Why Japan’s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

[Papageorgio]

Yes, it does. Most people have a week or two for their vacation. Thus, when it takes over a day to get from one location to another, whereas an aircraft will take a couple of hours, time is critical. I'm not even talking a great distance. Lets talk Seattle to Portland. My wife and I drove it while my daughter rode with her grandma, we had to wait for them for a couple of hours and that was AFTER we spent time antiquing on the way down.

So, while they were stuck on the train, we were able to stop at several antique shops, eat, and visit the USS Oregon Memorial, all before they got to Portland. You are as wrong as wrong can be.

Uh --- no, I'm not. You take the time you have... and you manage it. Ain't rocket surgery. You people who entertain this obsession with speed at any cost.... SMH

How do you manage a weeks trip across country on a train to visit relatives vs flying for 5 hours and actually being able to spend time with them? No, you are wrong as wrong can be.

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Uh --- no, I'm not. You take the time you have... and you manage it. Ain't rocket surgery. You people who entertain this obsession with speed at any cost.... SMH

How do you manage a weeks trip across country on a train to visit relatives vs flying for 5 hours and actually being able to spend time with them? No, you are wrong as wrong can be.

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Other countries are far ahead of the US.

Why Japan s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

High-speed trains—which can hit 300 miles per hour or more—are the ultimate example of how futuristic engineering can solve real-world transportation problems. In the past several decades, dozens of safe, sustainable high-speed train systems have started racing across the planet. And the place that does high-speed rail best is where it all started over 50 years ago: Japan.

In contrast, high-speed rail in the US often feels like vaporware. The closest thing we have to it is the Acela Express, an East Coast Amtrak train that tops out at 150 miles per hour. While proposals in places like Florida have sputtered out, California and Texas currently have the most enduring high-speed rail plans.

<more>

Not going to install a 300mph public transit system anywhere in the US until we show a willingness to pay for maintenance on infrastructure. People who make the trains aren't going to let a country who writes off fatalities and regards it as the cost of doing business because that'd make the brand look dangerous when only the host country's unwillingness to maintain it was what was dangerous.

 

[Papageorgio]

How do you manage a weeks trip across country on a train to visit relatives vs flying for 5 hours and actually being able to spend time with them? No, you are wrong as wrong can be.

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

I could see SF to LA, still not across the nation. However, I would be willing to bet the train would start downtown SF and the parking will be expensive. Renting a car in LA without the benefit of having the car rental company would be more of a hassle and you still have to drive around the basin. You haven't solved any problems.

Stopping too many times is also time consuming. Your 300 mph avg. will dip considerably as the trains slows down, stops and then regains speeds. An hour in the air beats three by rail.

 

[Stephanie]

I took Guberment train, Amtrak.... to someplace I could drive in 5 hours and it took me, 8 HOURS on the gubmerment train.

and cost me an arm and a leg

 

[westwall]

Yup. We are not in a civil war, not recovering from WWII, and not building an infrastructure that serves an unmet need.

Red Herring.

You're aware that we have debt and unemployment, both of which would be improved by fixing out infrastructure....

No, they would not.

Bullshit -

If you build the correct infrastructure, you are correct. I am talking about that which immediately leads to production and ease of transport for moving mass quantities of goods. Building a train, that no one rides isn't the way to do it. In all the world there are TWO lines that actually pay for themselves TWO!

Better than airlines, huh? Transportation is good for commerce, ask around.

Tell that to the "people" who use Mid America Airport.


MidAmerica St. Louis Airport was created to alleviate some crowding of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, but has never had service from any major airline and has been criticized as a pork barrel project.[5] Featured several times as a "Fleecing of America" segment on the NBC Nightly News, it was called a "Gateway to Nowhere" by Tom Brokaw, costing taxpayers $313 million.[6] Supporters credit MidAmerica's additional runway with saving Scott AFB from closure during BRAC 2005. They also describe MidAmerica as a "Gateway to the World", citing a new cargo terminal and customs facility designed to attract international cargo.[7] Congestion at Lambert-St. Louis has not been a problem since American Airlines reduced hub operations by fifty percent in 2003 and a new billion-dollar runway opened in 2006.


MidAmerica St. Louis Airport - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

The seanery by train during the day from Boston to NYC is spectacular. I'd never fly that route.

Ummm, it's "scenery". And sure it is...

These are the nice views..

This is what I like....

LOL, I noticed you left out everything but the entry into NYC - the coast of CT & RI in particular. Well, no one has ever pretended that right wingers don't lie by omission, since the evidence is so clear and convincing.

That's because there were no pictures of those places on the web. For some reason no one has posted any. Feel free to post your own. I used what was available, and could be positively identified.

 

[westwall]

How do you manage a weeks trip across country on a train to visit relatives vs flying for 5 hours and actually being able to spend time with them? No, you are wrong as wrong can be.

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

Thanks to all the waiting, it is faster to drive from SFO to LAX in many cases. There was even a contest once and the driver beat the flyer by 25 minutes or so.

 

[westwall]

Other countries are far ahead of the US.

Why Japan s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

High-speed trains—which can hit 300 miles per hour or more—are the ultimate example of how futuristic engineering can solve real-world transportation problems. In the past several decades, dozens of safe, sustainable high-speed train systems have started racing across the planet. And the place that does high-speed rail best is where it all started over 50 years ago: Japan.

In contrast, high-speed rail in the US often feels like vaporware. The closest thing we have to it is the Acela Express, an East Coast Amtrak train that tops out at 150 miles per hour. While proposals in places like Florida have sputtered out, California and Texas currently have the most enduring high-speed rail plans.

<more>

Not going to install a 300mph public transit system anywhere in the US until we show a willingness to pay for maintenance on infrastructure. People who make the trains aren't going to let a country who writes off fatalities and regards it as the cost of doing business because that'd make the brand look dangerous when only the host country's unwillingness to maintain it was what was dangerous.

How the hell are you going to pay for a system that few people will ever use. Riddle us that batman.

 

[westwall]

How do you manage a weeks trip across country on a train to visit relatives vs flying for 5 hours and actually being able to spend time with them? No, you are wrong as wrong can be.

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Other countries are far ahead of the US.

Why Japan s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

High-speed trains—which can hit 300 miles per hour or more—are the ultimate example of how futuristic engineering can solve real-world transportation problems. In the past several decades, dozens of safe, sustainable high-speed train systems have started racing across the planet. And the place that does high-speed rail best is where it all started over 50 years ago: Japan.

In contrast, high-speed rail in the US often feels like vaporware. The closest thing we have to it is the Acela Express, an East Coast Amtrak train that tops out at 150 miles per hour. While proposals in places like Florida have sputtered out, California and Texas currently have the most enduring high-speed rail plans.

<more>

Not going to install a 300mph public transit system anywhere in the US until we show a willingness to pay for maintenance on infrastructure. People who make the trains aren't going to let a country who writes off fatalities and regards it as the cost of doing business because that'd make the brand look dangerous when only the host country's unwillingness to maintain it was what was dangerous.

How the hell are you going to pay for a system that few people will ever use. Riddle us that batman.

This site or the train?

 

[Wry Catcher]

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

I could see SF to LA, still not across the nation. However, I would be willing to bet the train would start downtown SF and the parking will be expensive. Renting a car in LA without the benefit of having the car rental company would be more of a hassle and you still have to drive around the basin. You haven't solved any problems.

Stopping too many times is also time consuming. Your 300 mph avg. will dip considerably as the trains slows down, stops and then regains speeds. An hour in the air beats three by rail.

A spur will connect SF to the main line using CalTrain tracks which will run from the new East Bay Terminal in Downtown SF to the Central Valley - the main line is designed to go from San Diego to Sacramento. Getting to the EB Terminal will be easy, it will be the depot for buses and light rail from all of the Bay Area's nine counties.

If you've ever been to Europe and ridden the trains you would know how clean, efficient and comfortble they are, nothing like the usual American passenger train.

I took Guberment train, Amtrak.... to someplace I could drive in 5 hours and it took me, 8 HOURS on the gubmerment train.

and cost me an arm and a leg

and apparently a brain too.

 

[westwall]

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

I could see SF to LA, still not across the nation. However, I would be willing to bet the train would start downtown SF and the parking will be expensive. Renting a car in LA without the benefit of having the car rental company would be more of a hassle and you still have to drive around the basin. You haven't solved any problems.

Stopping too many times is also time consuming. Your 300 mph avg. will dip considerably as the trains slows down, stops and then regains speeds. An hour in the air beats three by rail.

A spur will connect SF to the main line using CalTrain tracks which will run from the new East Bay Terminal in Downtown SF to the Central Valley - the main line is designed to go from San Diego to Sacramento. Getting to the EB Terminal will be easy, it will be the depot for buses and light rail from all of the Bay Area's nine counties.

If you've ever been to Europe and ridden the trains you would know how clean, efficient and comfortble they are, nothing like the usual American passenger train.

I took Guberment train, Amtrak.... to someplace I could drive in 5 hours and it took me, 8 HOURS on the gubmerment train.

and cost me an arm and a leg

and apparently a brain too.

The main line stops well before you hit the Grapevine. Where the heck are they going to build the line to San Diego? That's the problem with this boondoggle, the two main terminals are in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Wry Catcher]

High speed rail would certainly not take a week to cross the country.

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

I could see SF to LA, still not across the nation. However, I would be willing to bet the train would start downtown SF and the parking will be expensive. Renting a car in LA without the benefit of having the car rental company would be more of a hassle and you still have to drive around the basin. You haven't solved any problems.

Stopping too many times is also time consuming. Your 300 mph avg. will dip considerably as the trains slows down, stops and then regains speeds. An hour in the air beats three by rail.

A spur will connect SF to the main line using CalTrain tracks which will run from the new East Bay Terminal in Downtown SF to the Central Valley - the main line is designed to go from San Diego to Sacramento. Getting to the EB Terminal will be easy, it will be the depot for buses and light rail from all of the Bay Area's nine counties.

If you've ever been to Europe and ridden the trains you would know how clean, efficient and comfortble they are, nothing like the usual American passenger train.

I took Guberment train, Amtrak.... to someplace I could drive in 5 hours and it took me, 8 HOURS on the gubmerment train.

and cost me an arm and a leg

and apparently a brain too.

The main line stops well before you hit the Grapevine. Where the heck are they going to build the line to San Diego? That's the problem with this boondoggle, the two main terminals are in the middle of nowhere.

Ah yes, the conservative meme, a segment that goes no place. You're the kind that said building a park in the wind, fog and sand of western San Francisco is a boondogglee. Today Golden Gate Park stands as a monument to all those naysayers.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Given how easily conventional trains derail, I can't imagine putting a faster system even more easily messed with in the US unless they're going to erect an impassable barrier around every inch of track. That'd be my primary concern. Secondary concern being simply operator error as with Amtrak.

 

[westwall]

How many trillions are we talking? We as a nation are so far in debt. How do we afford such luxury and do we need it, when a system is already in place.

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

 

[westwall]

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

I could see SF to LA, still not across the nation. However, I would be willing to bet the train would start downtown SF and the parking will be expensive. Renting a car in LA without the benefit of having the car rental company would be more of a hassle and you still have to drive around the basin. You haven't solved any problems.

Stopping too many times is also time consuming. Your 300 mph avg. will dip considerably as the trains slows down, stops and then regains speeds. An hour in the air beats three by rail.

A spur will connect SF to the main line using CalTrain tracks which will run from the new East Bay Terminal in Downtown SF to the Central Valley - the main line is designed to go from San Diego to Sacramento. Getting to the EB Terminal will be easy, it will be the depot for buses and light rail from all of the Bay Area's nine counties.

If you've ever been to Europe and ridden the trains you would know how clean, efficient and comfortble they are, nothing like the usual American passenger train.

I took Guberment train, Amtrak.... to someplace I could drive in 5 hours and it took me, 8 HOURS on the gubmerment train.

and cost me an arm and a leg

and apparently a brain too.

The main line stops well before you hit the Grapevine. Where the heck are they going to build the line to San Diego? That's the problem with this boondoggle, the two main terminals are in the middle of nowhere.

Ah yes, the conservative meme, a segment that goes no place. You're the kind that said building a park in the wind, fog and sand of western San Francisco is a boondogglee. Today Golden Gate Park stands as a monument to all those naysayers.

Ummm GG Park is within 30 miles of most places in the Bay Area. Not exactly a fair comparison now is it considering the closest terminal is what, 80 miles away from the Bay Area?

 

[westwall]

Given how easily conventional trains derail, I can't imagine putting a faster system even more easily messed with in the US unless they're going to erect an impassable barrier around every inch of track. That'd be my primary concern. Secondary concern being simply operator error as with Amtrak.

That's the other thing they're not telling you. High speed rail, true high speed rail, must be purpose built. There is no section of track in the entire US that is suitable for high speed rail. That's also why they tend to build the rail sections in trenches.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, you prefer a system that is outdated and nearly useless? The world has passed us by.

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned