6 ms·

That's a valid point. And there is always a tendency to see the good points in other countries and the bad points in your own. In this case (and also in e.g.

That's a valid point. And there is always a tendency to see the good points in other countries and the bad points in your own. In this case (and also in e.g. building new power stations, new housing, widening roads, expanding London's airports, etc) the contrast is so stark. For sure the UK needn't abandon rule of law in order to build infrastructure in a timely manner.

wyuenho 10y ago
Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights (does private ownership of real estate exist in China?) like there's no tomorrow. I attended a seminar in UCL a few months ago where the panelist shared the number of protests in China in the range of 10s of thousands every year. Salivate all you want about China's rapid development, if you attempt to migrate this model to your own country, don't be surprised when the gov bring a giant bulldozer to your door one morning and wake you up.
- _delirium 10y ago
  Isn't it possible to have something in between those two extremes? The opposite of showing up one morning unannounced with a bulldozer to take land uncompensated doesn't have to be an eminent-domain and planning-approvals process that is so bureaucratic and slow that it takes decades to complete. The U.S. has some of this problem as well, though more in its environmental legislation. Having environmental legislation is good, but it's currently extremely bureaucratic. For example, Illinois is doing a relatively minor upgrade to the Chicago - St. Louis rail line, to upgrade it from 89 mph to 110 mph top speeds. This isn't a newly built line and involves very little alignment change, mainly rebuilding of crossings and stations and signalling upgrades. One of the parts of the process that has slowed it down the most is the required reporting under the National Environmental Policy Act [1], not because they're worried everything won't ultimately be approved (it eventually was), but because the amount of required documentation and procedures to go through are just so numerous and slow, that it takes a substantial portion of the resources of the entire project just to do the paperwork. [1] http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/article/The-Chicago-to-St-Louis-higher-speed-rail-project-nears-finish-line--46379 http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/articl...
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    I'd argue that the main problem with US environmental law is that it isn't handled by a beaurocracy in a straightforward way but rather by giving pretty much everybody the right to sue to stop a project on environmental grounds. If the St. Louis only had to jump through the EPA and FRA's hoops then the whole thing would be much, much simpler and easier.
- Symmetry 10y ago
  The process of compensation can be made much faster without a meaningful loss of private ownership. Look at pretty much any Civil Law country, for instance.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights Actually the Chinese government builds a lot of the high speed rail tracks on elevated tracks in order to avoid interfering with the owner. Which is why most of it looks likes this: http://www.people.com.cn/mediafile/pic/GQ/20160229/56/3252236879803186732.jpg http://www.people.com.cn/mediafile/pic/GQ/20160229/56/325223... If you have, say, farmland beneath a track you are virtually unaffected after that section of the track is completed. They also build a lot of the stations on the outskirts of cities for the same reason (and then connect it up to the center with a metro).
  - avar 10y ago
    Perhaps a better photo to make your point: http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0229/c90000-9022441-11.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0229/c90000-9022441-11.html So it does seem like they're using tracks elevated by concrete pillars pretty widely, but are you sure your image shows a high-speed rail track? To my untrained eye that seems like a really aggressive curve radius for a high speed rail track. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_railway_curve_radius#List_of_selected_minimum_curve_radii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_railway_curve_radius#L...
    - ak217 10y ago
      Yes, it's a high speed track. That's a Siemens ICE train (or a Chinese derivative thereof). A telephoto lens can create this visual effect of depth compression. I'm flabbergasted by people implying that there's a good excuse for why the Western nations can't build HSR the way China does. China has entire lines like this that don't touch the ground for dozens of miles at a time. These lines are out in the country connecting major city centers, and I'm very skeptical that they disrupt any landowners in between. China has perfected the technqiue of low-cost construction of this elevated track. Meanwhile in California every property owner along the CA HSR right-of-way has the right to sue the state and claim not that they haven't been compensated (they have), but that there will be environmental damage (even though it has already been studied), delaying the construction and making it cost even more. Many Western countries' ability to build large infrastructure is broken, because they give too much power to the landowners and unions.
- vkou 10y ago
  > Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights (does private ownership of real estate exist in China?) like there's no tomorrow. How is this different from, say, oil pipelines in the United States? They are constantly trampling on the rights of (Usually indigenous) people living in the area - and you currently have a Congress, a Senate, and a President that have all made it very clear what side they are on in this battle. The primary difference to me is that China seems to consider train transportation infrastructure to be critical to its economic development - whereas the United States considers that to be the case for private oil extraction. At least high-speed train spills are far less likely to cause long-term ecosystem damage then bitumen.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

wyuenho 10y ago

Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights (does private ownership of real estate exist in China?) like there's no tomorrow. I attended a seminar in UCL a few months ago where the panelist shared the number of protests in China in the range of 10s of thousands every year. Salivate all you want about China's rapid development, if you attempt to migrate this model to your own country, don't be surprised when the gov bring a giant bulldozer to your door one morning and wake you up.

_delirium 10y ago
Isn't it possible to have something in between those two extremes? The opposite of showing up one morning unannounced with a bulldozer to take land uncompensated doesn't have to be an eminent-domain and planning-approvals process that is so bureaucratic and slow that it takes decades to complete. The U.S. has some of this problem as well, though more in its environmental legislation. Having environmental legislation is good, but it's currently extremely bureaucratic. For example, Illinois is doing a relatively minor upgrade to the Chicago - St. Louis rail line, to upgrade it from 89 mph to 110 mph top speeds. This isn't a newly built line and involves very little alignment change, mainly rebuilding of crossings and stations and signalling upgrades. One of the parts of the process that has slowed it down the most is the required reporting under the National Environmental Policy Act [1], not because they're worried everything won't ultimately be approved (it eventually was), but because the amount of required documentation and procedures to go through are just so numerous and slow, that it takes a substantial portion of the resources of the entire project just to do the paperwork. [1] http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/article/The-Chicago-to-St-Louis-higher-speed-rail-project-nears-finish-line--46379 http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/articl...
- Symmetry 10y ago
  I'd argue that the main problem with US environmental law is that it isn't handled by a beaurocracy in a straightforward way but rather by giving pretty much everybody the right to sue to stop a project on environmental grounds. If the St. Louis only had to jump through the EPA and FRA's hoops then the whole thing would be much, much simpler and easier.
Symmetry 10y ago
The process of compensation can be made much faster without a meaningful loss of private ownership. Look at pretty much any Civil Law country, for instance.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights Actually the Chinese government builds a lot of the high speed rail tracks on elevated tracks in order to avoid interfering with the owner. Which is why most of it looks likes this: http://www.people.com.cn/mediafile/pic/GQ/20160229/56/3252236879803186732.jpg http://www.people.com.cn/mediafile/pic/GQ/20160229/56/325223... If you have, say, farmland beneath a track you are virtually unaffected after that section of the track is completed. They also build a lot of the stations on the outskirts of cities for the same reason (and then connect it up to the center with a metro).
- avar 10y ago
  Perhaps a better photo to make your point: http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0229/c90000-9022441-11.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0229/c90000-9022441-11.html So it does seem like they're using tracks elevated by concrete pillars pretty widely, but are you sure your image shows a high-speed rail track? To my untrained eye that seems like a really aggressive curve radius for a high speed rail track. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_railway_curve_radius#List_of_selected_minimum_curve_radii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_railway_curve_radius#L...
  - ak217 10y ago
    Yes, it's a high speed track. That's a Siemens ICE train (or a Chinese derivative thereof). A telephoto lens can create this visual effect of depth compression. I'm flabbergasted by people implying that there's a good excuse for why the Western nations can't build HSR the way China does. China has entire lines like this that don't touch the ground for dozens of miles at a time. These lines are out in the country connecting major city centers, and I'm very skeptical that they disrupt any landowners in between. China has perfected the technqiue of low-cost construction of this elevated track. Meanwhile in California every property owner along the CA HSR right-of-way has the right to sue the state and claim not that they haven't been compensated (they have), but that there will be environmental damage (even though it has already been studied), delaying the construction and making it cost even more. Many Western countries' ability to build large infrastructure is broken, because they give too much power to the landowners and unions.
vkou 10y ago
> Yes you do. If the rail goes across any freehold, you'll have to negotiate and compensate for the owners loses. This process takes years if not decades. The only reason China is able to build so quickly is because the government tramples on people rights (does private ownership of real estate exist in China?) like there's no tomorrow. How is this different from, say, oil pipelines in the United States? They are constantly trampling on the rights of (Usually indigenous) people living in the area - and you currently have a Congress, a Senate, and a President that have all made it very clear what side they are on in this battle. The primary difference to me is that China seems to consider train transportation infrastructure to be critical to its economic development - whereas the United States considers that to be the case for private oil extraction. At least high-speed train spills are far less likely to cause long-term ecosystem damage then bitumen.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]