Slashdot Mirror


World's Longest High-Speed Rail Line Opens In China

An anonymous reader writes "Today China continued rolling out the future of high speed rail by officially unveiling the world's longest high-speed rail line — a 2,298-kilometer (1,428-mile) stretch of railway that connects Beijing in the north to Guangzhou in the south. The first trains on the new route hit 300 kph (186 mph), cutting travel time between the two cities by more than half."

52 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the United States has the longest Slow Speed rail lines of the world.

    1. Re:Therewhile ... by webmistressrachel · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the United Kingdom has the slowest Slow Speed rail lines in the world... we even had a name for it given by the staff of the state operator.

      It's called British Rail Time - around rnd*9 hours behind GMT (or BST), whichever is currently operating. The only timezone in the world defined in pseudocode.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    2. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still faster than 90% of Amtrack.

      To go from Buffalo NY to Toronto Canada by car takes about 1.44 hours, by train it takes 4.5 hours. As a trip I make on a fairly regular basis for pleasure it would be great to be able to avoid driving as I do not need a car once I arrive. Wasting half of a day of vacation on a train is not something I intend to do.

    3. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      We have the population density in some areas, yet it it still not built there. Much of Europe has similar densities yet damn near every town has a train station. Here in the Northeast many towns do not even have one in an hours drive.

      Buffalo to Toronto takes 4.5 hours. You claiming those places have to low a population density?

      Times to NY city are also insanely long.

    4. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our freight system is the best in the World, though. And if high speed passenger rail made sense, trust me, the railroads would be on it.

      You're assuming they're still in the passenger business. They aren't. And you're also assuming that nobody is being an impediement to them.

      They are.

      If we had the population density to warrant such a passenger system to make it worth while, folks would be jumping on it.

      I'm all for rail and efficient transportation. Just because it is so in other areas doesn't mean it's appropriate for another. In other words, a high speed rail system in the US - for except maybe the Northeast - just doesn't make financial or environmental sense. It's a lose/lose proposition.

      Let's be smart about it.

      And then you see that during the 20's and 30's, we had over a billion rail-passengers a year, when the population was a lot less dense in most areas.

      You may think that rail makes no sense except in limited areas, but then you take a look at one of those Earth at night maps and see lots of shining lights. Are there places where rail makes no sense in the US? Absolutely.

      But there's a lot more places where we could use it. But we don't have it. Why isn't it being built? Is it a combination of opposition to government, greed on the part of automobile, highway and fuel companies, or what?

      Heck, just ask Florida. They voted in a high-speed rail. Then somebody lead a campaign to do what? End it. Why? Do you believe he was really concerned about the fiscal interests, or was he thinking of his own?

    5. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amtrak top speeds is around 80mph. They are physically capable of going faster, but the cost (fuel) and the track conditions generally don't allow it.

      Amtrak trains are sidelined for any passing freight trains, and have to slow down to traverse sections of poor track, and towns. When Amtrak was conceived, it was supposed to have precedence over Freight. That lasted all of 12 minutes, before the railroad which "own" and maintain the track got Congress to strip that language.

      (I but "own" in quotes because in most cases, these railway right-of-ways were historically simply granted to the railroads for zero dollars.)

      Its cost prohibitive to build new railbeds today, due to the cost of land. This restriction doesn't apply in a command-economy such as China.

      The best that could be done would be to build high-speed passenger rail along the Interstate highway system right-of-way. Even this will never happen because its not perceived as important as dumping money down the social program rat hole. Small projects are underway, principally in California, but I suspect these will be gobbled up by freight or budget cuts long before they are completed.

      People should ride Amtrak. Its an enjoyable way to travel. Just don't go by train if you are in a hurry.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Therewhile ... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Not to mention train tickets are usually the same, if not higher, than a plane ticket... There's no food on the train. If you're not used to riding the train, it's pretty confusing. You're basically left to your own devices to figure out which train you need to get on, where to get off, and then navigate the tourist trap they call a train station. Not that the airports much better, but the few times I've taken the train I've not been impressed at all. It'd been cheaper, faster and more comfortable to drive a hummer to some downtown metropolitan area than it would be to take a train. They have a long way to go before they start attracting new customers.

    7. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      I ride trains when I am in Europe. In the USA it is not just that you have to be not in a hurry, but you have to be retired or independently wealthy. I just checked to visit my brother in TX, would take one overnight train to Chicago, a long layover, and another overnight train onward. So I am supposed to pay more than airplane tickets, and take two days?

      With the TSA now moving towards inspecting my testicles for train rides that slim advantage is also disappearing.

    8. Re:Therewhile ... by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US also has the worst on-time stats (train) of any developed country. It is still faster to travel long distances in the US by air. Flying from Boston to Los Angeles is 3,000 miles by road (twice the China rail length). It's 2604 miles by air and only takes 6 hours 21 minutes (413mph avg). The same trip by China's train would take 14 hours assuming that it ran 186mph the entire trip. Unfortunately now the US you are equally likely to be groped by a TSA agent by air or rail.

      It seems disingenuous to compare a non-stop air flight to a mode of travel designed to provide transportation to many points in between the two end points. How long would you think it would take if there were twenty stops on each flight between Boston and LA? Try sticking with Apples to Apples when doing comparisons.

      The on time record is abysmal. But it is that way by law. The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.
      Amtrak is working pretty much as designed. The design was severely flawed. It was, after all, a creation of Congress.

      And, for the record, I've never seen a TSA agent on an Amtrak train or at an Amtrak station. Not saying they don't show up, more as a muscle flexing exercise and trial balloon, but is is extremely unusual. Pretty hard to hijack a train and take down a sky scraper with it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Therewhile ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wow, already in the first couple sentences you are wrong.

      Look at the actual numbers, for population density then think about it again. France 303/sq mile vs NY state 412.3 inhabitants per square mile. Spain is even lower. Germany only slightly higher. We have states that have very comparable population rates and relatively few hub cities. NY state has only NYC, Buffalo, Rochester. Still there is no good rail travel between them. Those 3 cities hold almost the entire population of the state.

      Berlin is not even the biggest airport in Germany, much less some hub city. Way to piss off the entire Western and Southern parts of that country.

      China I cannot speak too.

      The USA has 60 Major metros, 90% of which don't even have subway systems and sure as hell could be linked with HSR to each other.

      Planes are heavily subsidized and burn fuel at rates that will not continue to be possible. The advantage is if we build HSR now we can still use it when we don't have the oil to spare for jets.

    10. Re:Therewhile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Germany is certainly not centered around Berlin. There are lots of major centers like Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and so on. In the US a high speed train would make lot of sense, e.g. from Washington to NYC and then to Bostonor LA to San Francisco. It's just that the US has given up on improving its infrastructure.

    11. Re:Therewhile ... by mozumder · · Score: 2

      So at the end of the day, when planes are faster for passenger movement, water transporation is already available and vastly cheaper for goods movement, why on earth would anyone in the US build high speed rail? What's the advantage?

      Should we mention that there are 30,000 automobile deaths a year? Or the hundreds of thousands of injuries? You ARE scared to death of driving a car, right? You did develop your own survival instincts to fear an automobile transportation system, right? Those are what you should be training yourself to do.

      Learn to fear cars.

      Meanwhile, the leading economic factor is train is far more energy efficient than any other form of transportation, and therefore, cheaper.

      Right now it is your friendly neighborhood energy companies that are preventing you from using a train system. They want to force you to pay to do any movement across the country. Train is their ultimate enemy, because it is so much more efficient.

      The worst part of the automobile transportation system is that it requires individual labor. I can't read a book or sleep while driving a car. I can do that while on a train. Cars force me to become a lowly laborer, a very inefficient and expensive use of my time.

      Also, you don't need high-population densities for train. Not sure why that helps? Wasn't the US rail system built on rural west? In higher density areas, you just end up building more rail lines.

    12. Re:Therewhile ... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The law that established Amtrak was changed at the last minute to give freight the right of way.

      Wow, that's so dumb.

    13. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amtrak is fucking stupid. It costs as much or even more than a plane ticket and is like 10 times slower.

      well worth it if you're 6'6". plus i get smoke breaks.

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    14. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · · Score: 2

      ... There's AN ENTIRE DINING CAR WORTH OF food on the train.....

      ftfy

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    15. Re:Therewhile ... by Meyaht · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... It's just that the US has given up on improving its infrastructure.

      this bears repeating

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    16. Re:Therewhile ... by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you mean, dumping money down the drain on unneeded big ticket military contracts that often the military does not even want.

    17. Re:Therewhile ... by fazookus · · Score: 2

      Actually the Amtrak 'Metroliner' hits 140mph from New York to Washington, DC, and their somewhat more fancy Acela line does a bit more than that (and stops less often). It's not great but for that short stretch it's fairly modern train.

    18. Re:Therewhile ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Planes are heavily subsidized and burn fuel at rates that will not continue to be possible. The advantage is if we build HSR now we can still use it when we don't have the oil to spare for jets.

      Per the Bureau of Transportation Studies (a part of the Federal DOT), rail is subsidized at a 10+ times rate over planes, per passenger mile. If HSR was able to cut that subsidy by an order of magnitude the best you could do is become competitive with planes, in terms of Federal subsidies.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:Therewhile ... by poity · · Score: 2

      It's not so stark a contrast when you consider how cheap it is to travel by plane inside the US. My friends and relatives in China are surprised at how inexpensive a plane ticket is here.

      Consider the reported lowest priced Economy class seats on the new Beijing-Guangzhou (around 2000km) high speed line is RMB 895, and that Beijing's and Guanzhou's average wages are around RMB 60k, that means the cost of a one-way trip is around 1.5% of yearly income. Now, the lowest cost of a similar one-way flight in the US, New York-New Orleans (2100km), is $250 on expedia, and factor in the US average wage of $42k, we get 0.6% of yearly income, or around 1/3 the relative cost vs traveling by high speed rail in China.

      Looking at this from another angle, a typical "slow" train (100km-120km/hr) ticket from Beijing to Guanzhou is around RMB 250 (overnight, arriving 2nd day), and we see that this is the train equivalent of the Concorde -- meant for small business travelers and well-off tourists. Of course, I assume most businesses would likely just pay the RMB 1700 plane ticket to get to the meeting on time. When you consider all that, there's still a lot left to improve in the transportation infrastructure, and a long time to wait for prices to come down. Americans still have it better in terms of availability, inexpensiveness, and speed. One positive, though, no TSA pat downs in China.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    20. Re:Therewhile ... by jalet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From Rome to Berlin... Maybe you should open a map of Europe and see what's in between these two cities : Huge mountains. Try Paris to Barcelona instead (7h25), for example, and tell us if taking the plane is really worth it, considering all the security circus you've got to live with when taking planes and the fact that trains will bring you directly to near the center of each city.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    21. Re:Therewhile ... by harley78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... It's just that the US has given up on improving its infrastructure. this bears repeating

    22. Re:Therewhile ... by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was astonished that there hasn't even been an oil refinery built in years. A natural disaster in the wrong place really screwed up the fuel supply just by cutting the roads to a couple of refineries.

    23. Re:Therewhile ... by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      The problem in America isn't density or population, it's stupid laws that force HSR into absurd "all or nothing" scenarios where they have to either build brand new dedicated corridor every last inch of the way, or make the trains capable of surviving a head-on collision with a mile-long freight train at the highest speed they travel ANYWHERE along their route... not just the highest speed they'd run at along the shared segment of track.

      In Germany, it would be entirely legal to build 200km of brand new HSR track, then run trains 200km at low speed along tracks shared with non-HSR trains and freight, merge onto the new HSR tracks and run at 186mph, then move back onto shared tracks and run another 100km at low speed. If the trains only run at 100km/hour on tracks shared with freight trains, but 300km/hour on exclusive HSR tracks, they only have to be rated for a 100km/hour collision with a freight train. In the US, our stupid laws would require that the passenger train be capable of surviving a 300km/hour (186mph) head-on collision with an 80km/hour (~60mph) freight train EVEN IF the passenger train would never, ever run faster than 100km/hour (80mph) when sharing tracks with freight trains.

      The law wasn't written with passenger safety in mind... it was written at the behest of freight railroads in the US to make it nearly impossible for high-speed passenger trains to share tracks with freight trains, period, because freight railroads don't want passenger trains sharing their tracks... ever. Not at high speed OR low speed.

  2. Reference by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 5, Informative

    For reference, that's about half the width of the U.S., or about the length of Japan.

    1. Re:Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hundreds of deaths in the past 2 years in China due to railway accidents? And you prefer to go by car (more than 60000 deaths due to car accidents in China per year)? China's railway system may not be up to European safety standards, but this worlds worst railway systems are still far safer than this worlds safest highways.

      Philipp

    2. Re:Reference by gsnedders · · Score: 4, Informative

      The TGV have had a grand total of zero fatalities on high speed lines in France since they opened in 1981, as a point of comparison.

  3. Catan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess China has cemented their hold on the card for The Longest Road now...

    While I'm here, does anyone care to trade wood for sheep?

    1. Re:Catan by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, the U.S. will always make sure to spend all of our ore, sheep, and grain (working from memory here) to make sure that we maintain our hold on the Largest Army card.

  4. Re:Marketing by rtaylor · · Score: 3

    This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.

    That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).

    --
    Rod Taylor
  5. Nice. Connects to Shenzern. Hong Kong in 2015. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's already a high speed rail connection from Guangzhou to Shenzhen North. The high speed rail connection through to Hong Kong is scheduled for completion in 2014, and will shorten travel time for that last link from 2 hours to 38 minutes. (Except that there's a border control point between Shentzen and Hong Kong that takes longer than the travel time.)

    Another step has been taken in tying China more closely together. That's part of the political motivation. Traditionally, China's provinces were not closely connected. Each province was expected to be self-sufficient in food and other essentials. That continued through the Mao era, and it's not completely gone. There are still some inter-provincial trade restrictions.

    Of course, the South still speaks Cantonese, while the North speaks Mandarin. This despite half a century of effort by the central government. "The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away".

  6. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

    So should we get rid of the interstates as well?
    What about airports? Should they all be closed for the same reason?

    I propose HSR not for any romantic notions, but because I have ridden it in Europe. I have been on the damn things and seen how well they work.

    How about you name a method of travel that meets those goals so we can compare it to HSR.

  7. I just hope they improved their technology by Edsj · · Score: 2

    Because their high-speed trains had an accident not so long ago and the goverment tried to cover up.

  8. Re:What just happened? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 2

    sigh.
    There are hundreds of thousands of miles of train miles covered each day in Europe at speeds like these. Oh, and they have a pretty good safety record. There has been only one fatal crash on High speed lines in Europe and that was in Germany and wasn't down to a track defect.

    The completion of the high speed line from London to Paris (including 36km under the Channel) has captured the majority of the passenger traffic between the two capital cities. Two hours and a bit for City-Centre to City-Centre makes most airline travel simply untennable.

    Once you travel by high speed train you will be hooked. It is a far better way to travel than by air especially in Cattle Class.
    I'm going to Madagascar next April. The Flight to Tana leaves from Paris. I won't be flying to Paris, I'll be taking the train right to the Airport in Paris from London. The wonders of a semi integrated transport system. Something that the USA has never really enjoyed. It is far too 'socialist/commie' for most of the Americans I know. (Oh, I spent three years living in N.H and working in taxacheusetts).

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  9. Re:Marketing by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah I donno about that. "My time" for the train is like 15 minutes to get aboard and literally 5 minutes to cross the street on the NYC side. "My time" for the airplane is a half hour out to the airport in the middle of nowhere and parking, two hours sitting around for security theater playtime, you can't do what you want on a plane so thats about two hours lost during flight time, and finally a nice $50 hour long cab ride on the NYC side, so that's like 5 hours of "my time" if flying.

    As for the restaurant, the amtrak food was "nice" sure not a $200 steak house but no worse than a family restaurant, and the cabin was comfortable enough to sleep in. I had a little sleeper cabin with desk, one entire wall is a giant window, and all that.

    Booze? Oh god yes. Some day you should take an observation car out west where the obs car has a bar in the middle of the top floor (the observation area). The west coast trains are double decker two floor and much nicer than the east coast single floor dumpy-trains. None the less booze is booze... Nicotine addicts would have serious issues with Amtrak, but the alkies will be just fine, well lubricated, whatever. Also if you have a cabin unless they're peeking in the windows you can drink or eat whatever you can haul aboard...

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  10. Sure by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enjoy your slide into obsolesce. If you remove all the emotionalism from those proposing pure capitalism, your are left holding a big, empty, "I don't want to spend any more" motto. It is religious fanaticism.

    Countries thrive when they invest, undertake massive projects, improve themselves. They slide into nothingness when the accountants take over as their infrastructure falls apart and all the bright people find themselves working abroad.

    The ultimate failure of religious fantatics like the parent is that they think the race ends. That once you won, that is it. The race never ends. And China right now is winning by default because everyone else has stopped. You can smirk about North-Korea's rocket attempts but at least they are trying. In the west, people worry about the costs to much to do ANYTHING anymore. Great nations were not build by accountants.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  11. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids. Why exactly Americans think of this as "a brilliant economic success" and state funded medicine as "socialist" the FSM only knows.

    Well actually we do know. Because that's how lobbyists chose to frame them.

  12. Re:What just happened? by godrik · · Score: 2

    The situation in America is a little bit different. In Europe you typically want to go to the center of a city. In Paris once you are in Gare du Nord, you are quickly anywhere you want provided you are not already where you want to go. And it is pretty much like that for every major city. Also, despite having a good HSR trian system, all trip that do not go toward or away from paris are a nightmare (try a Lyon-Bordeaux or Lyon-Strasbourg for instance).

    In the US, you typically do not care about being downtown. I have been living in Columbus, OH (ok not the biggest city) for 4 years and I only went downtown 5 times (once to visit downtown, once to go to a museum, once to drop somebody at a justice court, once to go to social security administration and once for july 4th celebration). There is no point going downtown in the US for most city I believe. And since the cities are so spread out, you'll have to rent a car to go anywhere. So you'll end up needing to drive to and from the train station. So you don't save the overhead of going to/from the airport. That makes the train much less interesting. It would pretty much be a slower plane. And it will not be cheap. Actually if you aim at cheap, you have a bus system that connects major cities. It is much slower than a high speed train. But it is also much cheaper.

    So a train would end up being a compromise between the slow/cheap bus and the fast/expensive plane. It is not clear there is a real market.

  13. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

    The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal government. $425 billion. Apparently the largest public works system since the pyramids. Why exactly Americans think of this as "a brilliant economic success" and state funded medicine as "socialist" the FSM only knows.

    Well actually we do know. Because that's how lobbyists chose to frame them.

    I bet some of the same people going out and making a stink about the evils of the health care reform bill or teachers unions still call up to complain when there is a pothole on their street.

    Everything is wasteful, unless it's for you.

  14. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The GP insists, first and foremost, that it not be subsidized by Government money (tax payers).

    That immediately sets an impossibly high barrier. One that can't be met by any transportation system, water system, sewer system, or communication system.

    Ignorance of the proper place for government expenditures is an unfortunate trait of ultra-conservative types. When any government involvement with societal life other than national defense is arbitrarily off the table, you have an impossible situation and a recipe for an agrarian society.

    Roads, and railroads, necessarily require government money and government powers. If one stubborn farmer can stand in the way of a road or railroad (as would be the case in a purely private development) it would be legally impossible to build anything, not just cost prohibitive.

    I suspect the GP never thinks about that while driving to work on that government road, or flushing his toilet to that government sewer while surfing the web on that government bandwidth.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  15. Re:Marketing by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

    You could have hit the airport and been there in far less time. Leaving you time to eat at a nice restaurant and sleep in a hotel.

    Do they even have booze on Amtrack?

    Yes they do, and they also have a pretty good restaurant, and the hotel rooms, while small, are quite nice.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  16. Re:Give it 12months... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    For the initial units, yes. The railway and cars were then duplicated, including the processes and tools needed. At least that's what they did on the Shanghai-Nanjing leg (which I've ridden way too many times).

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  17. Re:Marketing by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This new train has an 8 to 10 hour scheduled travel time and covers 2100 km.

    That means it averages 210km/h including stops along the way (it's not direct).

    If there are any stops along the way you will need much greater speeds than 210km/h.
    I suggest the route is undoable in 10 hours if there is even a few stops unless the train spends a great deal of time at 300km/h.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  18. Re:A Detractor by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmm where have I heard this somewhere before, oh yeah a bit further down on the page where Lockheed was crying that SpaceX couldn't possibly be doing anything this much cheaper and better than them without compromising safety. Sure, if you go look at the crap they deliver to Wal-Mart your idea of Chinese quality might be low but they also do rocket science putting men in space and probes orbiting the moon and I'm pretty sure they do brain surgery too. That they often ignore emissions is not the same as being ignorant of them, unless it's say the Olympics in Beijing where they make a huge temporary clean-up effort. They might be more willing to trample the individual's rights than in other countries but the progress they make is very much real. Real income has more than tripled for over a billion people in the last decade:

    GDP per capita measured in purchasing power terms more than tripled from $2,800 in 2002 to a forecast $9,100 in 2012 according to the International Monetary Fund.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  19. Re:A Detractor by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    They artificially manipulate their currency and sell goods at below market value which hinders the world's economy. I wonde how safe this train really is!

    Manipulating currency is not the problem, it is when USA and other countries sold to China (it was not stolen) the industrial capability to build things. See "Winner Take All" by Richard Elkus http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Competitiveness-Nations/dp/B002KAOSPG

    Anyway, argue what everyone is doing on this forum, China is building HSR instead PPT like rest of us.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  20. Re:Good for China by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder why we don't make these kinds of railway advances in the US

    Really? You actually wonder about this?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/17/california-high-speed-rail-lawsuit_n_2150455.html

    Since this should be self evident, I'll keep the explanation simple.

    China is run by authoritarians that are hell bent on prosperity. They do not indulge: environmentalists, humans rights, property rights or special interests that aren't immediately aligned with said goal. The rail line goes here and you step aside quietly or spend years of your life making Walmart SKUs in a labor camp.

    The US is run by statists and the comfortable electorate they've purchased with bennies. Prosperity is something we have far too much of so we spend our time squabbling in court, creating whole new forms of legal jeapody and liability as we go. This precludes large scale, capital intensive ventures such as continental scale rail systems. The lead times to get through the legislatures, courts, etc. is just too damn long. Capital won't tolerate this and seeks better venues, most of which are in Asia.

    Enjoy your decline.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  21. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Acela cost ~$2B and generates $500M/year in revenue. Its been running since 1999 and is successful because it has downtown terminals in Boston, New York and Washington. Also because it runs on existing right-of-way with some track upgrades. Business class New York to Boston is $107 and takes 4 hours which is about the same time as air travel + 2 airport shuttles + groping. So if you choose the right location, it works. However, nothing I've seen about the California plan suggests they are choosing the right location.

  22. Re:Marketing by NouberNou · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it is anything like the Japanese HSR system these trains are in station for less than 2 minutes, usually around 90 seconds. There isn't a baggage car, no baggage offloading. You keep your bags with you at all times and when you get near your stop they announce it and you stand up and head to the doors. When the train stops you just get out (the platforms are level with the doors, so no hopping down awkwardness, its very quick. Then the train is off again. Since these are all EMU train sets that means they do not have a single engine, but powered bogies along the entire train. They can accelerate and decelerate very quickly.

    I think I read 35 stops on the route, if a train stops at every stop then that is roughly 70 minutes in station at 2 minutes a stop. So out of the 8 hour trip, thats 6 hours and 50 minutes you are moving, which means that the trains are going somewhere over 300km/h (336km/h to be exact). I doubt this is the actual speed, I am guess that the 8 hour trip is for express trains, which will skip some of the stops on the way, only stopping at major stations, while other trains will stop at all or more stations (this is how it works in Japan). That'd put the speed at around 280-300km/h which is about what Japanese systems run at.

  23. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by tknd · · Score: 2

    It is a success, because it works, and tons of goods and millions of people use it everyday.

    The same argument can be used in Europe and Asia. You never refuted the grandparent's claim which is that the interstate highway was funded by government money, not by user money which you used against HSR.

    HSR, will be not be, because it is simply too limited.

    Europe and most of Asia would disagree.

    I can take my car to from Sacramento to LA in about 6 hours, at a cost of (Gas Guzzler) less than $150 in petrol, taking my family (four additional people) as a bonus.

    Yet in your entire analysis, you only account for the cost of gasoline. You didn't account for the cost of the roads you would use (they are not free and cost money to maintain or in your words LOSE money). You didn't account for the cost of the vehicle depreciation, license, registration, and maintenance. You also can't sleep and drive at the same time. You're not supposed to eat and drive at the same time. And you're definitely not supposed to drink and drive at the same time.

    Meanwhile an elementary school child in Japan can travel at will as long as he has enough money to pay for the fare. The traveling business man can still drag himself onto the train despite having a bit too much to drink. Most of all, each household is perfectly happy with one car, while here in California each adult or older teenager needs their own vehicle.

    AND once I get there, I would still need to rent a car.

    HSR itself isn't enough, I'll give you that. Intra-city rail and adequate public transit would be necessary. We would also need to improve public transit in major metro areas. LA is already on its way with Measure R.

    And further trips, I would simply just take a plane.

    So you admit that cars aren't a solution, yet planes aren't a solution either. By that I would argue that the more modes of passenger transportation we have, the better off we are. In Japan the airlines compete with HSR. This directly benefits the traveler--because of the additional competition, fares become cheaper.

    HSR is romantic notion for idiots. IT never pans out like the proponents claim.

    In Japan, the rail companies are private entities just like airplanes and car manufacturers. They turn a profit. Why? I'll give you a few reasons:

    • Japan expressways are all tolled: users must pay a fee to use the system. In America, the interstate is subsidized or socialized--whichever term you prefer.
    • Rail companies are able to acquire land and re-purpose it for transportation. In California, the Interstate system was approved prior to the NEPA and CEQA regulations. These environmental regulations delay the building process for any project (including freeways) and make it more expensive. The primary target at the time was freeways due to NIMBYism. Keep in mind that the government at this time was pretty much rolling through people's backyards with freeways and using eminent domain to make it happen.
    • In Japan parking is not "free" or socialized. You must pay for your own parking.
    • Rail companies in Japan don't just operate trains, they also acquire and redevelop areas near train stations turning them into giant shopping malls or upscale living areas. This means users of the system have access to most retail they'll ever need. Some stations even have integrated retail and dining just like airports--but it works better than airports because of more repeat commuters.

    Now in Japan people want to live near a train station because it means convenience. Property prices generally increase the closer they are to a train station--and decrease as you get further from a train station. And people are free to own cars, and drive as much as they would like, yet people choose the trains? Keep in mind that Japan especially during t

  24. Re:Meanwhile in the US... by Desler · · Score: 2

    No, because state funded medicine means I have to pay for someone else's bad lifestyle choices, such as not exercising and eating crap.

    You have to do so with private insurance as well. And? The difference being that single-payer systems are vastly less expensive.

  25. Meanwhile in China ... by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Meanwhile in China and a lot of other places that doesn't apply, just as rail used to be competitive in the USA before rail company owners showed how much money they could squeeze out of the taxpayer after buying a few Senators.

  26. There are two kinds of authoritarians by fnj · · Score: 2

    There are two kinds of authoritarians. Stupid ones who get the priorities comprehensively fucked up and build a choking mountain of red tape (U.S.), and those who have actual working critical faculties and rational priorities (China).

    Sure, the details of China's priorities are arguable, and adjustments are made over time. But one thing they are not is stupid and irrational. In the U.S. the priorities are blatantly stupid, utterly irrational, and no one is allowed to argue them.

    This is a completely separate discussion from human rights.