China To Connect Its High-Speed Rail To Europe

MikeChino sends in this excerpt from Inhabitat: "China already has the most advanced and extensive high-speed rail lines in the world, and soon that network will be connected all the way to Europe and the UK. With initial negotiations and surveys already complete, China is now making plans to connect its HSR line through 17 other countries in Asia and Eastern Europe in order to connect to the existing infrastructure in the EU. Additional rail lines will also be built into South East Asia as well as Russia, in what will likely become the largest infrastructure project in history." They hope to get it done within 10 years, with China providing the financing in exchange for raw materials, in some cases.

Comments

A high speed railway

[Dunbal]

Through some of the most politically unstable regions of the world. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:A high speed railway

[Anonymous Coward]

most likely for cargo. china makes stuff and would like to see it shipped to end customers faster.

Re:A high speed railway

[ndogg]

More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace. It's not the lovey-dovey ideal peace, but it's something.

The only thing we need to worry about in this equation is religious nutbags that won't listen to reason.

Re:A high speed railway

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, if you think about it, is the same situation everybody else is in, too. It is the most obvious way in which capitalism, like every other system, has failed us: There's very obviously more to do than we have time for, yet we still have significant unemployment and waste an incredible amount of time on completely banal entertainment. The people who control the resources are so unimaginative that they prefer to waste human productivity instead of working on ways we can move forward as a society. On the other hand, military spending, the global version of throwing in windows to boost the economy, is up. The rich work on getting more power, but they never do anything with that power, except using it to get more.

Re:A high speed railway

[TheKidWho]

Last I checked, Japan attacked the USA in WW2 for stopping oil exports.

Re:A high speed railway

[telomerewhythere]

Tell that to texas schoolkids... Oh wait, you can't.

Re:A high speed railway

[timeOday]

This isn't about trade... China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.

How is that not trade? Currency is a handy intermediary for trade, but it's not always necessary.

Re:A high speed railway

[AmigaMMC]

sorry, you made a type. You obviously meant to write, "china makes shit that everyone else in the world buys by the ton, likely because the rest of the world is incapable of making the same shit themselves for similar cost, because for the most part they pay a fair wage to their workers and they don't use children labor"

There, fixed that for you.

Re:A high speed railway

[Grishnakh]

It's not about taking trains abroad, it's about traveling (on any mode of land-based transport) in dangerous cesspool countries like Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Two of those are warzones, and part of Pakistan is also a warzone.

Only an idiot makes fun of people who are afraid to journey into a war zone.

Re:A high speed railway

[Hurricane78]

China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.

I wonder if China in some way tries to avoid money and its consequences, in order to gain independence from unstable currencies...
Wouldn’t be a dumb move...

Re:A high speed railway

[Jenming]

unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/

Re:A high speed railway

[DesScorp]

Religious nutbags become ineffectual when you introduce prosperity and equality to their followers at the expense of meddling, war and neocolonialism.

Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.

Re:A high speed railway

[DesScorp]

More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace.

I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941? You may have heard of that country's leader. He's invoked here a lot on Slashdot.

This is just another variant of the "prosperity = peace" argument. While the two often go together, one does not ensure the other. Most of the prosperous nations in the history of man have been so while invading their neighbors, or even across the other side of the world. We had this same prediction 20 years ago... the increased trade with China would make it a free country and bring political liberalism. How'd that work out?

I'm all for expanded trade and opening more markets. But that just brings wealth, not freedom, and certainly not utopia.

Re:A high speed railway

[DesScorp]

Last I checked, Japan attacked the USA in WW2 for stopping oil exports.

AND for cutting off the supply of scrap. Ironic that some of the weapons American forces faced in the Pacific were made from steel imported from the United States. I think of that often when I contemplate all of the money and technology we're sending to China.

Re:A high speed railway

[Fluffeh]

No, advocating that would be wrong.
However, if people get to the point where they want to run themselves into the ground and perhaps put a small dent in the incredible population boom, I certainly won't stop them.

It's one of those funny things. I give to charity for example, which would pretty much put me at odds with my own thoughts that there are WAY too many of us here, yet it's simply so true.

The rate that we are chewing through resources and the way that we treat the other species (Eg, Oh, look a yummy fish. Lets catch them all and eat them. Oh.... where did all our yummy fish go?) is ghastly.

Again, while horrid, perhaps a better form of population control would be some sort of pandemic that went through and culled the numbers. Say, 90 out of a hundred? The irony is that it would be a more humane way to cut back the numbers. It would be indescriminate, wouldn't pick poor or rich, intelligent or thick - basically do all the dirtywork without anyone being able to point a direct finger at anyone else. Luck of the draw type thing. That way, at least the remainder could carry on without the guilt of anything so abbhorrent on their conciousness at night.

Re:A high speed railway

[SenseiLeNoir]

Really good point you have made. Its strange that 'Class' can still exist in peoples mentality.

Here in the UK, you will see suits, and the unwashed mass sharing the same carraige in the London Underground. its often called the great "class equaliser". And its pretty much accepted.

Indeed, many "suits" prefer public transport, as they can whip out their laptops and do some work.

Re:A high speed railway

[ncc74656]

Last year, me and my wife when to Brighton from London, on the Brighton express it took just 45 mins to get there on a 100mph line with 2 intermeadiate stops, a journey that would easily take about 1 hour 30 mins by car. the cost was £4.50 each one way, total £18, MUCH cheaper than car (fuel/parking costs, etc). And we were toally relaxed and enjoyed the trip, enjoying alcohol/etc.

That worked because once you got to London, you could still get around town without a car. When my father was stationed over there in the mid-'80s, we drove into London once. The hassle of navigating through traffic and finding parking spaces were such that subsequent trips were by train instead.

Try doing that in most cities here. You could probably do something similar with New York City easily enough. I tried doing without a car on one trip to Portland for OBF...it worked, but not without lots of walking that eats into your time. That might be OK when you're there for fun (as I was), but not so much for business. Most other places, you can forget about getting around much if you don't have a car. It's a good thing that airports offer car-rental facilities...don't know if train stations usually do, as we don't even have a train station here in Las Vegas.

Re:A high speed railway

[default luser]

The interstate highway project killed rail transit in this country, and airline deregulation sealed the deal. The highway system was built at about the same time that the train world was looking into high-speed rail. It turned-out to be cheaper to build brand-new roads for cars than it was to upgrade existing track for high speeds, and add electrification to the entire network.

Unfortunately, we have two large mountain ranges splitting the country into pieces, and everyone knows building train lines to get over/around/through mountains can get very expensive, especially if you want to add electrical infrastructure in the middle of nowhere. And even if you built the line, you couldn't run the trains at high-speeds on grades and curves in mountainous country. Building a road for cars through the same mountain range requires a lot less engineering, and the cars can actually move quickly, because they're not trying to keep hundreds of tons of cargo from derailing.

Sure, you can build high-speed lines on the Great Plains, but there's not enough passenger demand to support such a thing. In the 1950s, you only had one major destination that was not cut-off by mountains (Chicago), so there was no need for a major transit corridor. If you wanted to go somewhere besides Chicago, you would've had to switch to diesel when you hit the mountains, so what was the point?

This is why we only have one high-speed train corridor, and why it's on the east coast. There are plenty of destinations worth hitting along that major corridor, so there's enough demand to justify (and flat enough land to allow) the building of high-speed electrical train lines. The interstate highway system may be overloaded near the coasts, but it is an absolute dream to drive in the interior of the country. For those needing faster transit, the airline industry has grown to meet that demand, so there's no really no need today for train transit.

US is in trouble

[nine-times]

So China is building infrastructure that will let them transport goods throughout Asia and Europe very quickly and cheaply. Meanwhile, here in the US, people are fighting against the idea of building highspeed rail even between a handful of cities that are right next to each other.

If we don't turn it around, our economy is going down the tubes.

Re:US is in trouble

[assemblerex]

Well the Chinese just bulldoze your house if they need the land. We have something called property rights unless you live in Connecticut.

Re:US is in trouble

[Un pobre guey]

We aren't even at the level of efficient high speed rail project designs. The plans in California are idiotically circuitous and discontinuous. We see such projects as opportunities to scam state and federal treasuries, not as useful and durable infrastructure to evolve and develop our economy. Soon Chinese media will be talking about us as an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

Are we just going to let that happen? [That's a rhetorical question, BTW]

Re:US is in trouble

[nine-times]

You don't transport goods on high speed rail.

Maybe *you* don't transport goods on high speed rail, but I'd bet good money that China will.

Even as it is the only Amtrak lines in the US that are profitable are a couple short connections on the east coast.

Well first, part of my point is that people are rallying against high speed rail even in the northeast corridor of the US, which is heavily congested already. There's a mentality in the US that the government can do *nothing* right, which has lead to heavy neglect of all forms of infrastructure. Our train system is outdated, our bridges are falling apart, and our communications infrastructure stinks. Even in heavily populated areas, where investment makes a lot of sense, there are people saying, "let the free market sort it out!" Generally speaking, you can't really have free-market infrastructure.

Now as far as Amtrak being generally unprofitable, there's a very good reason for that: we've built our country around cars. We continue to pour tons and tons of money into cars and highways, and we continue to build our cities so that you have to have a car to live. We've developed our cities and towns so you can't walk anywhere and it's too dangerous to ride your bike. We've built huge housing developments where the nearest store is a 10-15 minute drive. We've done everything with the expectation that every man, woman, and teenager would have their own car, and once everyone has their own car, it makes more sense to just drive that car places rather than buying a ticket on a train.

What's more, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem with Amtrak. People don't take Amtrak trains because the trains stink. They're slow and dirty and they don't stick to the schedule. Amtrak trains are slow and dirty and poorly run because the whole business is unprofitable. The whole business is unprofitable because no one takes the train anywhere. No one takes the train anywhere because they're slow and dirty and they don't stick to the schedule. It's a self-reinforcing loop.

Re:US is in trouble

[nine-times]

If you think this is bad, wait until we go another 20 years without investing any money in infrastructure.

Re:US is in trouble

[netsharc]

an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

I somehow find that hard to believe.

Got healthcare yet? Harboring any war criminals with impunity there? (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Yoo, heck the entire Bush admin). What do most Americans think of climate change? Or the theory of evolution?

This 1/6.5 billionth of the rest of the world thinks the USA, on average, is pretty backwards.

Re:US is in trouble

[fm6]

Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary.

I wish I disagreed with that.

You have a sizable population against bank reform,

That's not quite correct. I think most Americans agree that our banking system is totally screwed up. You might get the opposite impression by watching the news, where the Tea Party idiots dominate. But they're not a majority, they're a noisy minority. Consider that the person most of them would like to see in the White House is a lady widely regarded as the least competent politician in America.

The problem is that banking reform has to get approved by legislators who have to spend a lot of money to keep their jobs. And that gives the banking interests way too much clout, regardless of what the public at large believes. Note that the main proponent of banking reform is the President, and I think his views on the subject are closer to representing the popular will than anybody.

even more against providing basic health care,

We do provide basic health care. We just don't provide it very efficiently (our per-capita costs are three times anyone else, and still growing), and provide a criminally low level of care to maybe 1/3 of the population. Again, the main opposition is a minority and some well-financed interests. Here the majority has a vague notion that something's wrong, and that same President keeps trying to rally them for reform. I think the big problem here is that most people experience a health care system that's flawed but servicible, if you ignore its high cost — and the way we structure things, that's easy to do.

And in the general economic context, this is indeed a Very Bad Thing. High health care costs aren't the only reason U.S. manufacturing isn't competitive, but it's a big one.

Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.

I don't see a huge resistance to high-speed rail as such. The main problem is cost and NIMBYism.

The cost comes from the fact that we've had an anti-rail bias in our transportation planning for about a century. Highways are more popular with with voters (you get a lot more freedom of movement with a personal vehicle) and various property interests (a gigantic amount of money has been made by developing land that wouldn't have any value if housing were concentrated around rail corridors, as it is in Europe). So now that people are beginning to realize that tearing up all those urban rail lines was a mistake, it's way too expensive to buy up the right of way to build them back.

(Incidentally, France faced the same cost issue some decades back, when they realized they didn't have nearly enough passenger rail capacity. Building more rail lines was not affordable. But, unlike the U.S., they did have established straight rail corridors that could be upgraded without buying more land. So they made the trains faster, increasing their carrying capacity. Being able to travel from the English channel to the Med in less than 8 hours is just gravy.)

The NIMBYism is simply because of the huge impact of high-speed rail on the local urban environment. Take the LA-SF project. Funding for that was approved by a popular vote, but now that it's moving forward, communities around the route are not happy about the impact. Of course the impact wouldn't be nearly as bad as that of existing freeways — but we've already accommodated ourselves to that. But the cities on the San Francisco peninsula have suddenly realized that this new system would have to go through their downtowns, and aren't happy about it.

So anyway, you're right, we're totally and completely screwed. But don't blame it entirely on current stupidity. That's a factor, but there's also an excess of self-interest by everybody and the sheer mind-boggling cost of fixing past mistake.

Re:US is in trouble

[Dr. Spork]

Your point about the "presenile dementia" of Europe is exactly right. But even the Europeans know it, and they're planning for it now while there is time. They stabilized their population. Now if they can start producing all their own energy (hopefully on the model of France) and food, they'll have the basic insurance that no matter how stupid things get in the rest of the world, they will at least have enough to live on sustainably and indefinitely. Europe is retooling and re-imagining its infrastructure to prepare for this "blissful isolationist" future.

But the USA is also facing the same presenile dementia, and we are absolutely ill-prepared for it. Our people use immense amounts of energy, twice as much per capita as Germans, who still have a higher standard of living. Most of that is based on the "we live in suburbs" infrastructure. The suburbs will die when energy gets really expensive, but if re-housing the suburban emigres will be even more expensive, then they will move to slums and shanty towns, or maybe out into the farmlands where they will grow their own food. Europe always had a head start on the US when it comes to preparedness for expensive energy, and we're only falling further behind. Instead of fixing our own country, we keep trying to "fix" the rest of the world (sometimes with bombs), thinking that if we succeed, we won't have to change anything about ourselves. That's what Americans want to believe, but it's shockingly naive.

Re:US is in trouble

[nine-times]

Given how incompetently AMTRAK has been run, and the relative success of the car, it's no wonder that Americans are suspicious of putting money into trains.

Well roads aren't generally expected to function as businesses. Hell, these days, neither are car companies.

I'm afraid it's more basic: Most Americans don't have any idea that it's possible to have a society where every person doesn't have their own car.

Traffic

[benjfowler]

I suppose it would result in an endless Third World zerg rush on Europe. I'm sure that'll go down well.

Remember that highway networks were traditionally built to move armies around quickly.

Re:Ominous

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think it's more along the lines of "All aboard the Occident Express! Visit the exotic lands of the Far West! See quaint native peoples living their traditional lifestyles for your amusement and tourist yuan!"

Re:That is just really cool.

[CohibaVancouver]

I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe

Maybe not today, but in 30 or 40 years when dwindling oil makes the cost of air travel unsustainable? Absolutely people will be willing to take a fast train. Wouldn't surprise me if, in 100 years, there's a train over the Bering Straight linking Asia with North America. These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.

Re:WTF ??

[oatworm]

Don't forget that most of the countries they have to go through are a bit more lax with environmental regulations and building codes than Western Europe (or the US, for that matter). I'm not saying this to suggest that China's going to go cheap on this; it's far too strategically important for them to cut corners. However, when you're not having to spend a decade on environmental impact studies and archaeological surveys before you lay a single track-equivalent, you can get quite a bit done rather quickly.

It's the same reason FDR could use the WPA to build bridges immediately, while Obama can't.

FSVO "Feasible"

[overshoot]

Tunneling under the Bering Straight is technically feasible, just look at the Chunnel and other such projects.

Ignoring for the moment the differences in depth and geological stability between the Channel and the Straights.

Never leaves manhattan...

[Anubis350]

...and will move more people than many continent spanning lines do. Sometimes it's not the size but what you do with it that counts!

Re:Never leaves manhattan...

[Anubis350]

Public services don't always have to make a profit directly, or even necessarily fiscally justify themselves you know.

The 2nd ave line will be part of the subway, with the same price as the rest of the subway. Even if, at the subway fare, the line never pays for itself (doubtful considering the system, at over 100 years old now, is built with long-term in mind), it will give a cheap ride to a lot of people who can't afford a taxi. In this city the subway is the primary way people commute.

It's almost a completely perfect example of taxes being used for public gain, of proper government spending of capital too large and unprofitable for the private sector and too important to not be done (even if you disagree about the usefulness of this particular line I hope you get my point).

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't.

Who does, then? China has now about 3000km of lines operating between 250km/h and 350 km/h. Japan for example has 2200 km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

Re:Hmm

[citizenr]

it does, Ze Germans build it for them.

Ah, that old chestnut again

[DesScorp]

These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.

Rubbish. China is one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and yet it's just now climbing out of a third world status that it's been in for centuries. They're human, fallible as anyone else. They have no more wisdom, insight, or patience than any of their competitors. Looking at their industrial pollution situation, and the race to catch up to the West, they may well have less. They slaughtered and starved hundreds of thousands of their own people... perhaps millions, considering their great famines... in their "Great Leap Forward". The Chinese are not any more wise or farsighted than anyone else. What they are, right now, is driven.

...not a fair analogy because...

[Psyqlone]

Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.

Saudi Arabia has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Saudis are actually wealthy.

So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.

Re:That's what they said about the USSR

[CohibaVancouver]

politician is a politician, doesn't matter where, when, or under what circumstances, they all act the same.

How is it then, that Asia and Europe have high-speed rail all over the place, France has the best health care in the world, and my city (Vancouver) is very liveable? Some politicians seem able to "get things done," others bicker over Janet Jackson's nipple...

supply and demand

[Colin Smith]

capitalism requires that there be supply and demand. The value of sometthing is related to both. If the supply exceeds the demand, the price falls to zero. This means that for capitalism to function, the demand *must* exceed the supply.

This means you must never build enough houses. You must never grow enough food. You must never make enough clothes, cars, whatever(wealth). This also means there *must* always be poor there *must* always be starving *must* always be unemployment to ensure demand.

We have just seen an example of the supply exceeding demand. It is called a crash. The supply of houses exceeded the demand for them and now, they're literally knocking them down in order to reduce the supply and increase the value of the ones remaining. It's an insane situation.

This is something Silvio Gesell pointed out around 100 years ago. In order to change this, the nature of money itself must be changed.

Re:High speed rail is for poor people.

[Alistair Hutton]

At approximately 250-500 miles, city-centre to city-centre train travel beats out both car and plane in terms of convenience. And that's not even with high speed rail, just regular intercity services.

Re:That's what they said about the USSR

[Corbets]

1) high speed rail: lack of demand in the US
2) French health care: heh. go try it. and don't forget the accompanying taxes.
3) Vancouver: I found Chicago pretty damn liveable too, back when I lievd in the US
4) JJ's nipple: meh. muslim head scarf bans in france. minaret bans in Switzerland. so on and so forth.

Re:That's what they said about the USSR

[CohibaVancouver]

French health care: heh. go try it. and don't forget the accompanying taxes.

Huh? The WHO ranks French healthcare as the best in the world. The US spends almost twice per capita of public funds on health care than France does.

cite:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

Plus, the arguement is specious anyway - The USA will have huge taxes, the nation-state has just decided to download those taxes onto your children, grand-children and great grandchildren. In the USA, the next generations are expected to fund today's spending...