6 ms·

Slow security is not inherent to air travel; it's something that was tacked on by politicians. It could easily be added to trains. (Or removed from planes, th

Slow security is not inherent to air travel; it's something that was tacked on by politicians. It could easily be added to trains. (Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath.) Distance to the airport vs. train station depends on where you live. I'm actually closer to an airport than a train station, though I believe that for most people in cities it's the other way around. You also need to throw cars in there. In the US, I fear the choice is usually car vs. plane not train vs. plane, as passenger rail just doesn't go enough places. Making trains faster would be great for places that already have trains (say, DC to Boston, which is currently doable by train but a bit slow), but wouldn't help with all the places not currently served. Now, if we were to actually ban or hugely tax planes for environmental reasons, that might spur the creation of more passenger rail. I don't see that happening in the US until South Florida goes underwater though.

cheerlessbog 7y ago
> Slow security is not inherent to air travel; it's something that was tacked on by politicians. Air travel requires security because it's uniquely vulnerable to bombs and hijack. That is why high speed trains require little or no security checks.
- caprese 7y ago
  High speed trains go through city centers and are vulnerable to bombs
  - sbuttgereit 7y ago
    Yes, but it's hard to use a train the way the 9/11 attacks used planes. They were able to take the planes and magnify the damage, casualties, and spectacle and they had a high degree of freedom in picking targets. Much harder to pull that off with a train; you'd make the news, but not stun the world.
    - ja30278 7y ago
      I have never understood why, post 9/11, planes were not modified to remove the cabin to cockpit door, and make the cockpit door a separate entrance. This would more or less completely remove the possibility of a second 9/11 attack, and would render airplanes no more attractive a target than any other group of several hundred people.
      - codedokode 7y ago
        That might be inconvenient, because aircraft staff sometimes needs to talk to pilots or make them sign some documents.
        EE84M3i 7y ago
        Also, the pilots would need their own bathroom.
      - javagram 7y ago
        The cockpit door was reinforced and can’t be easily broken down now. That has achieved effectively the same thing.
      - cmurf 7y ago
        Pilots need access to a toilette, but also there are rare cases where pilots need to look out of side windows. There's also flights with crew changes. And the very rare case of crew incapacitation. A case where a pilot needed to gain access to the cockpit but couldn't, Germanwings Flight 9525.
      - mixmastamyk 7y ago
        Likely cheaper to make a tougher door than build a new entrance and moving arm for people thing.
  - callalex 7y ago
    How is that any different than roads and sidewalks?
- coredog64 7y ago
  While there might not be much value in hijacking a train, it’s still a tube full of people packed in close proximity. At the point US train travel picks up, expect to see DHS running the same kind of security checkpoints for high speed rail that they do at airports.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Whether it's the same type/degree of security as airports, which likely adds very little over basic scanning, it wouldn't take a lot for calls to have long distance train travel institute the same level of security as is common at concerts, government buildings, some libraries/museums, etc.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      Having people go through a metal detector and scanning their baggage on entering a train station is very viable and occasionally done (I think Paris did that). But usually checks are fast since they have to conform to existing train schedules.
marcinzm 7y ago
>Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath. It was added because planes kept getting hijacked or blown up in the 70s. Security didn't just magically appear one day because politicians thought it'd be great to annoy more people. The former doesn't really apply to trains and the latter is less catastrophic.
- calcifer 7y ago
  Please, modern day airport security is pure theater designed to make naive people have the illusion of safety, and for politicians to line up the pockets of some contractors. If a terrorist has arrived at the airport with intent to cause harm, security has already failed. It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. The real way to prevent these attacks lies with intelligence agencies, to stop them wayyy before it becomes the airport's problem.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    >It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. Well, if the bad guy was denied boarding, then by definition the security is not "pure theater", and at-least as far as the screening is concerned, it did work as intended. It seems obvious to me that at this moment in time, the populace is more sensitive to violence occurring in certain kinds ofplaces. The idea that the same could occur in a park or a train or a bus or a stadium is not lost on anyone.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      If you want to cause a high number of casulties one of the most effective places to plant a bomb would probably be the line in front of an airport security checkpoint. But of course "causing casulties" and "causing terror" isn't nessesarily the same.
      - marcinzm 7y ago
        There's a lot of places with packed lines however bombs aren't that great in open spaces. A similarly sized bomb on a plane would kill a lot more people. Most mass casualty bombings seem to involve multiple coordinated attacks in dense locations and still don't get near the death toll of a single medium sized airplane.
kzrdude 7y ago
Air travel fails catastrophically when it fails, not just due to attacks but in accidents as well, and I think that's the main difference.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment
  - javagram 7y ago
    > the worst high-speed-rail disaster worldwide Yet 100 people survived with injuries rather than dying. An airplane crash frequently kills all aboard.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Half the passengers survived the recent plane crash in Moscow. vOv
  - kzrdude 7y ago
    Look at this list of disasters, it's pretty long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and...
reaperducer 7y ago
Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath This seems to be happening, though very slowly. I read recently (late last year?) about an American airport that is once again allowing non-ticketed passengers to greet people coming off the jetway. And another airport that is once again allowing parking near the terminal.

cheerlessbog 7y ago

> Slow security is not inherent to air travel; it's something that was tacked on by politicians. Air travel requires security because it's uniquely vulnerable to bombs and hijack. That is why high speed trains require little or no security checks.

caprese 7y ago
High speed trains go through city centers and are vulnerable to bombs
- sbuttgereit 7y ago
  Yes, but it's hard to use a train the way the 9/11 attacks used planes. They were able to take the planes and magnify the damage, casualties, and spectacle and they had a high degree of freedom in picking targets. Much harder to pull that off with a train; you'd make the news, but not stun the world.
  - ja30278 7y ago
    I have never understood why, post 9/11, planes were not modified to remove the cabin to cockpit door, and make the cockpit door a separate entrance. This would more or less completely remove the possibility of a second 9/11 attack, and would render airplanes no more attractive a target than any other group of several hundred people.
    - codedokode 7y ago
      That might be inconvenient, because aircraft staff sometimes needs to talk to pilots or make them sign some documents.
      - EE84M3i 7y ago
        Also, the pilots would need their own bathroom.
    - javagram 7y ago
      The cockpit door was reinforced and can’t be easily broken down now. That has achieved effectively the same thing.
    - cmurf 7y ago
      Pilots need access to a toilette, but also there are rare cases where pilots need to look out of side windows. There's also flights with crew changes. And the very rare case of crew incapacitation. A case where a pilot needed to gain access to the cockpit but couldn't, Germanwings Flight 9525.
    - mixmastamyk 7y ago
      Likely cheaper to make a tougher door than build a new entrance and moving arm for people thing.
- callalex 7y ago
  How is that any different than roads and sidewalks?
coredog64 7y ago
While there might not be much value in hijacking a train, it’s still a tube full of people packed in close proximity. At the point US train travel picks up, expect to see DHS running the same kind of security checkpoints for high speed rail that they do at airports.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Whether it's the same type/degree of security as airports, which likely adds very little over basic scanning, it wouldn't take a lot for calls to have long distance train travel institute the same level of security as is common at concerts, government buildings, some libraries/museums, etc.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    Having people go through a metal detector and scanning their baggage on entering a train station is very viable and occasionally done (I think Paris did that). But usually checks are fast since they have to conform to existing train schedules.

marcinzm 7y ago

>Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath. It was added because planes kept getting hijacked or blown up in the 70s. Security didn't just magically appear one day because politicians thought it'd be great to annoy more people. The former doesn't really apply to trains and the latter is less catastrophic.

calcifer 7y ago
Please, modern day airport security is pure theater designed to make naive people have the illusion of safety, and for politicians to line up the pockets of some contractors. If a terrorist has arrived at the airport with intent to cause harm, security has already failed. It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. The real way to prevent these attacks lies with intelligence agencies, to stop them wayyy before it becomes the airport's problem.
- la_barba 7y ago
  >It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't get on the plane - he could just do it in the terminal and cause even more casualties. Well, if the bad guy was denied boarding, then by definition the security is not "pure theater", and at-least as far as the screening is concerned, it did work as intended. It seems obvious to me that at this moment in time, the populace is more sensitive to violence occurring in certain kinds ofplaces. The idea that the same could occur in a park or a train or a bus or a stadium is not lost on anyone.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    If you want to cause a high number of casulties one of the most effective places to plant a bomb would probably be the line in front of an airport security checkpoint. But of course "causing casulties" and "causing terror" isn't nessesarily the same.
    - marcinzm 7y ago
      There's a lot of places with packed lines however bombs aren't that great in open spaces. A similarly sized bomb on a plane would kill a lot more people. Most mass casualty bombings seem to involve multiple coordinated attacks in dense locations and still don't get near the death toll of a single medium sized airplane.

kzrdude 7y ago

Air travel fails catastrophically when it fails, not just due to attacks but in accidents as well, and I think that's the main difference.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment
- javagram 7y ago
  > the worst high-speed-rail disaster worldwide Yet 100 people survived with injuries rather than dying. An airplane crash frequently kills all aboard.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Half the passengers survived the recent plane crash in Moscow. vOv
- kzrdude 7y ago
  Look at this list of disasters, it's pretty long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and...

reaperducer 7y ago

Or removed from planes, though I'm not holding my breath This seems to be happening, though very slowly. I read recently (late last year?) about an American airport that is once again allowing non-ticketed passengers to greet people coming off the jetway. And another airport that is once again allowing parking near the terminal.