"Sadly, the GOP is on the wrong side of the fence on this issue."
No actually, many in the GOP understand our transportation issues, as well as the differences between the U.S. and Japan better than many who believe mere hope and enough money make for worthwhile government managed projects.
And: "If there is one thing virtually all Americans whose only form of transport at home has been automobiles appreciate when they come to Japan, it's the bullet trains"
Why do you ascribe your own opinions, or even those of some, to everyone as in "virtually all Americans".
I have made many trips to Japan and attach no significant false admiration to the bullet train. Yes, it goes from point A to point B rapidly, in a very Japanese context. By that I am acknowledging the geographic, topographic, demographic and rail system features of Japan.
1st Japan is a narrow arc of islands about 1800 miles in length but only 250 miles at it's widest point. Over 70% of its land mass is mountainous, and the majority of that uninhabited while the population resides on about 10% of the land - and population density along a mass-transit route is the basic starting parameter to whether or not it can be self-sustaining.. The fact that Japan is so mountainous was one of the factors, if not the major factor, that drove the Japanese to develop so many rail lines - from the beginning of it's industrialization, and eventually the high speed lines - where could they possibly have built highways to carry as much cargo in as small of a footprint, across all the mountains? They couldn't have. As they say - "necessity is the mother of invention".
2nd -Is the Japanese high speed rail line - like the "bullet" train - a standalone transportation feature that exists, or could exist on its own? No. The majority of it's long distance customers are "fed" to connections to the high-speed lines by connecting train and bus routes - routes designed (and needed) as "feeder routes" for the long distance high-speed trains. Most of the short-distance or "metropolitan" customers of the high speed lines live in the high-density population centers of Japan. Regardless, the main form of transportation to Japan's northernmost Island (Hokkaido - pop 80+mil) remains inter-Island air transportation.
3rd Like any "too-big to fail" government project, the whole system went bankrupt as too much politics determined how many rail lines ought to be built and where they ought to be built - especially to feed the high-speed lines.. With debts of 28 trillion yen JNR was privatized in 1987 into four companies, who paid all of 9.2 trillion yen to acquire the network. U.S. taxpayers can expect much the same kind of financial history for any rail project the current administration is touting.
4th While I have always enjoyed my trips on Japan's high speed trains, like many of my Japanese friends I am sorry that my schedule is controlled by the train schedule, unlike a long-distance car trip, and like my many Japanese friends I miss the scope and scale of Interstate grade highways to take us everywhere we want to go once our train trip ends. I admire what the Japanese did, in their circumstances, just as my Japanese friends admire the freedom to head out to any destination we want in my car when they come to visit.
From pogo101
"Japan (where the “shinkansen” term and concept come from) has a population density of 873,000 people per square mile. (Obviously the hub cities of the shinkansen are much, much higher.)......The USA’s population density is almost exactly ONE TENTH that of Japan.
BINGO, pogo101 hits part of the issue.
From DonaldC
"I agree, a high speed ground based transportation system is needed in this country."
Where, why, and at what cost? And why should they be built with, and continuously supported with subsidies from taxpayers from all over the country, many of whom will never use them? Just to say we have them? Like the French cheered that they had the Concorde?
The government's involvement might simply mean the taxpayers will be propping up a "high speed Amtrak", and making as much financial sense as does Amtrak as it operates now.
If something is (a) needed, (b) essentially needed and (c) makes economic sense, then taxes are not needed to build it or keep it operating. The only assistance that such a venture may need from the government, if not only (c) is true but (a) and (b) are true as well, might be assistance in helping to obtain the "right of way" based on the "public use" concept. - but that should be the beginning and end of it. Without the support of (a), (b) and (c) all being true, then once enjoined to support the venture the taxpayers will never be free of it because it will never work in a self-sustaining (absent taxpayer supported subsidies) manner.
You can also bet that there is some private interest who stands to gain the most in the immediate sense, from these type of government ventures. So, can anyone ask, how many more people can the entertainment industry in Orlando get if it's out of state customers are not limited as much to Orlando's airport alone, if they can fly into Tampa, hotel there and "train" down to Orlando for the day.
That being the case, Disney and Universal et al should be told to build their own dam railroad and subsidize it in the prices of their Orlando-ventures admission tickets.
Thank YOU! And you know what? Throw in Busch Gardens, the Seminole Casinos, Orlando International Airport and the other tourist traps in the tourist corridor and they could actually do it!