Dear Editor,
Tom Mulhern argues against high-speed trains as if they are an
unknown quantity. In reality, trains in the 200 mph range have been
in operation for decades in Europe and Asia. Airport-style security
checks are not required because a high-speed train is far less
vulnerable to attack. That’s because they are much sturdier than
airplanes and don’t carry any volatile fuels that can be touched
off by a small explosive.
Dear Editor,
Tom Mulhern argues against high-speed trains as if they are an unknown quantity. In reality, trains in the 200 mph range have been in operation for decades in Europe and Asia. Airport-style security checks are not required because a high-speed train is far less vulnerable to attack. That’s because they are much sturdier than airplanes and don’t carry any volatile fuels that can be touched off by a small explosive.
As for his price comparisons to 757 jets, where does he propose to land those jets? California’s airports, not to mention its roads, have already cost us far more than a high-speed rail transportation system ever could. Mulhern needs to take a trip to France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan or any of a dozen other countries: high-speed rail is successful, popular, tried and tested. If he’s going to oppose it, first he has to explain why it works everywhere else, but won’t work here.
Roger Rudick, Los Angeles
