"It's the beginning of the end of the USA. It's the end of the beginning of China." (byteme) The stages of grief seem to apply quite well to those who are faced with declining power in the world: 1) Denial (this isn't happening to me). (2000 -> 2010) 2) Anger (why is this happening to me). (2010 -> 2020) 3) Bargaining (I promise I'll be better if...). (2020 -> 2030) 4) Depression (I don't care anymore). (2030 -> 2040) 5) Acceptance (I'm ready). (2040)
The terrorist attack on Russia yes that's a valid concern for high speed rail http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b81f4984-dce3-11de-ad60-00144feabdc0.html Has anyone stepped back and considered that fact that public transportation works in highly, densely populated areas? The majority of Americans live in suburbs not in high rise apartments, NYC excluded off course. I have ridden the TGV and ICE my first time to Europe in 94. Great, comfortable, affordable, for me, but compared to what locals had to pay wow, big $$$ for them. In Denver, we put in light rail and often cars are 1/2 empty. Only cost effective if you ride all the time. I can drive my compact for 1/2 the cost for my wife and I. I still support because it lightens traffic on the interstate.
Air travel is much faster for longer-distance hub/hub travel (SF to NYC), but not shorter distance travel. How long does it take to "fly" the 350 miles from SF to LA, or 440 miles from DC to Boston? If you include the time it takes to travel to the airport (from population centers), to park, to go through security, to wait for your flight... it takes probably 4-5 hours. How many flights a day are there? Maybe one an hour. How long would it take to make the same trip in China via high-speed rail? Train stations are located near population centers, connected conveniently to mass transit... probably 2 hours, maximum. And there's a literally a train every 5 minutes. And lets not get started on the carbon footprint with airflight versus rail.
You make good points consider this one. If and when High Speed Trains catch on do you think security will stay the same? As it becomes more popular for both ppl and terrorist attacks you won't be able to just jump on jump off IMO.
Well, it's fundamentally no different than subways or buses, yes? And we know Europe has already been attacked that way. So it's definitely a danger. And China has its own share of bus bombings over the last decade. However, railways are fundamentally safer than air travel because you're not 35000 feet in the air, sitting on thousands of gallons of jetfuel. The fear is that even a small amount of explosive hidden in someone's underware, or a box cutter used to threaten a pilot, can endanger not just the passengers but thousands of people on the ground. Can you have terrorists blowing up things on high-speed rail? Would there be casualties? Yes, and yes. But it'll never be a 9/11-scale attack. If you try to hijack the train, it just comes to a stop. If you want to derail the entire train, you need a *large* amount of explosives. It seems to me to be a significantly easier problem (hopefully one I never have to face, thank you very much).
Give Chinese credit when the credit is due. Are you sue air travel is faster? For me, less than 400 miles, I will always drive. For air travel, you need to get to the airport 2 hours before the departure, then security check, then 1.5 hour flight time, then get out the airplane, claim luggage, then get rental car, that's at least another hour. So door to door could be easily 6 or 7 hours, and you lose all the freedom. Do not let me get started on airplane delays. For train, Wuhan to Guanzhou, 600 miles (more than 1000 KM), only 3 hours, city to city, not suburb to suburb. The ride is extremely smooth, and no delays.