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

As the article notes, it'll be an uphill battle, as the European manufacturers (especially Alstom) already have market share.

It also looks like HSR decisions will be made largely at the state level, even though most of the funding is federal.

 

Why cant GM and Chrysler learn how to build trains?
Theyve fought against mass transit for the last century.
Its about time they changed.

 

mojo it's even worse than that. I believe it was way back in the 1950's that the U.S. first developed maglift technology for high speed rail transportation ... yet we pee'd our lead away, to both european & asian countries who took the technology and ran with it. Where would be be now, had we been the country that actually developed AND used the ideas we come up with.

.

 

Are these bullet trains meant to replace Amtrak?

We price train trips all the time, and it's just ridiculous. From Louisiana to NYC it is very expensive. And it's an overnight trip, so if we want a room (I don't want to sleep in public, lol) it gets very, very expensive. It's more expensive than flying! It's more expensive and takes much, much more time (a 3 hour flight or a 24+ train ride.)

 

That is all correct. The train just isn't the correct mode for an La.-NYC trip. You're talking 1,300 miles.

As a rough comparison, that's like taking a train from Barcelona to Copenhagen. Or a train for the whole length of Japan (including islands). No one in their right mind would do that, either.

ETA: To answer your question, most HSR development is not meant to replace amtrak. It is meant to create regional networks. Like connecting the cities in Florida, California, or New York. Trains will likely never be reasonable for long-distance travel, even if they're able to go 250 mph.

 

Wouldn't it be great if American workers could turn American technology into American infrastructure.

High speed trains seem to be best suited for routes under 400 miles.
Then the competion with airlines in time (city center to city center) makes sense. New York to New Orleans type routes fit the airline business model better. Taking the train is for sight seeing.

 

Ah, I see what you're saying. Makes sense!

 

Building trains probably isn't that profitable in the U.S.

 

I didnt know so I checked.
Bay Area Rapid Transit was built by an American company.
Maybe they should be courted to design a high speed system.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodrich_Aerostructures_Group[/ame]

 

Lately ,building cars isnt profitable at all in the U.S.

 

If the technology is good enough and the ridership demands high enough, private investors will step in to fund it.

If not and government spends the $ on HSR anyway, we will have a system like Amtrak that is on perpetual life support.

 

Private industry is not going to invest in something when the primarily incentive is to lower future energy consumption and create jobs.
There's more than profit involved.
Private industry left us with no jobs and lots of gas guzzlers.

 

Amtrak would not be on perpetual life support if it had gotten the massive public funding that the private auto and roadways have gotten the last 60 years.

 

Rail travel in Europe is often faster than flying, especially when you consider check-in times and the taxi to get downtown from the airport. European cities tend to be more densely populated and closer together than cities in North America, where investment in rail travel is not a priority. Which is a shame, because the train is a more efficient and civilised way to travel than either plane or automobile. Every form of transportation is funded at least in part from general taxation revenues, so they're all on 'life support' and always will be. France and Japan have chosen to invest in railways, and the US has chosen to invest in highways.

 

We are 100 years behind Europe for rail transportation. We need light rail in cities and high speed rail between cities, i.e., an Interstate program for rail. Individual vehicles will become increasingly cost prohibitive except for local Smart cars, bicycles and walking.

 

You're here all week, right?

Moving people around is not a profitable operation, due to the infrastructure required. The only entities that make money moving people around do so with the support of indirect subsidies.

The road and air networks are also on perpetual life support, and that support dwarfs what is given to Amtrak, as seen in the budget numbers:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_department_transportation/

(For some reason FAA is not on that page. FY10 budget is $9.336 billion)

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...udgets_brief/media/2010_budget_highlights.pdf

 

Something that has always pissed me off about US and Canadian railways.

Currently, passenger service in most parts of the county runs on freight lines, with a secondary priority, and with regressive rates that are paid to the freight railway companies. It seems that almost all of these railways were built with land grants as an incentive. These land grants have proved to be way more valuable than the freight hauling ever was even today.

Not that you could do it, but doesn't it seem reasonable that the land grant freight railways at the very least allow Amtrak/Via to run on their rights of way with top priority and without fee?

Someone once told me and I don't know it's factual basis, but the for the fees that Canadian National charges Via to run a train, (on a ton mile basis) you would be cheaper flying the entire consist of the train.

You can't convince me that CN/CP/BNSF/UP etc (don't know about the east) that these multinationals haven't made a ton of money over the years at our collective expense, and that they should be forced to return some of the favour!

I also agree with the above comments about subsidy. The "don't tax" me crowd gets it's knickers in a know over a few $$ to Amtrak but don't bat an eye at trucking/automobil etc subsidies.

 

Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor. Outside of that, it's mainly a mix of NS and CSX.

I agree emotionally with your argument, but rationally I'm not sure it makes sense. While the railroads did make a lot of money with land grants, you're talking about actions that took place mostly 100+ years ago. It's pretty difficult to go back now, I'd think. The land grants were really just subsidies, and I'm not sure the Class I's owe anything based on past receipt of subsidy (and really UP is the only railroad that participated, I believe. All of the other C-I's are newer entities).