By Ami Cholia
Posting in Cities
Beating China's current record, Japan's Central Japan Railway Company announced that it plans to build a new train between Tokyo and Nagoya, that will go 310 miles per hour.
The competition for the world's fastest train is heating up.
Last December, a Chinese passenger train achieved a new record by traveling 302 miles per hour during a test run on a still-unopened line between Beijing and Shanghai. Now, Japan's Central Japan Railway Company has announced that it plans to beat that record by building a new train between Tokyo and Nagoya, to be completed by 2027.
The new line, which is estimated to cost about $64 billion, will extend for about 178 miles. The company expects trains running on it to reach speeds up to 310 miles per hour. The line will cut travel time between the two cities by 40 minutes.
It currently takes an hour and a half using trains that run at about 167 miles per hour.
The trains increase their speeds by using magnetic levitation -- where friction is reduced because powerful magnets raise the train above the track.
On the flip side, Florida governor Rick Scott announced today that his state would be rejecting $2 billion in federal funds to build a proposed high-speed rail line linking Tampa to Orlando. Scott, a Republican elected in last November’s election, will be the third Republican governor to return funds allocated for high-speed rail.
John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have also rejected high-speed rail funds, citing cost overruns.
In his State of the Union speech earlier this month, U.S. president Barack Obama said he would give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.
Considering that Amtrak's Acela Express line is the only version of high-speed rail in North America -- and even then, trains travel at just 150 m.p.h. along the Northeast Corridor -- we clearly have so much to learn from Asia.
[via New York Times]
Feb 17, 2011
I suppose those state gov't that rejected the high-speed rail project are under the airline payroll or something like that. Also, they play politic and careless what the economy benefit potential to the state as long as the credit not going to Democrats. Well, They also don't give a damn if the project cost much more in the near future after the lands appreciation, materials inflation and labors cost. Perhaps when the time every $1 spend now will be at least $25 in a decade from now will be their objective.
Governor of Ohio says stinking democrat goody goody project here we don't want to work,qaw b go away welfare is good enough for Ohio.
With $8 Billion the company Better Place can make the US an oil free country saving the US more than $360 Billion a year and the financial devastation of an oil controlled US economy. (Oil price shocks and price manipulation by OPEC at 2004-2008 cost the US $1.9 trillion.. ) The solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk-aVB7LgFI Fast forward to 25m:03s All the video is amazing to watch.. more info.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place FF
@GreenCollar from Logan or JFK to O'hare would take - and you don't get frisked I think you would get frisked by the same friendly touchie/feelie folks that the airports use (TSA). The T in TSA means transportation NOT airport or airplane.
Perhaps America should spend less time comparing itself to other countries and more time examining our own past, when we knew how to compete globally and pay our own bills. Like back in the 1950's and 1960's when we expanded our infrastructure by building the interstate highway system (I remember when I-5 was built through the Willamette Valley), lots of schools, airports and many other things. We've been mostly living off that investment in infrastructure ever since. With peak oil upon us the cost of fuel for airplanes and cars will only keep increasing. High speed rail run on electricity will replace air travel where practical sooner or later so best to get started on it. It's an investment in the future.
It's a lot more that 178 miles from Boston to Chicago. The last time I checked it was about 986 miles, or roughly 1,000 miles. Now, if it costs $64 billion to extend 178 miles of track in Japan, how much will it cost to extend 986 miles of track across the northern US. It will be a lot more than $384 billion, you can count on that. Let's see. The US National Debt is $14,133,969,246,255.24 as of this writing, and the 2010 Budget Deficit is about $1,210,000,000,000. What should we do? How about borrow or invent (print) another $400,000,000,000 to build a train that will operate at a deficit and create a further drain on the national economy? sheesh...
I am not an American but I've travelled &worked in the States for years, I love the nation and its people but I'm downcast beyond words when I observe how other (formerly have-not) nations are advancing beyond the U.S. American lawmakers keep burying their collective heads in 1950 era sandpiles. When I was a young man the world welcomed my fellow travellers when they saw stars and stripes on a back pack. Everyone wanted to "be like americans" Today the opposite is true and I am very sad for my friends. 65 MPH passenger trains are the laughing stock of the world.
The proposed high speed train in Ohio was to go a rip roaring 45 MPH, wow, hold me back the whiplash from the sudden stop and starts may do me in. The issue you seem to not want to discuss is that the size of the rail systems in Japan is small and obviously more controlled, while in the US high speed trains and slow freight trains would contend for the same track and the full infrastructure would have to be updated to accommodate higher speeds. If private rail companies see a profit margin they will invest in better technology. Amtrack loses Billions each year, the American tax payer should not have to foot the bill for a rail system that is doomed to fail. I applaud the governors for for saying no to the pork.
Do you know that in a gaseous fluid medium it takes 8x the power to double the speed? So that 300mph fancy-pants train needs 8x the power and 4x the energy as the Acela. Hardly energy efficient and if one had to really pay one's true cost of travel, almost no-one could (or indeed would) afford to. So enough of the High Speed Train nonsense. Unless they are carrying 2,000 - 3,000 passengers per train, the economics don't work out. (Hint. most trains carry 400 passengers - yes only 400). Unless you can run them in a vacuum tunnel so that the cube-law relation does not come into play, the energy efficiency argument is similarly bogus. In fact, there is not a case at all for even building most trainlines. If someone like Edgar Holey had discovered tarmac 100 - 120 years earlier than he did, there might not be trains at all.
"we clearly have so much to learn from Asia." Perhaps we have and realize that it simply won't pay for itself - just as light rail and Amtrak must be continuously subsidised. Then there's Amtrak's track record (no pun intended) and it's lack of track repair and infrastructure maintenance... Technically, we could probably best them both country's effort, but at what cost and why? To do something on that scale that 99% of the people who don't/can't use it have to pay for doesn't seem to make sense - maybe someone actually though of that. As for the imagine a 300+MPH Train connecting Boston or New York to Chicago....well, whatever - as long as no one anywhere else has to chip in a dime for it. Can you imagine what the ticket would cost if it actually had to be paid for by the users? Flying would probably cost 10% of that ticket!
Imagine a 300+MPH Train connecting Boston or New York to Chicago. It would be there in about 3 hours which is less than a trip to from Logan or JFK to O'hare would take - and you don't get frisked. By the way, the Accela in the Northeast Corridor only goes 150 for a small portion of the trip.
$12B is a small fraction of the annual cost of the Afghan War. http://www.defencetalk.com/pentagon-seeks-118-billion-for-afghan-iraq-operations-in-2012-32081/ You have to train Afghani troops & police in order to withdraw US troops so that part of the cost is the preferable place to go.
Most of these projects in the US are not High Speed. In Ohio the project would have been on existing rail lines shared by freight trains. Most of the money would have gone to improving track, crossings and stations. So since the average speed would have been only 65 MPH, the Governor realized people would NOT have used it and wisely rejected the Federal money,
America's future is being sold off to pay for tax breaks for huge corporations and the ultra-rich. How can so many blithely ignore what's happening to us...?
Much mag-lev research initiated in the U.S. Why do we now not put into practical application this revolutionary technology for the bettement of the American population?
You missed the fact that Republican Bobby Jindal rejected the funding last August for a high speed train to run between Baton Rouge and New Orleans
From the WaPo this morning, I also noticed they're spending $12 billion to train folks in Afghanistan. Hm. Priorities anyone?