6 ms·

Major urbanized is incredibly expensive. Tens of millions... I read somewhere that China spends $30 million per mile of high-speed rail. 22,000 miles and count

Major urbanized is incredibly expensive. Tens of millions... I read somewhere that China spends $30 million per mile of high-speed rail. 22,000 miles and counting. The US is going to bankrupt itself trying to modernize its aging infrastructure.

gbrown 7y ago
Not if we bankrupt ourselves cutting taxes for the rich first!
Polylactic_acid 7y ago
The price of rail is pretty good when you consider the capacity. That single rail line is replacing at least 6 lanes of highway and would get people to their destination safer and faster with less air pollution which is a major issue they are trying to tackle.
- MiracleUser 7y ago
  (ime) Trains only get you to your destination faster if your destination is a train station
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    In a high density area like a city its basically always faster. Also faster if you are going long distances and can benefit from the 200km/h+ speeds. Probably doesn't work in some urban sprawl American suburb but for more sensible layouts its the best option. Also the best for the environment.
    - MiracleUser 7y ago
      >Probably doesn't work in some urban sprawl American suburb yep, hi. It's also the same kind of area where road maintenance is the highest problem. Lot's of road wear and tear, and not enough funding to maintain properly
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    I take it you live in the US? :-(
  - asdff 7y ago
    Depends on the average traffic speed. Subways go over 60mph and are generally the fastest vehicles in a large city besides helicopters and airplanes, and lane splitting motorcycles.
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    Light rail has a lot more destinations, and most rail systems are designed to complement bus systems. I live in Utah, and our "urban" area (SLC) is similar to many "suburban" areas in terms of population density. We have a commuter line that intersects with light rail, which intersects with the bus system. Rail hits most of the important business areas, and buses hit most of the residential areas, and each runs every 15-20 minutes. If you know the system, you can get around fairly well without a car. It was expensive to build, but it is used quite a bit so it is absolutely worth it.
partiallypro 7y ago
China doesn't build things to last, and often builds things very very quickly without longevity in mind. So, I would actually argue the opposite. That Chinese expenditures will likely go up a lot, while US expenditures will be flat. This is for various reasons, but mostly because the US is transitioning toward a remote work model, where in China (at least currently and for the foreseeable future) can't do that because their economy is so reliant on physical human labor. US cargo routes are actually near the most efficient in the entire world, and in the end...that is what a lot of the "wear and tear" comes from.
peter303 7y ago
Despite the US leftist whining about the disappearing middle class, the US middle class is still a beacon to the world in actual prosperity. The Us can afford 80% to own vehicles to drive on its still decent roads, while its only 60% in Europe and 25% in much-touted China.
- Gwypaas 7y ago
  False equivalency with Europe where a lot of people skip cars in the metro regions because public transport actually works. For example in Stockholm 37.5%[0] of the people own cars while being the by far richest region in Sweden. [0]: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/motorfordon/bilinnehav/ http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/motorfordon/bilin...
- adrianN 7y ago
  European here. I could buy a luxury car right now with cash, but I wouldn't know what to do with it. My bicycle and public transport are much more convenient.

gbrown 7y ago

Not if we bankrupt ourselves cutting taxes for the rich first!

Polylactic_acid 7y ago

The price of rail is pretty good when you consider the capacity. That single rail line is replacing at least 6 lanes of highway and would get people to their destination safer and faster with less air pollution which is a major issue they are trying to tackle.

MiracleUser 7y ago
(ime) Trains only get you to your destination faster if your destination is a train station
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  In a high density area like a city its basically always faster. Also faster if you are going long distances and can benefit from the 200km/h+ speeds. Probably doesn't work in some urban sprawl American suburb but for more sensible layouts its the best option. Also the best for the environment.
  - MiracleUser 7y ago
    >Probably doesn't work in some urban sprawl American suburb yep, hi. It's also the same kind of area where road maintenance is the highest problem. Lot's of road wear and tear, and not enough funding to maintain properly
- einpoklum 7y ago
  I take it you live in the US? :-(
- asdff 7y ago
  Depends on the average traffic speed. Subways go over 60mph and are generally the fastest vehicles in a large city besides helicopters and airplanes, and lane splitting motorcycles.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Light rail has a lot more destinations, and most rail systems are designed to complement bus systems. I live in Utah, and our "urban" area (SLC) is similar to many "suburban" areas in terms of population density. We have a commuter line that intersects with light rail, which intersects with the bus system. Rail hits most of the important business areas, and buses hit most of the residential areas, and each runs every 15-20 minutes. If you know the system, you can get around fairly well without a car. It was expensive to build, but it is used quite a bit so it is absolutely worth it.

partiallypro 7y ago

China doesn't build things to last, and often builds things very very quickly without longevity in mind. So, I would actually argue the opposite. That Chinese expenditures will likely go up a lot, while US expenditures will be flat. This is for various reasons, but mostly because the US is transitioning toward a remote work model, where in China (at least currently and for the foreseeable future) can't do that because their economy is so reliant on physical human labor. US cargo routes are actually near the most efficient in the entire world, and in the end...that is what a lot of the "wear and tear" comes from.

peter303 7y ago

Despite the US leftist whining about the disappearing middle class, the US middle class is still a beacon to the world in actual prosperity. The Us can afford 80% to own vehicles to drive on its still decent roads, while its only 60% in Europe and 25% in much-touted China.

Gwypaas 7y ago
False equivalency with Europe where a lot of people skip cars in the metro regions because public transport actually works. For example in Stockholm 37.5%[0] of the people own cars while being the by far richest region in Sweden. [0]: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/motorfordon/bilinnehav/ http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/motorfordon/bilin...
adrianN 7y ago
European here. I could buy a luxury car right now with cash, but I wouldn't know what to do with it. My bicycle and public transport are much more convenient.