Shinkansen funding question

Does anyone know if the Japanese (or prefectural) governments subsidize the Shinkansen? I%26#39;m asking because they%26#39;re planning on building high-speed rail here in California, and I just read that one plan is to build the first section between some small towns in the rural Central Valley of California by 2015. Then they%26#39;ll take the profits from that first line, and begin to extend the line to San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The towns on the proposed initial line are pretty small, so I%26#39;m wondering if it%26#39;s realistic to expect there to be any profit. BTW - they were saying it would cost $55 to take the train between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The cost between Osaka and Tokyo was about $130 last year, and the distance is about the same as that between SF and LA. So that $55 cost makes me think the State of California will have to subsidize high-speed rail.

Shinkansen funding question

Comparing rail in Japan and in America is comparing Apples and Oranges.

But, speaking in terms of Shinkansen Construction JR companies, along with the Central Government and Prefecture Governments chip in to pay.

Speaking in terms of the USA:

It is also note that in the US, state and federal government spend millions/billions of dollars more on roads and the aviation industry then they do on railroads, which make only a fraction of spending.

The truth is, the airline industry hasn%26#39;t been profitable in decades. The airlines also don%26#39;t have to worry about maintaining infrastructure costs, because everything like the air traffic control system, airline security, airports etc, that%26#39;s all borne by the Federal, State and Local Governments (in the US). Billions already go to the airline industry. The costs to operate trains would only be a fraction of that cost.

Shinkansen funding question

I am fairly sure that there is no possibility of a high speed rail line ever recouping its construction costs, even in a densely populated place such as the Tokyo/Osaka corridor. The arguments in its favour include much reduced pollution and enormously reduced death and serious injury. The clincher in Japan is that if a substantial proportion of the population attempted to drive to work each day traffic would be permanently jammed solid.

In the US the freeway system was built with billions of government money, with no expectation that this would ever be repaid by motorists.

Got this from Wikipedia, which said something to the effect that the construction plan of Shinkansen on the initial New Tokaido Line was agreed upon (in 1961) by Japanese Governmnent and IBRD, or The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to be financed under the terms including: reimbursement for 20years with a 5.75percent interest rate over 80million dollar principal. No mention is made there about whether or not the total expenditure of that national project was to be financed by IBRD.

Hi Simba,

You may want to take a look at www.jrtr.net

A quick search for ';Shinkansen'; there turned up a couple of articles which covered its funding.

Amtrak rails usually don%26#39;t derail, where accidents happen are usually areas not under control by Amtrak (eg most rails are privately owned by private freight companies in California and the US). The only places where Amtrak actually ownes tracks is on the Northeast (Boston-Washington, DC) and theres where they run the only high speed train (The Acela), in the Northeast they actually cover operating costs, and keep a high ontime record (not anywhere close to as great as Japan, but its not tooo bad despite the lack of funding or government interest). Imagine if they had funding.. which I read is part of the economic stimulus plans. Hopefully one day there will be a great train system again there.

Thanks for the link, Ahar. Lots of good stuff.

California has been talking about high-speed rail, (but not actually doing anything about it,) for as long as I%26#39;ve lived here, which has been since 1979. There was a vote last November to increase funding for high-speed rail, and I voted for it, but I also thought the arguments in favor were dishonest. Advocates for high-speed rail were saying the cost of a ticket between San Francisco and Los Angeles would be $55, which I find absurd.

The proposed initial section would be on land that is very flat, and the line would be pretty straight, so it makes some sense to start building high-speed rail there. But the area is also very rural, with no large cities, so it%26#39;s hard to believe there will be any profits that can be used to help build other parts of the system.

People near San Francisco are already filing lawsuits because they think the high-speed rail tracks will be too close to their houses. Some people are insisting that the tracks be underground, which would immensely increase the cost.