So you're saying we shouldn't build it because you're scared of terrorists. We can't be scared of terrorists forever. I fly all the time. Anybody want to be flying mach .6 1000 feet of the ground when an SA-14 tags your ass?
No. I'm pointing that out as one drawback.
Not many passenger airliners fly that fast that close to the ground, really. And...that particular flight regime is known as "takeoff" and "landing approach", and are relatively short in duration, as compared to the 100% of the time the train is on the ground.
The biggest argument against it goes like this:
The government's broke, it should stop wasting taxpayer dollars on boondoggles. If it's argued that it isn't a boondoggle, then show us the private investors lining up to invest their own cash, and if they exist, there's no need for the government to be spending that money.
So either way, the government should not be spending the money.
Hey, if some private consortium wants to pony up a few gigabucks to play railroad tycoon, fine by me, but it's not something the public has such an urgent need for that it needs to invoke Article 1 Section 8 whichever paragraph covers post roads, to finance.
Really, if we needed it, someone would be building it with their own cash.
I can get to San Fransissyco by plane, by train, and by automobile, and frankly, there's no traffic jam on the I-5, there's no backlog of train seats, and there's no shortage of airplanes to get me there. There's no need for such a train. If the Balitmorons and the Washingtonians feel there should be a faster train between the two towns, those two towns can make their own arrangements and the project should be financed by charging the passengers the proper ticket prices.