Japan to begin huge sales push to sell bullet trains to United States cities

High rail travel prices leading to low demand, or low demand leading to high prices is a chicken and egg argument that people abuse according to their political and personal travel preferences.

The only reasonable solution IMO is too remove subsidies completely, and to make sure that pricing includes external costs. THEN we will see what transport modes americans "prefer." Until then, the artificially low out of pocket price of fossil fuels and road infrastructure turns the entire question into a bad joke.

 

That's almost gonna happen,,,!

 

another thing we dont consider is that "IF" we ever do get effective electrical storage solutions, it would be easy to go all electric for trains. that is in the foreseeable future. electric airplanes is a completely different matter.

 

Even without battery storage, electric motors are very much more efficient than ICEs. Of course the advantage with trains is they run on set tracks, making power easy to track to the use, unlike trucks and cars. (One of the dorkier statements I have made lately!)

 

More of a challenge than electric ground transport, for sure, but not impossible. A sled launch and better glide characteristics could make short hauls more feasible, and dirigibles could be better utilised, though they are relatively slow. If we can find a suitable material for space elevators, hoisting a glider up to the necessary height and pointing it half way around the globe would be simple.

Ultimately, I'd say security concerns will do as much to kill air travel as anything else. It's pretty difficult to aim a train at the 93rd floor.

 

The most part of railroad are constructed by bridges and tunnels.
Also, there are a lot of underpass and overpass for traffic road.
I think there is no interference with wildlife.

Anyway, there is no railroad crossing at all!

Ken@Japan

 

FYI,
Japan Railways has a plan about the Linear Express.
JR?Maglev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Their plan is 67 minutes from Tokyo to Osaka, 500km distance.

Ken@Japan

 

Wouldn't it be nice to go Washington-NY in an hour? NY-Boston? Montreal-Toronto? Just matter of priorities.

 

Speaking of priorities! What if we had spent the 2 or 3 trillion Bush's war for oil is going to cost us plus the trillion or two the wall street bailout will cost on upgrading our infrastructure, mass transit, high speed rail, healthcare developing the ultimate EV or dozens of other priorities for the American taxpayer!!!

Makes me angry just thinking of the wasted lives and resources.

Countries like Japan, France and Brazil understood that given their fossil fuel resources (little to none) that they would have to make energy independence a national priority for national security reasons.

When will the rightwingers realize we need to make changes, not to be green or to solve climate change, but for national security!!!

 

rpatterman, around the time their kids are drafted.

 

As a strong anti-war/anti draft person during our fiasco in Vietnam, I have come to change my mind.

If EVERY young person regardless of academic ability, economic advantage or physical ability were eligible for a draft, and indeed were required to perform some sort of community service including military service, they and their parents would be much more engaged in the decisions folks like GWB and Dick Cheney make!

A bit off topic however.

 

Not really off topic! We will not solve our addiction to fossil fuels until a majority of Americans understand the connection between driving SUVs and national security.

I believe history will judge GWB's greatest failure to be NOT taking advantage of 9/11 to make the US energy independent. Just after 9/11a true leader could have asked the American people for any amount of sacrafice.

 

i think the big thing we need to keep in mind is that high speed trains will not replace air travel. but they can and would fill a huge transportation need and if we had some support behind it, prices will fall. Amtrak is expensive because its EXCLUSIVE. only people who are afraid to fly use it. so not really a lot of demand.

take for example, my Dad lives in Mission, TX a left arm's stone throw from the Rio Grande and Mexico. he ended up marrying a lady from Odessa. now same state right?? but its Texas and Odessa is located on the Texas high plain. its same as driving from Washington DC to Detroit, MI not a sunday drive!! now there is really only a few stops that a train running this route might make and if it can be done in an afternoon instead of the first thing in the morning until late in the evening drive that my Dad does now about 10 times a year (he has a 2007 Prius and 90% of the miles on it is for driving this trip. normally at home, his main trips are to the pool or the clubhouse about a mile away...) there is no doubt he would do it as would others.

if we had a train system that did expresses (long trips 300+ miles limited stops) and locals (shorter runs, multiple stops) we would fill a huge transportation niche. Amtrak's schedule is a joke. great for sightseeing, but no one in their right mind uses it for transportation unless they are afraid to fly and dont drive.

 

It is not just a matter of those that are scared to fly. Planes are indeed not going away, but, when trains can "compete" with flying, either on speed/service/comfort etc they are viable. The reality is that Amtrak has been hampered to some huge extend by poor government leadership.

As has been mentioned before, if the subsidies for other transport were transparent, trains would win hands down in terms of efficiency!

 

Here, here!

I might take a bit further back, all the way to the Reagan administration. Think of the progress and therefore the security if we had continued the start that Carter made!

 

on the topic of efficiency, my location means we are simply getting bombarded by the Boeing Dreamliner testing. they are bragging an all composite frame making this the most efficient airplane built advertising 100 pmpg (passenger miles per gallon) with an average 300 passengers (i have heard anywhere from 270 to 330 depending on configuration) that is 3 gallons per mile burned. not bad for a plane i guess.

 

While 300 passenger miles per gallon for a plane is reasonably impressive, consider even a bus. ~5mpg with 60 seats is 300 pmpg.

A train will beat that by an order of magnitude I suspect, plus it can use grid power instead of Diesel locomotive.

 

impressive yes, possible?? no, not currently. the dreamliner at 100 PMPG is by far the most efficient. others are as low at 50-70 PMPG

 

Going back off topic to Bay Area public transit... I stumbled across this article about the sad state and how much longer it takes for some vs. driving.

Commuters are leaving mass transit for their cars, and they have their reasons - San Jose Mercury News

Some of these examples were similar to mine:

 

Typical weak analysis from a newspaper, pulling a bunch of unusual cases and using them to make a conclusion or give an impression.

I am not that familiar with the geography, but it sounds like most of the people in the article were making edge-to-edge trips. Few transit systems robustly support these kinds of trips. Another one of the examples was someone working at the airport, who was disproportionately affected by an airport surcharge (In an ideal world, airport workers would be exempt from these surcharges).

It was also unclear in the article how much of the travel time was "last mile", how much was waiting for transfers, and how much was actual travel.