5 ms·

> high speed rail is romanticism from bygone days when rail was the only alternative to long distance travel. air travel pretty much superseded it and is doing

> high speed rail is romanticism from bygone days when rail was the only alternative to long distance travel. air travel pretty much superseded it and is doing so all over the world. This isn't true. High speed rail is alive and well in Europe. Geography, politics and history are all significant factors that you can't explain so easily. > the advent of self driving and electric cars will doom them regardless Highly speculative. Nothing beats rail for capacity to move a lot of people around quickly. > So rail is more of a benefit for the well to do Quite the opposite.

sandworm101 7y ago
But there are plenty of chinese infrastructure projects that have languished for lack of use. Look at the olympic venues. Once the novelty of ribbon cutting is over, once the recuring costs start piling up, this project too may slow down.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Chinese airspace is already incredibly congested and unreliable. They just had to build a new 100-million capacity airport for Beijing because of a lack of capacity at the existing airport. The alternative to not continuing to build up rail is that people start not making trips within China due to the difficulty. (Obvious grandstanding projects like HSR to Urumqi and Lhasa not included.)
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    Rail yes, highspeed rail maybe not. Whether china has the market and will to sustain widespread 1000kph rail is untested.
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      6h vs 18h for a trip are two different universes. Sleeper trains are cool and all but a shorter ride is better.
      - sandworm101 7y ago
        It is time but also energy. At 1000kph a train (at sea level) has massively more drag than an a380 at altitude. Even on electric, these things may have a greater carbon and financial cost than proponants want to admit.
        yourbandsucks 7y ago
        Gonna have to ask you for a cite on that one. Climbing costs energy, as does lift. Piston engines and electric both get better mileage than turbines. I could see it for a 13 hour flight, maybe. Train tracks don't cross the Pacific, though.
        crimsonalucard 7y ago
        No way. You can't even compare this to US car culture. A combustion engine for every single individual emits way more carbon.
        nine_k 7y ago
        An electric train can have near-zero carbon footprint, because electricity can be generated from nuclear fuel, sunlight, wind. An electric airliner is still unattainable. Synthesizing jet fuel using electricity is of course possible, but must be massively less efficient than using that electricity directly in electric motors with efficiency > 0.95 and recuperative braking. The carbon footprint of building the railway, likely with massive amounts of concrete to use to support the rails, and the steel for the rails (to say nothing of maglev infrastructure) — that's going to be huge. Building a pair of airports should be much less expensive.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      China has about 30000km of highspeed rail. Pretty sure that counts as widespread. Sure, it's going at a leisurely 250–350km/h, not the 600-1000km/h from the article. But I don't think anyone claims that each train has to go 1000km/h from now on.
- hunter-gatherer 7y ago
  China's olympic venue isn't the most fair example, though. A handful of countries have let theirs fall to waste not long after the fact.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    That's strange, because the olympic stadiums are perfectly fine, holding concerts, sport events and the likely routinely. I wonder where people got the idea that Beijing Olympic Stadiums are dilapidated, it's more like the exact opposite.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  Nearly every country’s Olympic venues fall into disuse. That’s one reason why the Olympics are probably best held in the US or UK or France, etc. where countries already have the resources. When countries like Greece or China built these resources they basically went into disuse immediately after. Even the Olympic village built in Atlanta cost more to refurbish than it would hlikely have taken to build from scratch, because these things are built in tight deadlines, and only really need to last about 2 weeks, so all sorts of shortcuts which make them unviable for non olympics use end up being taken to get them done by the deadline.
- puranjay 7y ago
  Olympics are, and always have been, PR projects. I can't think of any country that actually uses its Olympic infrastructure adequately.
  - exien 7y ago
    All of the venues used for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games are used extensively, the only two I don't personally know if they are used extensively are the Whistler Sliding Centre, and the Whistler Olympic Park. Canada Hockey Place (aka Rogers Arena): Vancouver Canucks NHL team home stadium and concerts. Cypress Mountain: Very popular local mountain for ski/board and snowshoeing. Pacific Coliseum: Used for PNE, concerts, and events. Richmond Olympic Oval: Popular skating rink UBC Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Centre: Amateur sports teams and other events. Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre (aka Hillcrest Centre): Now used as a rec center. Whistler Creekside (aka Whistler Blackcomb): The go-to location for ski/boarding nearby. Whistler Olympic Park: Unsure. Whistler Sliding Centre: Unsure.
    - danans 7y ago
      > All of the venues used for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games are used extensively Vancouver seems like an exception though. Canada is a wealthy country where the average person is likely to participate in sports (skating, hockey, skiing) that facilities were built for. Also they didn't have to build new ski resorts, since the area already had some of the best ski resorts in the world. It's a very different scenario in a country where people have far less discretionary income to spend on sporting venues.
- Sabinus 7y ago
  Olympic venues are almost always underutilised after the games.

sandworm101 7y ago

But there are plenty of chinese infrastructure projects that have languished for lack of use. Look at the olympic venues. Once the novelty of ribbon cutting is over, once the recuring costs start piling up, this project too may slow down.

bobthepanda 7y ago
Chinese airspace is already incredibly congested and unreliable. They just had to build a new 100-million capacity airport for Beijing because of a lack of capacity at the existing airport. The alternative to not continuing to build up rail is that people start not making trips within China due to the difficulty. (Obvious grandstanding projects like HSR to Urumqi and Lhasa not included.)
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Rail yes, highspeed rail maybe not. Whether china has the market and will to sustain widespread 1000kph rail is untested.
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    6h vs 18h for a trip are two different universes. Sleeper trains are cool and all but a shorter ride is better.
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      It is time but also energy. At 1000kph a train (at sea level) has massively more drag than an a380 at altitude. Even on electric, these things may have a greater carbon and financial cost than proponants want to admit.
      - yourbandsucks 7y ago
        Gonna have to ask you for a cite on that one. Climbing costs energy, as does lift. Piston engines and electric both get better mileage than turbines. I could see it for a 13 hour flight, maybe. Train tracks don't cross the Pacific, though.
      - crimsonalucard 7y ago
        No way. You can't even compare this to US car culture. A combustion engine for every single individual emits way more carbon.
      - nine_k 7y ago
        An electric train can have near-zero carbon footprint, because electricity can be generated from nuclear fuel, sunlight, wind. An electric airliner is still unattainable. Synthesizing jet fuel using electricity is of course possible, but must be massively less efficient than using that electricity directly in electric motors with efficiency > 0.95 and recuperative braking. The carbon footprint of building the railway, likely with massive amounts of concrete to use to support the rails, and the steel for the rails (to say nothing of maglev infrastructure) — that's going to be huge. Building a pair of airports should be much less expensive.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    China has about 30000km of highspeed rail. Pretty sure that counts as widespread. Sure, it's going at a leisurely 250–350km/h, not the 600-1000km/h from the article. But I don't think anyone claims that each train has to go 1000km/h from now on.
hunter-gatherer 7y ago
China's olympic venue isn't the most fair example, though. A handful of countries have let theirs fall to waste not long after the fact.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  That's strange, because the olympic stadiums are perfectly fine, holding concerts, sport events and the likely routinely. I wonder where people got the idea that Beijing Olympic Stadiums are dilapidated, it's more like the exact opposite.
thawaway1837 7y ago
Nearly every country’s Olympic venues fall into disuse. That’s one reason why the Olympics are probably best held in the US or UK or France, etc. where countries already have the resources. When countries like Greece or China built these resources they basically went into disuse immediately after. Even the Olympic village built in Atlanta cost more to refurbish than it would hlikely have taken to build from scratch, because these things are built in tight deadlines, and only really need to last about 2 weeks, so all sorts of shortcuts which make them unviable for non olympics use end up being taken to get them done by the deadline.
puranjay 7y ago
Olympics are, and always have been, PR projects. I can't think of any country that actually uses its Olympic infrastructure adequately.
- exien 7y ago
  All of the venues used for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games are used extensively, the only two I don't personally know if they are used extensively are the Whistler Sliding Centre, and the Whistler Olympic Park. Canada Hockey Place (aka Rogers Arena): Vancouver Canucks NHL team home stadium and concerts. Cypress Mountain: Very popular local mountain for ski/board and snowshoeing. Pacific Coliseum: Used for PNE, concerts, and events. Richmond Olympic Oval: Popular skating rink UBC Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Centre: Amateur sports teams and other events. Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre (aka Hillcrest Centre): Now used as a rec center. Whistler Creekside (aka Whistler Blackcomb): The go-to location for ski/boarding nearby. Whistler Olympic Park: Unsure. Whistler Sliding Centre: Unsure.
  - danans 7y ago
    > All of the venues used for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic games are used extensively Vancouver seems like an exception though. Canada is a wealthy country where the average person is likely to participate in sports (skating, hockey, skiing) that facilities were built for. Also they didn't have to build new ski resorts, since the area already had some of the best ski resorts in the world. It's a very different scenario in a country where people have far less discretionary income to spend on sporting venues.
Sabinus 7y ago
Olympic venues are almost always underutilised after the games.