after that attack. And also in the London tube; but it would be pretty difficult to have airline-type security on public transit.
Greentiger, after traveling mostly on trains the past couple of years, I just consider trains more...well, civilized. There's something about being in a tin can, queued up on a runway, taking off, and being up high in the air that doesn't feel right, but maybe I'm just a cosmopolitan hippy weeny.
Dave, multiple posts on trains today, any reason, or just coincidence?
Permalink
KenG Posted 12:28 pm
16 Sep 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:57 pm
16 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:06 pm
16 Sep 2008
n = 1
Cars are planar. They travel in two dimensions, across the surface....although restricted by roads.
1 < n < 2
Planes are solid. They travel in three dimensions. Although restricted by flight patterns.
2 < n < 3
Them's the facts. You can't build a system around rail because the nodes (depots) will always be swamped.
Same with planes, although less so.
Cars are the best answer...so far.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:43 pm
16 Sep 2008
That seems to be the bottom line for the Theatrical Security Agency, the folks intent on harassing everyone as much as possible while still managing to fail every test that's run on them.
The 5% Project
Permalink
wreckenhavoc Posted 3:48 pm
16 Sep 2008
Permalink
Glauke Posted 7:16 pm
16 Sep 2008
I commute to work by train (Leiden-The Hague, approx. 15 minutes), and my lover lives in another town, some two hours away.
In my experience, the Decisive Factor is the reliability of service: if I cannot count on trains to get me to work (or lover) on time, I cannot use their services. But I can, so I do: I read a book, or the paper. Listen to the news.
There are toilets available, and I've never-ever experienced anything remotely like the pervert-factor wreckenhavoc seems to fear, nor has anyone I know. But then, I live in Europe :)
Permalink
KenG Posted 11:05 pm
16 Sep 2008
Us Mass Transit isn't as bad as wreckenhavoc would have you believe. Compared to 30 years ago, the systems are much safer, cleaner and more reliable. However, compared to European or Asian systems (which I have often ridden) they are slow, uncomfortable and inflexible. They are staffed by members of government connected unions and primarily run as political machines instead of transit systems.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 2:37 am
17 Sep 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:22 am
17 Sep 2008
Permalink