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

[Political Junky]

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>

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

 

[Political Junky]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

 

[westwall]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

They CAN'T be more affordable. High speed trains are amongst the most expensive forms of transport out there.

 

[westwall]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

High speed trains in Europe tend to run in trenches. You don't get to see much of the county most of the time. From Paris to London (which we take at least once a year) there are two spots where you can see anything.

 

[Pogo]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

I would, in a heartbeat. Couple of years ago I took a vacation to Oregon, completely across the country, by train. You see one hell of a lot more. We didn't have to go by train obviously -- it was a conscious choice.

If you take a plane, first you have to get to the airport, which is never near where anybody lives, so that's a trek ... then you gotta deal with all sorts of blatantly stupid restrictions on how much toothpaste you can pack... then you have to make your way in from the airport on the other end.... a train puts you right there in the center of town.

I still to this day have fond memories and images of a delightful train ride I took from Chicago to Philadelphia, 30 years ago, because of the outstanding scenery along the New River in West Virginia. I have no such experiences on a plane. The only plane experience that stands out was a near-collision.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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>

 

[Blackrook]

The bullet train will be a money sink for California. The money would be best spent elsewhere, like fixing the water shortage.

 

[Pogo]

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>

Is there a point in superimposing British Columbia over Japan?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available.

Yes, planes were available, but hardly affordable for the average joe back on those days. Eventually plane travel became far more economical for the vast majority of people and that is why today traveling by train across the country is pretty much obsolete.

 

[Pogo]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available.

Yes, planes were available, but hardly affordable for the average joe back on those days. Eventually plane travel became far more economical for the vast majority of people and that is why today traveling by train across the country is pretty much obsolete.

No it isn't. Train travel simply hasn't gotten the support it gets elsewhere. Part of the reason for that is geographical, in that our country is more spread out than, say, Europe and Japan... though not as much as, say, Russia. Now, as you already noted we do have regions that are, like the northeast corridor -- but Amtrak up there is nowhere near the facility that European train travel is, neither in efficiency or cost.

And another part of that is the artificial value placed on "time". As if it really really matters to get there four minutes earlier.

I found out the hard way how inaccessible train travel can be here in NC Appalachia -- when I had reason to take a train to Ohio. I had to get a ride over a hundred miles just to access a train. And it's clearly not because tracks don't exist -- they do. What doesn't exist is the service ON those tracks.

 

[Political Junky]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

High speed trains in Europe tend to run in trenches. You don't get to see much of the county most of the time. From Paris to London (which we take at least once a year) there are two spots where you can see anything.

Yes, I've taken that train. Some of the time you're in a tunnel under the English Channel.
I've been all over Europe and was able to see a lot.

 

[Political Junky]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

High speed trains in Europe tend to run in trenches. You don't get to see much of the county most of the time. From Paris to London (which we take at least once a year) there are two spots where you can see anything.

I assume there's a reason you continue to take that train instead of flying between London and Paris.

 

[westwall]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

High speed trains in Europe tend to run in trenches. You don't get to see much of the county most of the time. From Paris to London (which we take at least once a year) there are two spots where you can see anything.

I assume there's a reason you continue to take that train instead of flying between London and Paris.

Yes, because it delivers us to St. Pancras in the heart of London, and taking into account the length of wait at the airport, and the time taking the tube in from Heathrow, it ends up shaving about an hour off the trip and time is always at a premium for us when we are there.

 

[westwall]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

High speed trains in Europe tend to run in trenches. You don't get to see much of the county most of the time. From Paris to London (which we take at least once a year) there are two spots where you can see anything.

Yes, I've taken that train. Some of the time you're in a tunnel under the English Channel.
I've been all over Europe and was able to see a lot.

Yes, when you take the slow trains around you can see some. I prefer driving though. My wife was an inveterate train taker and she was astonished at what she had been missing. The first time was on a drive I took her on from Rome, through Sienna, Pisa, Monaco, Monte Carlo, Toulon, Milleau, Sens, Joigny, and finally Paris. Took us a few days and she loved every second of it. Stopping at the little road side tavernas and simply stopping to look over the terrain whenever she felt like it.

It was an eye opening experience for her. Huge difference between "looking" at the scenery, and actually interacting with it.

 

[westwall]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available.

Yes, planes were available, but hardly affordable for the average joe back on those days. Eventually plane travel became far more economical for the vast majority of people and that is why today traveling by train across the country is pretty much obsolete.

No it isn't. Train travel simply hasn't gotten the support it gets elsewhere. Part of the reason for that is geographical, in that our country is more spread out than, say, Europe and Japan... though not as much as, say, Russia. Now, as you already noted we do have regions that are, like the northeast corridor -- but Amtrak up there is nowhere near the facility that European train travel is, neither in efficiency or cost.

And another part of that is the artificial value placed on "time". As if it really really matters to get there four minutes earlier.

I found out the hard way how inaccessible train travel can be here in NC Appalachia -- when I had reason to take a train to Ohio. I had to get a ride over a hundred miles just to access a train. And it's clearly not because tracks don't exist -- they do. What doesn't exist is the service ON those tracks.

Untrue. When people go on vacation they have a limited amount of time. Traveling by train is painfully slow and unless subsidized by car drivers is too expensive for most people. Air travel is orders of magnitude faster, safer, and cheaper. All of which doom train travel save as a nostalgic trip is its own right.

The Trans Siberian Railroad trip is a true experience. Bloody expensive though.

 

[Pogo]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available.

Yes, planes were available, but hardly affordable for the average joe back on those days. Eventually plane travel became far more economical for the vast majority of people and that is why today traveling by train across the country is pretty much obsolete.

No it isn't. Train travel simply hasn't gotten the support it gets elsewhere. Part of the reason for that is geographical, in that our country is more spread out than, say, Europe and Japan... though not as much as, say, Russia. Now, as you already noted we do have regions that are, like the northeast corridor -- but Amtrak up there is nowhere near the facility that European train travel is, neither in efficiency or cost.

And another part of that is the artificial value placed on "time". As if it really really matters to get there four minutes earlier.

I found out the hard way how inaccessible train travel can be here in NC Appalachia -- when I had reason to take a train to Ohio. I had to get a ride over a hundred miles just to access a train. And it's clearly not because tracks don't exist -- they do. What doesn't exist is the service ON those tracks.

Untrue. When people go on vacation they have a limited amount of time. Traveling by train is painfully slow and unless subsidized by car drivers is too expensive for most people. Air travel is orders of magnitude faster, safer, and cheaper. All of which doom train travel save as a nostalgic trip is its own right.

The Trans Siberian Railroad trip is a true experience. Bloody expensive though.

I like how your last sentence undermines what's above it and confirms my point. I like the arrangement.

My cross-country train trip referred to above was also, like anything that requires buying tickets, limited in its time frame. You don't seem to have realized that the train trip itself is part of the vacation. Gives a sense of evolution -- "how we got here", which is a waaaaaay different experience from getting on a plane in Anchorage, seeing a bunch of clouds, and suddenly you're in Miami. That method makes all that time in the air (and shuttling to and from airports) a waste of experience by comparison. Saw some clouds, whoopie do.

Driving a car is the only thing that would have eliminated the time constraint, and I briefly considered it, but it would have cost more in terms of travel time, expense, and attention, so that idea never got a foothold.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

We have trains where it makes sense to have trains. Cars and planes make more sense for 99.9% of the country. Planes would be an even better option if the GD Government would end this GD frisking routine that they make everyone go through to protect us from pocket knives and water bottles.

 

[westwall]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available.

Yes, planes were available, but hardly affordable for the average joe back on those days. Eventually plane travel became far more economical for the vast majority of people and that is why today traveling by train across the country is pretty much obsolete.

No it isn't. Train travel simply hasn't gotten the support it gets elsewhere. Part of the reason for that is geographical, in that our country is more spread out than, say, Europe and Japan... though not as much as, say, Russia. Now, as you already noted we do have regions that are, like the northeast corridor -- but Amtrak up there is nowhere near the facility that European train travel is, neither in efficiency or cost.

And another part of that is the artificial value placed on "time". As if it really really matters to get there four minutes earlier.

I found out the hard way how inaccessible train travel can be here in NC Appalachia -- when I had reason to take a train to Ohio. I had to get a ride over a hundred miles just to access a train. And it's clearly not because tracks don't exist -- they do. What doesn't exist is the service ON those tracks.

Untrue. When people go on vacation they have a limited amount of time. Traveling by train is painfully slow and unless subsidized by car drivers is too expensive for most people. Air travel is orders of magnitude faster, safer, and cheaper. All of which doom train travel save as a nostalgic trip is its own right.

The Trans Siberian Railroad trip is a true experience. Bloody expensive though.

I like how your last sentence undermines what's above it and confirms my point. I like the arrangement.

My cross-country train trip referred to above was also, like anything that requires buying tickets, limited in its time frame. You don't seem to have realized that the train trip itself is part of the vacation. Gives a sense of evolution -- "how we got here", which is a waaaaaay different experience from getting on a plane in Anchorage, seeing a bunch of clouds, and suddenly you're in Miami. That method makes all that time in the air (and shuttling to and from airports) a waste of experience by comparison. Saw some clouds, whoopie do.

Driving a car is the only thing that would have eliminated the time constraint, and I briefly considered it, but it would have cost more in terms of travel time, expense, and attention, so that idea never got a foothold.

Yes, the train ride is 16 days through three countries. The tickets START at 6,200 per person and don't include Visa fee's and are spare at best. If you want to make it a nice trip you have to spend 12,500 per person to get a compartment to yourself. We splurged and went the 20k per person route to be treated like kings.

This is a situation where the TRAIN is the vacation. It is the reason to take the trip.



2015 - Rates Dates - Trans-Siberian Journeys - Transsib

 

[Pogo]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

We have trains where it makes sense to have trains. Cars and planes make more sense for 99.9% of the country. Planes would be an even better option if the GD Government would end this GD frisking routine that they make everyone go through to protect us from pocket knives and water bottles.

"99.9%" huh?

Got any idea how many people live in the corridor from Washington to Boston?
At least 50 million.

Now I'm not real good at math but even if they're the only ones who need trains, we must have a population of ... approximately 50 Billion people, way more than, say Earth. But check me on that.

Moreover, as previously noted, I live in an area where you've gotta go over 100 miles just to GET TO a train. Not to get to a track, but to get to a passenger train.