How so? Kids can not travel in cars alone because they have no license. Kids can travel in trains alone.

And cops are common to pick up younger kids which are around on their own because it is so unusual

Putting a kid on its own on a train would be absolutely unthinkable.

Parents can't even let their kids walk to school alone. I seriously doubt they would allow their kids to ride a train alone.

This said, helicopter parents are real. I've ridden on amtrak many dozens of times, but never saw an unaccompanied child.

Meanwhile round here in London children get free bus travel, so it's very common to see them on local buses, and sometimes trains (tends to be wealthier kids on trains).

``Ding dong Due to planned maintenance/a defective signal/ a computer error/ a tree on the tracks (or a leaf, or snow)/a collision with a person no connection is possible between Utrecht Central and Amsterdam Central.''

Generally you can take a detour, or busses will be employed to ferry people (after several hours usually), but it's not a very uncommon situation, I'd say we have a really major jam about 2-4 times a year, hard to judge. Still prefer the train over the car, but when I need to go to the airport to catch a plane I won't risk it.

Also, our main rail maintainer, train provider, and the Gov't officials involved are a special kind of screw-up. So it might be a whole lot better if you can get the right people in charge.

Are you joking? Utrecht to Amsterdam is a local train. That's like saying that CalTrain is frequently delayed, therefore we shouldn't build any high-speed lines. Appels en Peren.

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/map.php?file=maps/french...

(a more detailed map can be found on the website of RFF, the agency that runs the network: http://www.rff.fr/cartes/pdf/carte-reseau-2011-medium.pdf)

Exactly, and let's not forget the ongoing strikes in France, very common among SNCF employees (who are akin to civil servants and go on strike at least a dozen times a year). If you job depends on it, you are screwed.

We screwed it up exactly because the political obsession with creating a more Americanised version of capitalism, partially forced down our throats by the divide and conquer strategy of the EU.

There are cases for high speed trains, but even in Japan what they are doing is stretching it - nobody takes a train from north Japan to south Japan even if it's possible. It is just too expensive and takes too much time to be actually worth it.

So, you take the train despite having a cheaper and faster option, and you're asking us why the trains are needed? We should ask you why do you use the train, if the planes are so much better.

Yes, because highways are free, require no land, never go through places where people live (/self warily eyes the massive elevated freeway overpass system lurking near my home...), and never have congestion.

With the exception of "trains aren't good for all distances", none of your arguments make much sense. They apply equally to all forms of mass transit.

A single car accident does not block the whole highway usually. For trains, it's very much likely it would or seriously delay the following trains.

As for the land part, sure, highways take lands too, but they don't have to be only in straight lines and they usually have to accommodate with the local populace. Numerous highways make detours around mid-size cities, which is simply impractical with trains designed to be on linear tracks as much as possible.

> With the exception of "trains aren't good for all distances", none of your arguments make much sense. They apply equally to all forms of mass transit.

Take this one then. In France all TGV lines converge to Paris. Try going from Lyon to Bordeau, and you are fucked, you need to go up to Paris and then down to Bordeau, which is utterly stupid. Either a car or a plane trip is faster. Japan is slightly better in that regard simply because all cities are on the coast. For large surface the amount of lines you need build is just not worth the investment.

Isn't that just because traveling from Lyon to Paris or Bordeau to Paris is far more common than traveling from Lyon to Bordeau. No one is saying that trains should replace all other modes of travel, just that they are useful for high traffic routes.

This is very much post 9/11 though. It was not as much of an hassle before that.

I can't tell if this post is serious, or just trolling.

My god, socialism. Building high speed rail are they? The fiends. I bet they spend all night twirling their extensive mustachios wondering how to destroy the economy with high speed rail projects.