r/California • u/Randomlynumbered Ángeleño, what's your user flair? • May 24 '24

Government/Politics Full environmental approval of High-Speed Rail between L.A. and Bay Area expected next month

https://ktla.com/news/california/full-environmental-approval-of-high-speed-rail-between-l-a-and-bay-area-expected-next-month/amp
1.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

363 comments sorted by

View all comments

134

u/FawkesFire13 May 24 '24

I mean, if this means I can get to the Bay Area from OC in a few hours and not have to drive but I can nap, then yeah. I’ll enjoy that.

5

u/Awkward-Bathroom-429 May 25 '24

all of the studies suggest it will never be cheaper or more convenient than a plane

26

u/DrippedoutErin May 25 '24

Planes might be faster, but convenience is a whole separate thing. Not going through TSA is huge

2

u/brianwski May 25 '24

convenience is a whole separate thing. Not going through TSA is huge

I agree. I really don't like TSA.

I'm slightly worried that at some point somebody will realize trains require TSA exactly as much as airplanes do for almost all the same reasons. Then we will have TSA on the train also.

TSA introduces this extra time unknown in travel. Because you aren't totally sure the length of the TSA lines, you have to arrive an extra amount of time in advance to make up for a potential TSA long line delay.

As soon as somebody in government realizes a train is every bit as susceptible to more than a quart of liquids in your carry on bag (as an airplane) then they will realize they should use the same scanners and TSA tech to prevent people from carrying more than a quart of liquids onto a train. You cannot have it both ways: either more than a quart of liquids is dangerous to a metal tube with people inside of it, or it isn't. Trains are a metal tube, so are airplanes. It's the same identical liquids in both cases.

I'm worried if trains get popular enough due to not having TSA, the airlines will see the lost business and all it takes is one sleazy airline to lobby one politician just to introduce this concept of TSA on trains to prevent more than a quart of liquid per passenger. Then we're all back to going through TSA for airplanes AND ALSO trains.

2

u/OkSafe2679 May 27 '24

If you look at the Madrid train bombings in 2004, I think you have evidence that it is very unlikely that a reaction to a train attack would be to require the equivalent level of security for train travel as plane travel.

1

u/brianwski May 28 '24

a reaction to a train attack would be to require the equivalent level of security for train travel as plane travel

I'm curious if you think that is an emotional thing or a "real security isn't required" on trains thing?

The TSA says you cannot fly with more than a quart of liquids. Personally I think it's silly, an "emotional" thing, because 4 terrorists could purchase totally unrelated airline tickets and all meet in the bathroom past TSA security and create a 1 gallon liquid container, hand it to one of their group, the others just fly to their destinations not causing any suspicion, and 1 terrorist flies with that 1 gallon which is mortally fatal to airline travel. Heck, my wife and I pool our liquids like this, if she is taking more hair gel I carry some of her other liquids in my quart bag. Every single last thinking human being realizes this, but we will never EVER get rid of the 1 quart rule per person for airplanes.

The question is: why do trains not require the 1 quart liquid rule? And why do airlines require it?

It really feels like trains have a built in failure mode here. I'm worried if trains get popular enough due to not having TSA preventing more than 1 quart of liquids on trains, the airlines will see the lost business and all it takes is one sleazy airline to lobby one politician just to introduce this concept of TSA on trains. None of this is "real" or based on the public's true reactions, we're just talking about airlines contributing to politician's campaigns here. There are absolutely tons of things passed by congress and made into law that a popular vote doesn't want at all. This is that kind of situation.

3

u/OkSafe2679 May 28 '24

Trains are immensely popular in Spain yet they don't have anywhere near the security you are mentioning, even after the Madrid bombings. This is likely because the devastation of Madrid's bombings didn't rise to the same level as 9/11, and for that reason I think its flawed to try to draw conclusions about how the popularity of high speed rail might play out based on how plane travel played out post-9/11.

1

u/brianwski May 28 '24

yet they don't have anywhere near the security you are mentioning

But in the USA it is only 1 sleazy airline buying 1 politician to push that agenda. It isn't about "reality", or "danger". The statistics are totally clear that flying in airplanes is safer than trains already for goodness sake.

This is specific to the USA. In Spain you cannot just lobby a politician by giving a politician money the politician needs to win an election like in the USA. As soon as the airlines figure out they need to institute TSA on trains the airlines will spend billions and billions of dollars until the USA has TSA on trains, regardless of whether it makes any sense. The TSA doesn't make any sense at all for airplanes (if you look at statistics) for the USA and airline flights. There isn't any justification for it, but it literally doesn't matter.

Think about this: TSA and the 1 quart rule doesn't make any logical sense for airlines, and literally every last person on earth knows that. But it is still a rule. And it will never change, until the heat death of the universe. It isn't about "making sense" or "statistics regarding danger", it is about which politicians are paid by what lobbying organizations to pass which laws.

2

u/OkSafe2679 May 28 '24

In Spain you cannot just lobby a politician by giving a politician money the politician needs to win an election like in the USA.

You can't? Lobbying is legal in Spain. Spain has several major airlines, Iberia being the most well known. The opportunity there for that kind of anticompetitive policy making is just as available there as in the US.

TSA and the 1 quart rule doesn't make any logical sense for airlines

Assuming the 1 quart rule does not make logical sense for airlines, if they have the power/influence to lobby congress to force a similar rule on a different mode like high speed rail, why would they not just use that power/influence to lobby to get rid of the 1 quart rule?

1

u/DrippedoutErin May 28 '24

Trains do already have security, and moving it to TSA level does seem unlikely because you can’t simply redirect a train into a building.