JRE will also try to sell Shinkansen in U.S.

[489-YOMPAQ]

JRE will also try to sell Shinkansen in U.S. for other lines that JRC(?) will try to sell.

 

http://www.asahi.com/travel/rail/news/TKY201005010157.html

[bikkuri bahn]

Yes, the interesting part of that article was JR East focusing on California, and to a even greater extent the Midwest U.S., which are planning systems that will share track with non-HSR trains.  JR East is promoting its mini-Shinkansen (Yamagata and Akita Shinkansen) as examples of trainsets that can operate both on grade separated true HSR lines and conventional lines with grade crossings.  However there is the question of whether the U.S. FRA will relax requirements for collision protection (with heavy freights)- if not, or just to a level on par with European standards, JR East and/or Kawasaki Jukou have to modify any existing designs and add weight, which will penalize the energy efficiency of Japanese trainsets.

[Guest ___]

I think JR-E is going to have an easier sale than JR-C, but selling to the moid0east is going to be a no brainer about failing.

[to2leo]

Unless US is willing to build a dedicated rail lines for its HST, I cannot see Japan's Shinkansen coming.  Maybe the Javelin Class at most.

[Guest ___]

Well part of Obama's stimulus plan included dedicated HSR projects, but the reality is as soon as there is a change in administration, the HST will be pulled from the table. So, it's all sort of moot.

[Mudkip Orange]

but the reality is as soon as there is a change in administration, the HST will be pulled from the table.

 

Really? I have some nagging doubts that Sarah Palin's 2012 campaign is going to get anywhere. So we've still got six years of BHO, at least.

[bikkuri bahn]

As much as I want to believe otherwise, I have to agree with Shashinka.  Unless gasoline starts selling for $10 a gallon, any new administration that leans towards the right will kill this initiative off.  Unfortunately, America has become so polarized, the once common American trait of "can-do spirit" and practicality (this characterized my Grandparents' generation, bless them!) has been drowned by ideology and selfish baby boomer "I've got mine, and I don't wanna pay for anyone else's" mindset towards society.

[Mudkip Orange]

any new administration that leans towards the right will kill this initiative off.

 

Oh, I agree with that. It's just that the GOP is doing such a good job of marginalizing themselves that I think we might have a nice solid (D) streak up to and beyond 2016. That's a lot of time to get a system or two up and running, which would change the calculus for the rest of the country.

[quinntopia]

Whoops...did I wind up on the Daily Kos?

 

Sorry, I want high speed trains as much as the rest and improved transportation options via light rail, transit, etc..., but I don't see how this is a "D" vs "R" issue?  Why are we politicizing this? To claim either party has a decent solution is ridiculous, it was (primarily) Republican presidents in the 19th Century and early 20th Century that lead the regulation of the US railroad industry that set it up for failure as the economy shifted to trucks (short-sighted, populist moves), only relieved when Jimmy Carter (D) signed the Staggers Act into law in 1980.  However, it was George HW Bush ® who signed ISTEA in 1991 that was the first meaningful step forward for transit of all kinds in this country in over 50 years.  Oh yes, and it was Richard Nixon ® who created Amtrak (which, at minimum, was a step towards improving a bad situation, and unfortunately hasn't moved beyond that).  The next president (and this country) is going to have to make a real decision about where they're going to get the electrons to power this HSR as well...which means more nukes (we're busting up hyro, wind is insufficient, coal is dirty, and solar is nascent). 

 

I'm excited that President Obama is getting some clear investment going for a much needed and overdue capability in this country, but let's keep the discussion fact-based.  What we should all be watching is that every cent of this investment into HSR that is being put forward is being done in a way that will lead to success in the future.  This can't be done by hoping for a one-party majority, because no matter what you might want to happen, that's historically not sustainable.  We need to work to convert people to this way of thinking, not alienate them.

[bikkuri bahn]

Unfortunately, any discussion of things that in other first world countries are taken for granted regardless of political leanings (i.e. a true balanced transport policy, universal health care) is highly politicized and divisive in the U.S.A.

[KenS]

U.S. policicians have a long and inglorious history of getting elected by standing against something, rather than standing for anything. We do seem to be taking it to new lows in the last few decades, but that may just be a matter of the present rather candid reporting of the television era seeming more intense than a dry historical account.

 

But regardless of that, and while I am a big fan of HSR, it has some significant problems to overcome as a transportation mode here.  First, it's a big country, and there really aren't that many places where even 180 mph (~300 kph) trains would link places a large number of people want to travel within the magical "3 hours" needed for significant adoption.  And does it make sense to spend the billions needed to link two cities without some reason to expect that volume? I've ridden the Acela Express from Boston to Washington (6.5 - 7 hours), and I vastly prefer it to flying, but most people will take the convenience of spending ~3-4 hours (including "waiting around" time) to fly that route.  Most of my co-passengers were Boston-NYC or NYC-Washington, with a very small number going to/from intermediate  locations.

 

Second, many of those places are extensively built up (far more so than rural Japan was in the 1960's or early 1970's).  That makes it hard to straighten or build new routes by bulldozing existing users out of the way. Aside from the cost that would involve, people don't like having their land taken by eminent domain, which makes it a political issue. That makes it hard to do anything other than use existing routes, which aren't really suitable for HSR.  This is why most of the Acela route is limited to 125 mph or even less, rather than its full 150 mph (ironically, one of the oldest stretches, between Boston and Providence, RI, has a fairly extensive 150 mph stretch, because it was mostly empty land in 1835 when the original railroad was built there).

 

Additionally, there's the chicken and egg problem that HSR alone isn't  enough; you need good public transportation networks at both ends, or travelers are pretty much stuck.  Boston, NYC and Washington, DC have fairly good networks (not on Tokyo's scale by any means, but you can get around in all three without a car), but even those (other than NYC) largely depend on bus networks, which many people dislike (and they are compromised by erratic schedules, which further discourage use).  And the networks do not extend well beyond the central urban area. I still wind up renting a car when I take the train to DC (not a common activity for me, but I've done it for work and vacations several times over the last ten years). Other cities do not have as good networks (LA has been pretty much rebuilding theirs from scratch over the last couple of decades), which is going to make adopting inter-city rail even harder there. And that means that HSR use (and thus motivation to build it) is somewhat linked to substantial investment in urban transportation networks. Something that needs to be done anyway, but it's more money to raise/budget/spend before we get to the goal, and that makes it a convenient political target.

 

Finally, there's the issue of sharing rails with freight lines on those local (commuter/suburban) networks.  Japan manages this, but they have much less freight traffic, and it is clearly secondary to passenger service. Operating freights mainly at night isn't really an option for the U.S., and that affects the ability to schedule enough trains to drive adoption of rail instead of cars. Most "commuter" networks operate mainly in the morning and early evening, with very few trains mid-day or late evening, which makes them inconvenient for non-commuter transportation (I live a ten-minute walk from a train station, I enjoy riding trains, and I'm still likely to drive if I go to the city for recreation, at least until I get to a subway station with parking).

 

Sharing rails with freight is also an issue for potential HSR routes (back to that "need to re-use existing routes" problem). Freight rail is undergoing a resurgence on long inter-city routes. Even if you ignore the railroads that kept those routes intact for their own use all these years, the national interest of moving passengers to those routes has to be balanced against the effect of putting that freight traffic onto highways.  Trying to do both has the same schedule issues that shared commuter lines have, as well as introducing safety issues (which motivate Federal crash regulations, which limit the ability to adopt existing designs, and raise equipment costs).

 

I'd love to see more use of trains, and a real HSR network on at least the two coasts. But regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, I don't think it's a cut-and-dried "trains are better than cars" issue. Fuel economy and carbon footprint are only one aspect of a much more complex transportation problem, and honestly differing views of the worth of the goal as balanced against its cost are only to be expected. And politicians with the vision to see and pursue a goal that can't be achieved until they are long out of office are rare; getting several in a row, regardless of party affiliation, is the really hard part of this.

[cteno4]

Ken,

 

sadly i have to agree with you on these points. the routes in the US where HSR would really pay off are so densely packed already the cost in terms of money and changing the local communities is would be really high. separate passenger for hsr here is a must to get the high speed into it and delays low. good mass transit on either end is also a big need to make them successful.

 

Japan has an area less than that of California alone and CA is only about 5% of the lower 48 area.

 

i do think the one thing that is changing is hassle factor with air transportation. just about everyone i know has been loathing air travel these days. i know its getting on my nerves more and more and taking longer. security wont be getting shorter either. hopefully a terrorist act wont happen on the trains here or doing security would really kill fast train service fast in both time and cost...

 

on the plus side carbon cost will help in the long run as its easier to use low carbon sources of energy for trains rather than planes! trains also help more in urban renewal than planes do and tend to and are usually are easier to link in with mass transit and thus get better synergy with them.

 

finally the politics and money issues here are a mess. like you say its a lot easier to be against something than planning into the future for something. we have lots the moon landing, can do attitude here. planning seems to be election to election and rarely every further out...

 

cheers,

 

jeff

[quinntopia]

Good comments.  I think (hope?) that the pragmatic realities of both road and air gridlock, foreign energy dependence (i.e. national security), and the impact on the environment of the primary modes of travel today force everyone of every political persuastion that what we have today is not sustainable, efficient, or convenient.  Amazingly, talk to virtually any person who has taken a train in Europe or Japan and they all are quick converts to the idea...without any love of trains...they get how the systems in those countries work and wonder (like us) why we can't have similar capabilities!

 

I hope its a matter of time (and the above listed factors) that can eventually overcome the malaise we have in this country regarding transit and restores some of that 'can do' attitidue we once had.

[miyakoji]

the pragmatic realities of both road and air gridlock, foreign energy dependence (i.e. national security), and the impact on the environment of the primary modes of travel today force everyone of every political persuastion that what we have today is not sustainable, efficient, or convenient.

You hit like every major point there, and indeed, you'd think they would speak to people of all political persuasions.  But people love their cars.  If they can't go exactly when they want, even if congestion adds 30+ minutes to the trip, they're not happy.  There's no explaining it.

[Mudkip Orange]

I have to call shenanigans on Ken S's comments about the areas between cities being built up. Yeah, this is pretty true of the eastern seaboard.

 

But California is EMPTY if you follow the right path from Los Angeles to San Francisco; HSR can be constrained to existing rights-of-way within the city limits if it opens up in between. The first TGV Line (Sud-Est) was originally linked to the Paris suburban railway network at the city's outer suburban fringes; only later was the line expanded closer inward.

 

Florida has wide, inviting freeway medians that can be adapted for high-speed rail by moving a few drainage ditches around. New Mexico has already provided proof-of-concept by constructing a 79mph commuter rail line down I-25 between Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

 

Illinois is full of farmland and flat as a pancake, so alignments are not constrained by geography. The Midwest is still eagerly building freeways through cornfields with minimal protest, and those same eminent domain powers can work equally for rail.

 

And while Texas doesn't have a spot in the current era of federal funding, the long-term outlook is good. The terrain along the Houston-Dallas and Houston-San Antonio legs of the "Texas Triangle" is so sparsely populated that two-lane farm and ranch roads have 70mph speed limits. The San Antonio-DFW corridor is a little more urbanized, but a new HSR alignment could easily avoid the sprawl if it bypassed downtown Austin.