3 ms·
"2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, ra
by ryana 16y ago
"2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, rather than an airport."
I would imagine that the first part would change as rail became a more traveled medium, thus making it a more attractive target for terror attacks.
However, having train stations closer to the city centers than out in the suburbs would be great.
- cstross 16y agoThere have already been terrorist bombing attacks on high speed rail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents It turns out that high speed trains are a lot more robust than planes: the failure mode is usually "soft", i.e. the train comes to a halt safely and damage is confined to one carriage (unlike an airliner). To inflict mass casualties (e.g. 7/7, Madrid) attackers target either busy subway systems at rush hour (7/7) or busy transport terminals with lots of people (Madrid). It's worth noting that both 7/7 and the Madrid bombings involved large suicide teams and multiple bombs -- but killed fewer people than a typical airliner bombing.