Hacker News Reader

Comment by melling | Hacker News Reader

That's the equivalent of crossing half the United States.

China must have around 7000 miles of track by now. The US still has none. It's really hard to convince Americans that it's worth the money.

We probably won't realize our mistake until later in the 21st century when China converts it's 20,000 miles of track to maglevs running at 300 mph.

View on HN

Once upon a time I was traveling between Hong Kong and Shanghai on a sleeper train and had a conversation with a Chinese traveler about their trains, he thought the reason for the great train roll out (this was about 5 years ago) was that it was both feasible and affordable to do it at this point in history because in the future it would become increasingly much more expensive and difficult (in terms of land owner/user opposition) to lay the track.

In the USA you're already in that future, the Chinese aren't there yet and they're taking advantage of it while they can.

In 1970s when South Korea was still relatively poor, its government undertook national transportation infrastructure project connecting key cities. For years, there were hardly any cars on these new highways, and they became butt of people's joke. Considering SK's GDP was $300-$400/year back then, it was an understandable reaction. But after 10-15 years, no one was laughing.

I'd probably also bring up that building up a car culture in SK caused a domestic demand for product, which the government could then foster with protectionist tariffs.

It took a while, but as a consequence, these days nobody laughs at seeing a Hyundai or a Kia on the road. And the entire SK economy got a huge technological boost as well as countless "feeder" industries that provide products to the car companies.

But of course, SK also managed to cram in world class subway development, world class bullet train and two world class long haul passenger airlines into the economic development model as well. It's almost Elon Musk audacious.

Its not that its hard to convince Americans its worth the money. Its that its politically difficult to concentrate the money only in places it would yield the most bang for the buck.

The best strategy would be to take all the HSR money and funnel it to upgrading the Northeast Corridor as quickly as possible. Its easier because Amtrak owns the track and rights of way, and will yield the most bang for buck because its Amtrak's sole profitable line. A success there could create a lot of political pressure for further investment. But its politically impossible to support a project that doesn't piss away its money over a dozen states.

So what you're suggesting is that the taxpayer subsidize Amtrak's infrastructure, even though Amtrak runs a profitable business already and practically has a monopoly in northeast commuter rail.

Technically, once you count capital expenditures, Amtrak is not profitable in that corridor.

Also, finding a taxpayer in the middle of the country that wants to spend tax dollars making it easier for people to get to work in Washington DC would be a bit hard.

Indeed; 'New York to Key West' doesn't really give the mental picture it's looking for.

NYC is also about 1200 miles (give or take 100) from Houston TX, Baton Rouge LA, Tulsa OK, Lincoln NE and Fargo ND.

How about NY to Boston, Philly, D.C, Atlanta or Miami? There's no reason to pick a distance then look at a map and say there's no where at 1200 miles where I'd want to go. In fact, most people would argue that 500-600 miles is the sweet spot for HSR. Otherwise, flying wins.

You have to also consider that China, is a centrally controlled authoritarian state. If the government says we want to build something here it is going to happen.

In the US you have a strong concept of individual property rights. The government can seize property through a process of eminent domain, but its difficult, takes time, and is politically unpopular.

Most of the HSR is built on stilts precisely so the Chinese government doesn't have to seize land, and most of the (agricultural) land it goes over is still being used in exactly the same way that it was before.

In the US and the West in general, that is considered an easement on the underlying land. Generally, acquiring new easements also requires eminent domain if faced with a hostile landowner.

well you also have a bigger problem than property rights in the US, we have politician's rights to deal with. The right they exercise in trying to dictate which stations open, stay open, and which routes trains will have.

There is already sufficient right of way in existing track to have high speed rail services but politicians are looking to grandstand which means primarily only new routes are proposed and conveniently in their areas regardless if service is warranted there, California's train to nowhere is a great example of this

Thing about China's railway needs is that it has population density. That makes it a lot easier to charge a cheaper price for tickets that look affordable and worthwhile to passengers, and still turn a healthy profit for the operator.

Local transit is probably a bigger factor. Almost all urban areas in China can be accessed without a car. So Boston, New York, DC, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Francisco, San Jose, etc. make sense, but other cities might not.

If you have to rent a car on arrival, might as well fly.

The density of customers also has to be adjusted for affordability. Lots of Chinese will continue to use conventional trains, which have enormous capacity and cheap prices. Train station crowds in China can be epic.

What is the population density? How does it compare to major cities like NY, LA, or SF? If you look at the United States, you'll see that we do have areas with high population densities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...

Chinese here. Off top of my head, with about the same area of land, divided by about 5x more population, let's say about 5x time denser? Personally, I grew up in a "small town" with about 100,000 people, we call it a small town because relatively, it IS a small town. I do not have any statistics to back it up, but the density level of that third-level township feels to me to be higher than Brooklyn NYC.

The point is that we do have areas with high population densities. People seem to forget that HSR is available and has been available in much of the world. China is simply being very aggressive in building. Spain also has added a lot of track in recent years.

>China must have around 7000 miles of track by now. The US still has none.

None what? Acela is HSR. It's just not as nice as what you find in other countries.

No, it isn't. Its average speed is around 80 mph.

I have been living in China for 6 years and last time I counted, I had already 1250 hours of travel time in Chinese trains. You can go to Lhasa, on the Himalaya, from Beijing by train. A friend of mine is going to Moscow from Beijing next week. My hours are increasing slower, now that high-speed trains are popping everywhere. Most high-speed are new paths, so little villages in middle of nowhere that had nothing, now suddenly have stunning modern mini Train Stations with High-speed trains (300 km/h cruising speed) stopping there. It's amazing. Many people say , in my home country Brazil, where trains are virtually non-existent, that a main reason our previous governments didn't build tracks was the lobby of Big Truck makers and Big Oil, that profit from all the transport being made by roads.

These little villages in the middle of nowhere typically have 1+ million people my wife's hometown, chenzhou Hunan, is connected on the Guangzhou-Changsha line. It's a small town by Chinese standards but would be huge by American standards. They are even getting a Starbucks soon...times are changing quickly.

Given that Transsib is not HSR, Beijing-Moscow is going to take around 7 days by train. It's not a pleasant trip. Especially compared to 7-8 hours by plane.

Decades from now, the optimal solution will be the Hyperloop for distances under 1000 miles, and an electric supersonic jet for distances over 1000 miles. Provided that nothing bad happens to Elon Musk and he decides to found companies to make those things a reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com