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

[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.

"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.

Do you need me to point out on a map the .00001% of the country that includes the narrow corridor between washington and boston? How many stops along that NARROW corridor do you think a HIGH SPEED train would make?

 

[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.

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

 

[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.

Do you need me to point out on a map the .00001% of the country that includes the narrow corridor between washington and boston? How many stops along that NARROW corridor do you think a HIGH SPEED train would make?

Sooo......... in order to resuscitate your point we're going to pretend the phrase "the country" means "that portion of land required to lay a railroad bed"?

Desperation strikes deep.

 

[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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

 

[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>

Is there a point in superimposing British Columbia over Japan?

Its one of our 57 states

 

[Pogo]

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

 

[westwall]

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Amazing, Europeans love their trains, as do Japanese, and Chinese.

 

[westwall]

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Amazing, Europeans love their trains, as do Japanese, and Chinese.

Yes, people who have been indoctrinated to take the train, take the train. What do people do who have money though? Yep....they drive their own cars. Even though owning a car in Europe is much more expensive than here in the States, and by a lot..... those who can, drive.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Again..... "beating" is not the point. "Beating" doesn't have a point. Unless you're rushing to catch a plane.

I can remember many trains in France. What I can't remember is waiting for any.

 

[westwall]

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.

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Again..... "beating" is not the point. "Beating" doesn't have a point. Unless you're rushing to catch a plane.

I can remember many trains in France. What I can't remember is waiting for any.

Yes, it does. Most people have a week or two for their vacation. Thus, when it takes over a day to get from one location to another, whereas an aircraft will take a couple of hours, time is critical. I'm not even talking a great distance. Lets talk Seattle to Portland. My wife and I drove it while my daughter rode with her grandma, we had to wait for them for a couple of hours and that was AFTER we spent time antiquing on the way down.

So, while they were stuck on the train, we were able to stop at several antique shops, eat, and visit the USS Oregon Memorial, all before they got to Portland. You are as wrong as wrong can be.

 

[Political Junky]

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Again..... "beating" is not the point. "Beating" doesn't have a point. Unless you're rushing to catch a plane.

I can remember many trains in France. What I can't remember is waiting for any.

Yes, it does. Most people have a week or two for their vacation. Thus, when it takes over a day to get from one location to another, whereas an aircraft will take a couple of hours, time is critical. I'm not even talking a great distance. Lets talk Seattle to Portland. My wife and I drove it while my daughter rode with her grandma, we had to wait for them for a couple of hours and that was AFTER we spent time antiquing on the way down.

So, while they were stuck on the train, we were able to stop at several antique shops, eat, and visit the USS Oregon Memorial, all before they got to Portland. You are as wrong as wrong can be.

I've said repeatedly that AMTRAK is lousy.

 

[westwall]

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Again..... "beating" is not the point. "Beating" doesn't have a point. Unless you're rushing to catch a plane.

I can remember many trains in France. What I can't remember is waiting for any.

Yes, it does. Most people have a week or two for their vacation. Thus, when it takes over a day to get from one location to another, whereas an aircraft will take a couple of hours, time is critical. I'm not even talking a great distance. Lets talk Seattle to Portland. My wife and I drove it while my daughter rode with her grandma, we had to wait for them for a couple of hours and that was AFTER we spent time antiquing on the way down.

So, while they were stuck on the train, we were able to stop at several antique shops, eat, and visit the USS Oregon Memorial, all before they got to Portland. You are as wrong as wrong can be.

I've said repeatedly that AMTRAK is lousy.

Yes, it IS particularly bad at its job. I was merely pointing out why Pogo's reasoning was wrong. However, the Europeans aren't much better. More and more cars are taking over from the trains which have dropped down to 7.4% of total ridership. Even less than bus's!

Passenger transport statistics - Statistics Explained

 

[Blackrook]

Liberals/Democrats are ideologically determined to build high speed trains because it suits their agenda of forcing people out of the suburbs and into large, crowded cities where they all turn into Democrat voters.

 

[westwall]

Liberals/Democrats are ideologically determined to build high speed trains because it suits their agenda of forcing people out of the suburbs and into large, crowded cities where they all turn into Democrat voters.

No, I don't think that's it at all. I think it is merely about stealing the Public Monies that they have been entrusted with. The amount of graft and corruption that will be on display here will be epic. It's all about the kickbacks.

 

[Blackrook]

Blog Dianne Feinstein s husband wins near-billion dollar California high speed rail contract

Corruption much?

 

[westwall]

Blog Dianne Feinstein s husband wins near-billion dollar California high speed rail contract

Corruption much?

Color me unsurprised.

 

[Blackrook]

The only difference between a Democrat politician and a criminal is that the criminal might go to prison for his crimes, but the Democrat never will.

Example, Ted Kennedy, who left a woman behind to die, and didn't report it to the police.

Example, Bill Clinton, crimes are too numerous to list.

Example, Harry Reid, who has somehow become a millionaire on a Senator's salary.

 

[eagle1462010]

Who the hell is going to pay for it..............................

We already have to borrow to spend now................

We need our debt in order before more spending............

And we have far more important places to spend it on if we had the funds..........

Go promote this to private companies..............get them to pay for it.................and if their is a demand for it and they are willing to risk it.................then try it...........fails they lose........NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE........

 

[Pogo]

I've made that point many times regarding train travel .. city center to city center.

And Paris to London is one of the very few places where it is faster than an airplane. Paris to anywhere else in Europe and we fly.

Not me. France has some fast trains (not even counting the TGV) and more to the point, you can go pretty much anywhere with them. I never had to hop a ride 100+ miles to get to one, that's for sure.

I'll beat you in a car to almost every one of them. The waits are atrocious. If we're traveling from Paris to Toulon the train is faster than the car by about two hours, but the plane is faster still.

Again..... "beating" is not the point. "Beating" doesn't have a po int. Unless you're rushing to catch a plane.

I can remember many trains in France. What I can't remember is waiting for any.

Yes, it does. Most people have a week or two for their vacation. Thus, when it takes over a day to get from one location to another, whereas an aircraft will take a couple of hours, time is critical. I'm not even talking a great distance. Lets talk Seattle to Portland. My wife and I drove it while my daughter rode with her grandma, we had to wait for them for a couple of hours and that was AFTER we spent time antiquing on the way down.

So, while they were stuck on the train, we were able to stop at several antique shops, eat, and visit the USS Oregon Memorial, all before they got to Portland. You are as wrong as wrong can be.

Uh --- no, I'm not. You take the time you have... and you manage it. Ain't rocket surgery. You people who entertain this obsession with speed at any cost.... SMH