I wonder if some of us are talking past each other at this point?
Because some here are criticizing HSR *in the abstract *and scoffing at the idea that it can be more convenient than air travel.
I felt I had to respond to that.
But in terms of the OP, then I’d agree that HSR is a tough sell for the US because the infrastructure is not there (e.g. local public transport to get to the train station), as well as issues with needing to make many stops, slow down or route around some counties etc etc.
Not every train needs to stop at every station. In most rail systems, they have express trains that only stop at major stations, and local trains that stop at every station. You transfer between them as necessary.
Thanks to Chris Christie, the most successful rail link in the US is going to get cut in half. And now that both NY and NJ are on board, the feds are dragging their feet. That illustrates what is wrong with the US rail system. I have lived for nearly three years in Switzerland (not consecutively) and the rail system there is a dream.
I agree that system works well (having experienced it in Germany), but I have not seen Express trains referenced in any of the current literature for CAHSR. The politics for this are fierce - any city allowing the tracks to come thru are going to want every HSR train to stop there. It’s even one of the benefits the HSR advocates are touting - commuters from far-flung locations can get to their job in SF or LA.
I agree with Hari Seldon, in other places like Switzerland or Japan, there is keen public support and interest in projects like this. In the US we are all over the place - one city, county, or landowner can bog-down a project like this, adding expense and time. In those places it is about “all of us” but here it’s about “me”.
I took a survey aboard our train from Sacramento to SF a couple months ago - they are planning a “once in a generation” rail bridge from Oakland to SF (there is no rail connection between these cities, BTW). It will take 20-25 years just to get thru the planning process. This is why we cannot do big things any more.
One big reason why the U.S. should move to HSR is that air travel is quite profligate in terms of CO2. If we’re going to get serious about global warming, we’re going to have to cut down on the amount of air travel, and HSR would at least theoretically be able to substitute for many shorter routes.
Trains aren’t any more vulnerable than other crowded places - office buildings, sports venues, etc.
Planes are very different from trains:
Airplanes are sealed, controlled environment that is tailor made to hold hostages. Trains have doors on every car, and emergency stop buttons that any passenger can press.
Airplanes can be crashed into any building. Trains can’t. You couldn’t even crash it into another train, because high-speed trains all have automatic train control systems.
All a suicide bomber would have to do is detonate a backpack or suitcase bomb powerful enough to wreck the wheels of the car he’s in and the train derails- at high speeds that’s poorly survivable. Derail it at a critical point and you damage the line. Add in the economic loss of the line being shut down while repairs are being made and one attack costs eight or nine figures. And if it happens ONCE the whole security theater circus becomes mandatory because no one will ride the train if they think it’s got a big target painted on it.
I’ve been on trains in India, Germany, China, Canada, Mexico, and the United States. They’re all different. Some of them suck. Some of them are awesome. Ours in the United States aren’t awesome. The least crowded were China and Mexico, and the most crowded were India and the USA.
Here in China there’s already security for HSR.
But it’s simpler than the airplane security check because you just put your bag on a big carousel, walk through a scanner and you’re done.
It takes a few seconds and doesn’t get backed up. To have an idea how quick it is, we have the same check for the subway too.
I guess the check is simpler because you’re not checking for smuggled goods, liquids (which is pretty silly anyway, but that’s a separate debate), tiny weapons or other things which are far more risky on a plane than a train.
I guess we should also stop building highways then, because all it takes is one truck loaded with bombs to destroy a bridge. Or stop having any large scale gatherings of people, where one cargo truck could kill dozens of people.
Why take the bomb on the train at all? You know where it’s going to be, and when; put some explosive on the track, or the bridge supports, and detonate it when the train arrives. Passenger trains and airplanes aren’t the same sort of targets and don’t need the same sort of security.
Why would a terrorist get on the train to blow it up? Just park a Oklahoma City-style bomb truck near the tracks. Set it off as the train comes by. More damage and the terrorist lives to be an idiot another day.
FWIW, baggage is X-rayed as part of the Eurostar baggage procedure, because of the obvious concern about an explosion or fire in the tunnel, which need not necessarily occur as a result of deliberate terrorism. I’m not aware of any other sort of boarding checks on other rail systems, in the UK or elsewhere on the continent.