4 ms·

> If you're going to implement a new form of public transit, they're a pretty good place to look. Not really. Most of Switzerland's transit is through rail, pa

> If you're going to implement a new form of public transit, they're a pretty good place to look. Not really. Most of Switzerland's transit is through rail, particularly standard gouge. Introducing a completely new, incompatible form of transit in a highly integrated network is a bad idea. You have to build entirely new infrastructure, stations, etc. All of them incompatible with the existing infrastructure. It is the same reasons why the Germans didn't chose Transrapid for high-speed rail. New types of transportation only ever make sense in a place with no or little existing transit infrastructure.

PunchTornado 8y ago
don't agree, because it's harder to get the population to use it.
ceejayoz 8y ago
A culture of public investment and use of transit is important. America's car-centric culture, for example, has been a major impediment to public transit projects here. The Swiss network fairly seamlessly integrates multiple forms of transit into one network - both public and private rail, buses, boats, light rail, trams, etc. Bus stops are timed so the trains they connect to are there at the right time for a seamless switch.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Indeed, but the network benefits dramatically from - naturally - network effects. Today you rarely ever see infrastructure projects in Switzerland which are incompatible with the existing network. If you build a hyperloop tunnel, only hyperloop cars will be able to use it, and only in the tunnel. If you build a rail tunnel, it is automatically integrated into the huge existing rail infrastructure. Unless, of course, you built an entire new infrastructure, such as Japan and France did. But Switzerland doesn't need entirely new transit infrastructure today, just localized upgrades. That's the same reason why maglev hardly ever caught up in the world.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    You've already got folks hopping from IC trains to regional ones in the major cities. I'm not clear on why you think a hyperloop between major cities (eventually replacing the current high-speed lines) couldn't possibly interlink with the regional/local transit options at major stations.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > I'm not clear on why you think a hyperloop between major cities (eventually replacing the current high-speed lines) Why would you replace perfectly good existing infrastructure that is used not just for high-speed rail in Switzerland with an entirely new, untested, incompatible system that will provide little incremental benefit while severely crippling the existing rail network? High-speed rail lines in Switzerland aren't isolated, different-gauge networks like Japan, they are largely part of the same rail network, just with higher speed limits. Take the new Gotthard Base Tunnel, while it has an operational speed of 200km/h for passenger rail, it is also extensively used for cargo trains (at lower speeds). Building it didn't just reduce the time for trips between Zurich and Milan, the main Nort-South route, but for anyone travelling from the north side of it to the south side of it, as current trains can run through it just as any other railroad. Particularly, it has a massive impact on cargo, as it was designed from the beginning to reduce congestion in trans-alpine cargo routes. It provides massive network effects not just to Switzerland, but to all of Europe. Replacing something like this with Hyperloop isn't just a bad idea, is a complete disaster. Switzerland is probably the last country in the world to need something like a Hyperloop. No wonder we thought about it 50 years ago and shut down the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro
      - Retric 8y ago
        Countries can take super long views of such projects. In 100+ years are people going to want super high speed rail? If so, a little investment now can add up in the long term. This a long way from proven technology, but you make that jump in small investments not a complete replacement of a working system. Even better, the first track is going to end up as a tourist destination.
m_mueller 8y ago
All you describe can be said about the Shinkansen when it was introduced in the 60s - and look at it now.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Nope. There was no high-speed rail in Japan then. Japan wasn't in the 60's what Switzerland is today.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    Don’t know what you mean, Switzerland has no high speed rail worth speaking of. TGV and ICE have to drive slowly due to curves. If you’ve ever driven trains in Switzerland and compare to Shinkansen, it’s not even close.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      It doesn't need a Shinkansen when the country is twice as big as the Bay Area. But it has high speed rail. And regardless, replacing existing infrastructure with something like the Swissmetro is a terrible idea.

PunchTornado 8y ago

don't agree, because it's harder to get the population to use it.

ceejayoz 8y ago

A culture of public investment and use of transit is important. America's car-centric culture, for example, has been a major impediment to public transit projects here. The Swiss network fairly seamlessly integrates multiple forms of transit into one network - both public and private rail, buses, boats, light rail, trams, etc. Bus stops are timed so the trains they connect to are there at the right time for a seamless switch.

ucaetano 8y ago
Indeed, but the network benefits dramatically from - naturally - network effects. Today you rarely ever see infrastructure projects in Switzerland which are incompatible with the existing network. If you build a hyperloop tunnel, only hyperloop cars will be able to use it, and only in the tunnel. If you build a rail tunnel, it is automatically integrated into the huge existing rail infrastructure. Unless, of course, you built an entire new infrastructure, such as Japan and France did. But Switzerland doesn't need entirely new transit infrastructure today, just localized upgrades. That's the same reason why maglev hardly ever caught up in the world.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  You've already got folks hopping from IC trains to regional ones in the major cities. I'm not clear on why you think a hyperloop between major cities (eventually replacing the current high-speed lines) couldn't possibly interlink with the regional/local transit options at major stations.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > I'm not clear on why you think a hyperloop between major cities (eventually replacing the current high-speed lines) Why would you replace perfectly good existing infrastructure that is used not just for high-speed rail in Switzerland with an entirely new, untested, incompatible system that will provide little incremental benefit while severely crippling the existing rail network? High-speed rail lines in Switzerland aren't isolated, different-gauge networks like Japan, they are largely part of the same rail network, just with higher speed limits. Take the new Gotthard Base Tunnel, while it has an operational speed of 200km/h for passenger rail, it is also extensively used for cargo trains (at lower speeds). Building it didn't just reduce the time for trips between Zurich and Milan, the main Nort-South route, but for anyone travelling from the north side of it to the south side of it, as current trains can run through it just as any other railroad. Particularly, it has a massive impact on cargo, as it was designed from the beginning to reduce congestion in trans-alpine cargo routes. It provides massive network effects not just to Switzerland, but to all of Europe. Replacing something like this with Hyperloop isn't just a bad idea, is a complete disaster. Switzerland is probably the last country in the world to need something like a Hyperloop. No wonder we thought about it 50 years ago and shut down the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro
    - Retric 8y ago
      Countries can take super long views of such projects. In 100+ years are people going to want super high speed rail? If so, a little investment now can add up in the long term. This a long way from proven technology, but you make that jump in small investments not a complete replacement of a working system. Even better, the first track is going to end up as a tourist destination.

m_mueller 8y ago

All you describe can be said about the Shinkansen when it was introduced in the 60s - and look at it now.

ucaetano 8y ago
Nope. There was no high-speed rail in Japan then. Japan wasn't in the 60's what Switzerland is today.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  Don’t know what you mean, Switzerland has no high speed rail worth speaking of. TGV and ICE have to drive slowly due to curves. If you’ve ever driven trains in Switzerland and compare to Shinkansen, it’s not even close.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    It doesn't need a Shinkansen when the country is twice as big as the Bay Area. But it has high speed rail. And regardless, replacing existing infrastructure with something like the Swissmetro is a terrible idea.