Japan also has four times the population of California. It also has mountains which make building roads difficult and expensive, which leads to significant traffic congestion on the roads that do exist and expensive tolls on highways. Economic conditions and city densities were also such that cars were out of the reach of many, which led to a culture more accepting of public transit and trains, which didn’t really happen in the US outside of maybe NYC.
2500 miles, at a construction cost on the low end of $30 million per mile: $75 billion for LA-NYC alone. Use the projected $100–$330 million per-mile cost of actual planned US high speed projects, and the price range becomes $250–$825 billion. For dedicated infrastructure on a trip that will take over 12 hours.
Maybe in that context taking cargo and cars on these high-speed lines makes sense, because I doubt you’re going to sell enough tickets to keep the line busy with pure passenger traffic. But not many people are going to want to use it to ship cars or cargo, since the prices will be astronomical (probably the same as or even higher than air freight), so they’ll probably have to offer subsidized cut-rate tariffs in order to actually make efficient use of their infrastructure.
Costs haven’t come down in Japan: shinkansen tickets are still comparable to airline tickets.
While you certainly don’t feel the lack car-rental services in Japan, you would in virtually every major city in the US, as the US lacks the overall public infrastructure system of Japan. Sure, it doesn’t have to be this way, but until there is a broader revolution in how the US deals with cars and transportation, it will still be a challenge to high-speed rail in the US.
That’s a chicken-and-egg problem though. It isn’t really true in countries with a bigger passenger rail market.
I used to live in a city that was heavily involved in the development of the maglev Transrapid that was always going to be deployed any day now for decades. When they finally sold it to Shanghai they had saved enough face to let it die.
I don’t remember who summed it up as “wonderful technology but unfortunately 150 years late.”
Aside from the fact that the US gov’t actively subsidized the crap out of roads and highways while allowing the privately owned railroads to siphon cash out of their systems until the businesses collapsed (50’s and 60’s were the final death of people-transport by rail), I’d like to point out that transport by rail is fundamentally much cheaper than any other overland or airborne method, and that the rail system in the USA right now is pretty much systolic w/ all the freight being hauled around.
WIth a fraction of the gov’t subsidies provided to either roadways or air traffic diverted to supporting rail systems, we could easily make travel by rail cost and time- efficient again. BTW, Acela between BOS and NYC may cost more than air, but the total time budget is quite competitive. Remember, you can saunter into South Station or 128 10 minutes before departure, walk onto the train, and get off right in the middle of downtown New York, with fleets of cabs, busses, or subways to get you anywhere in less time than it takes to disembark at LaGuardia or Newark.
Right, I’ve Americans complain about government officials building more rail lines since trains aren’t revenue neutral. Apparently those people think roads, traffic signals, highway patrol etc etc are all provided by the Free Market Fairy.
I once calculated that instead of the Iraq war the US could have built a London/Paris grade subway in every US city over 1000000 people. Of course the war has gone on another ten years now…
Also if we raised taxes to build infrastructure how would the finance executives afford to take helicopter flights to their places in the Hamptons every weekend?
If anything the relatively flat and depopulated stretch between L.A. and S.F. makes a high speed rail link more appealing. It’s a lot easier to acquire the land needed to build the thing if it doesn’t involve displacing hundreds of thousands of residents, and the cost/benefit for high speed rail only really makes sense if it’s traveling far enough to shave some serious time off your trip. I think most people who have spent a day fighting traffic along the I-5 or have forked out the cost of a SFO-LAX plane ticket would welcome another alternative.
To a certain extent it does cut both ways. But take the train to LA and you’re going to need a car (unlike Osaka). Of course the US is more resistant to things like eminent domain, even if fewer properties need to be seized (not that they had to seize a lot of homes in the Japanese mountains and countryside, or even in towns and cities with the elevated tracks).
The Bay Area and LA have a combined metro population of about 25,000,000. Tokyo and Osaka add up to about 58,000,000. Over 350,000 people take the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka every day, at about $150 each way. I’m not sure you can expect that kind of ridership in California, at those prices.
Isn’t anyone going to object to the idea of going faster? Has the landscape ceased to be of any visual interest, that travelers would want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, the scenery passing in a blur? To prefer to sleep, perchance to dream, as your country passes by? If I’m lucky enough to finally make it to Japan, I hope to see the countryside, traveling as much as possible on foot. Flying by train at 311 mph does not strike me as cause for celebration (it is a rather small country, with distinct districts), but pause for wtf. It’s a bit Blaine the Train.
For the first-time ride, definitely you’re right. Once you’re traveling the same route three times a week, or perhaps even daily, and the time spent in transit is the time you can’t spend elsewhere, the faster the better.
You can watch the slow train multi-hour you-tube vidoes during your ride!
I agree there is a lot to be said for going slow, and equally as much for the option to be able to go fast when needed. First time you make a trip as a traveler you want to soak it all in. The thousandth time as a commuter and you just want to be there as quickly as possible. (edit: @shaddack just beat me to this exact point.)
From what I could tell that was already better then Snowpiercer!
You can take slow trains, too. In Japan they are slow, indeed. The Coast Starlight from Oakland to LA takes more than twelve hours (along a much more scenic route), and I’m sure it will keep running.
There have been recent rumblings about financiers having $5B to develop maglev between DC and Baltimore, but given the state of Union Station’s upgrade needs (as well as the standard reaction from Republicans to the word “train”) it’s likely a bit of pie in the sky.
The current Amtrak line between Union Station and Baltimore Station is 42 miles, and the article notes that the $5 billion in private financing would likely cover less than half the cost.
“If this does get built, it’s going to end up looking just like the Chinese maglev, which is almost a joke. People ride it as a novelty, but not for transportation,” he said. “I would really be [angry] if our
government forked over $5 billion for this little system to Baltimore” when it could move more people farther distances with the same amount in California.
I tend to look at the passing landscape as though I were framing the scene with a camera. A subconscious tick toward composition I’m barely aware of, I’ve been doing it so long.
We just came in from a drive up the freeway. It’s still very cold out but clear and sunny and everything is covered in snow. It’s an excellent time to spot predatory birds that are otherwise hidden by foliage. I looked at the top of one tree as we drove to see a mature bald eagle perched up there. I can see why if you had to commute often you’d want to shorten the time in transit as much as possible, although I’ve never considered looking out the window at the same scene a waste of time. But if I couldn’t go at a speed that would let me take in what the eyes could see, then I’d rather fly. Then it’s a given that you’re going to be skipping over the visual interest of the earthbound, life at a more mammalian pace. At 311 mph there isn’t enough time focus, recognize and appreciate the sighting of wildlife, and I never wanted to live a life where such opportunities passed before they’re even brought into visual focus. I judge myself and others by their mindfulness, not by what they were successful or wealthy enough to ignore. But maybe I’m just talking out of my ass and need to give this more thought. I still think the opportunity to see the eagle is more valuable than getting to Point B faster.
