7 ms·

China wants to build a 8,000-mile train network connecting to the U.S.

38 points by hhs 5y ago

trident5000 5y ago
There is zero chance this will ever be built
wsinks 5y ago
"Your next trip" :rofl: what a fever dream of a reporter
danw1979 5y ago
Compared to HS2, ~100 miles of high speed rail (high by 1980s standards) in the UK, the stated cost for this is only about 50% more.
- Arnt 5y ago
  Railways are cheap if you can pick the route freely and optimise for low cost only. Every extra constraint adds cost. If you have to cross a mountain range or a river at a specific point, you pay. If you have to enter a city, you pay. If you have to enter a city along a specific route, you pay. If you have to subsidise another project to get someone along the path to accept the proposal, you pay. If you have to support a certain speed, you pay. And so on. In this case the only constraints appear to be that it has to cross the Bering straits where the tunnel is cheap (well, "cheap") and that it has to connect to the railway networks in each country it passes through. That's a lot of liberty for >10⁷ meters. It's two days nonstop for a high-speed train or four if the route is optimised for cost of construction.
helen___keller 5y ago
Does China intend to pay for the entire thing? I can't imagine there's much value in the US for this, considering we have fairly low tourism to China (and getting the visa was a miserable process, personally) and fewer still would be interested in taking train since we don't have that sort of culture here. By contrast, Chinese tourism is a huge industry and high speed rail is quite normalized in China.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Given how overbooked the port of LA is (to the point where Chinese sea-vessels are going to the _EAST_ coast in hopes of actually delivering their payloads), freight rail between China and the USA is an obvious benefit to both countries.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > freight rail between China and the USA is an obvious benefit to both countries. I think the port thing is destined to wind down. Mostly this is a temporary fluke - unless climate change or other factors diminish what ports can do. Past that, would the potential volume carried by rail compete with megaships+air? I don't know the numbers but am doubtful.
    - mikewarot 5y ago
      >I think the port thing is destined to wind down. Mostly this is a temporary fluke - unless climate change or other factors diminish what ports can do. My understanding is that California has passed laws that have highly discouraged in-state trucking investment, as many older vehicles became unable to be driven in 2020, and entire classes of engines being banned by 2035. Ports in other states will have to take up the slack.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > California has passed laws that have highly discouraged in-state trucking investment The ports of LA and Long Beach also have entrenched labor issues that make modernizing virtually impossible.
      - scythe 5y ago
        The alternative under consideration is a freight rail line. Presumably you could build railroads to the ports without needing to use more trucks in LA? Bear in mind that the US does not currently have any freight rail connections to Alaska! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-Alberta_Railway_Development_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-Alberta_Railway_Developm... See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert#Seaport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert#Seaport >A belief at the beginning of the 1900s that trade expansion was shifting from Atlantic to Pacific destinations, and the benefit of being closer to Asia than existing west coast ports, proved wishful. Reduced transit times to eastern North America and Europe did not outweigh the fact that rail transport has always been far more expensive than by sea. The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 exacerbated the problem. It's hard to beat boats!
randomopining 5y ago
What did the US even get out of it's relationship with China? Cheap labor to make cheap things that we never really needed. Should've just injected tons of capital into South America and Mexico. Scholarships for the best and brightest of Latin America to come to Harvard and stuff.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  You got a win in the Cold War which was far from settled otherwise. If China instead had a détente with the USSR and they both made the transition to their current economies together we'd have a very, very different world, to the American detriment.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  We pretty much only got the Moscow State Circus from Russia during the cold war nominally. But that very well could have improved relations just enough to prevent a nuclear war. Remember: the reason Kyoto wasn't nuked was because one general had a honeymoon in Kyoto. He put forth the idea that Kyoto (despite being a valid military target), was the cultural center of Japan, and nuking it would prevent the war from ever ending. Japan (probably) would never forgive us, and he proposed Hiroshima ... an important city but less culturally relevant than Kyoto. That kind of thinking is needed in a hypothetical war. Even if you're 100% warmonger with China, the benefits of open dialog and open trade are huge. ------- I'm not naive enough to think that trade prevents wars. But there is a "soothing" effect of trade for sure.
- 1270018080 5y ago
  20% of US imports are from China. Even through the idiotic tariffs.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    Yeah but how much of those imports are actually important? Like some crappy electric lawnmowers, cheap plastic toys, crappy electric scooter that fat americans don't really need. Crappy smartphone, when someone could just buy a low end apple made in india or something. Probably the most important are medical devices.
syngrog66 5y ago
looks at a map of the Earth hmmmmmm... now add in the fact that from the US POV that Russia and China are our two greatest threats. And so probably not a wise idea to make it any easier for them to move people, weapons or troops directly into a US state.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  In the event of a war, I cannot imagine a better thing than for your enemies to put their troops on an 8,000 mile train ride that has a substantial underwater tunnel.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Rail lines go both directions, and I'd fully expect it to be a target in the first couple minutes of any conflict between the two.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  wait, are you seriously thinking if the US and China went to war China is going to load soldiers on a commercial underwater passenger train? we're not living in an asterix & obelix comic
monksy 5y ago
The cost of this seems way too low. Considering all of the planning and extras going with this. Cosnidering that they're looking to go through Diomede (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Diomede,+Alaska+99762/@65.7582322,-168.956303,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x57319b5823a210bf:0x17a5670c369b0684!8m2!3d65.758235!4d-168.9519596 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Diomede,+Alaska+99762/@65....) I don't think that's too unreasonable for the underwater portion. It's a big long but with a project like this you have to go there. The other big factor here is going through Alaska.. a lot of that land just isn't developed (nor does a lot of it have mobile signal. Consider what will happen if a train breaks down along the way) Getting the US, CA, etc to go along with this in it's self is just too much of a stretch. CA is not fitted for high speed rail tracks. (Their train network resemebles that of Amtrak in it's current stage minus HSR) The US and Canada are unlikely to let Chinese developers to come in and mess with the rail here. (If they do that's a huge loss for riders and freight, because that would transfer ownership of the rails themselves) I'm guessing here: But it feels like another pro-China fluf piece to advertise their recent high speed rail networks. Or it could be a drive to get investors and then 'walk away'. Another wrench to throw into this: I doubt most people will spend 3d+ for this ride when a plane takes 14 hours. This will probably be used for freight.
unethical_ban 5y ago
It would be huge for China to become the world infrastructure leader, taking the helm at next-gen worldwide transport. I could see them doing this purely for geopolitical flex.
arkades 5y ago
The Bering strait and associated waterways are already a source of tension between Canada, the US, and Russia as global climate change is anticipated to massively increase their commercial value. And China would love to launch a boondoggle of a project that gives them an excuse to station a shit ton of staff and infrastructure in the area for the foreseeable future.
hollerith 5y ago
I am flagging this. It does not cite any sources specifically enough to be worth anything. The other stories on the site are designed to amaze or shock readers but only insufficiently informed ones.

38 points by hhs 5y ago

trident5000 5y ago

There is zero chance this will ever be built

wsinks 5y ago

"Your next trip" :rofl: what a fever dream of a reporter

danw1979 5y ago

Compared to HS2, ~100 miles of high speed rail (high by 1980s standards) in the UK, the stated cost for this is only about 50% more.

Arnt 5y ago
Railways are cheap if you can pick the route freely and optimise for low cost only. Every extra constraint adds cost. If you have to cross a mountain range or a river at a specific point, you pay. If you have to enter a city, you pay. If you have to enter a city along a specific route, you pay. If you have to subsidise another project to get someone along the path to accept the proposal, you pay. If you have to support a certain speed, you pay. And so on. In this case the only constraints appear to be that it has to cross the Bering straits where the tunnel is cheap (well, "cheap") and that it has to connect to the railway networks in each country it passes through. That's a lot of liberty for >10⁷ meters. It's two days nonstop for a high-speed train or four if the route is optimised for cost of construction.

helen___keller 5y ago

Does China intend to pay for the entire thing? I can't imagine there's much value in the US for this, considering we have fairly low tourism to China (and getting the visa was a miserable process, personally) and fewer still would be interested in taking train since we don't have that sort of culture here. By contrast, Chinese tourism is a huge industry and high speed rail is quite normalized in China.

dragontamer 5y ago
Given how overbooked the port of LA is (to the point where Chinese sea-vessels are going to the _EAST_ coast in hopes of actually delivering their payloads), freight rail between China and the USA is an obvious benefit to both countries.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > freight rail between China and the USA is an obvious benefit to both countries. I think the port thing is destined to wind down. Mostly this is a temporary fluke - unless climate change or other factors diminish what ports can do. Past that, would the potential volume carried by rail compete with megaships+air? I don't know the numbers but am doubtful.
  - mikewarot 5y ago
    >I think the port thing is destined to wind down. Mostly this is a temporary fluke - unless climate change or other factors diminish what ports can do. My understanding is that California has passed laws that have highly discouraged in-state trucking investment, as many older vehicles became unable to be driven in 2020, and entire classes of engines being banned by 2035. Ports in other states will have to take up the slack.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > California has passed laws that have highly discouraged in-state trucking investment The ports of LA and Long Beach also have entrenched labor issues that make modernizing virtually impossible.
    - scythe 5y ago
      The alternative under consideration is a freight rail line. Presumably you could build railroads to the ports without needing to use more trucks in LA? Bear in mind that the US does not currently have any freight rail connections to Alaska! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-Alberta_Railway_Development_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-Alberta_Railway_Developm... See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert#Seaport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert#Seaport >A belief at the beginning of the 1900s that trade expansion was shifting from Atlantic to Pacific destinations, and the benefit of being closer to Asia than existing west coast ports, proved wishful. Reduced transit times to eastern North America and Europe did not outweigh the fact that rail transport has always been far more expensive than by sea. The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 exacerbated the problem. It's hard to beat boats!

randomopining 5y ago

What did the US even get out of it's relationship with China? Cheap labor to make cheap things that we never really needed. Should've just injected tons of capital into South America and Mexico. Scholarships for the best and brightest of Latin America to come to Harvard and stuff.

sudosysgen 5y ago
You got a win in the Cold War which was far from settled otherwise. If China instead had a détente with the USSR and they both made the transition to their current economies together we'd have a very, very different world, to the American detriment.
dragontamer 5y ago
We pretty much only got the Moscow State Circus from Russia during the cold war nominally. But that very well could have improved relations just enough to prevent a nuclear war. Remember: the reason Kyoto wasn't nuked was because one general had a honeymoon in Kyoto. He put forth the idea that Kyoto (despite being a valid military target), was the cultural center of Japan, and nuking it would prevent the war from ever ending. Japan (probably) would never forgive us, and he proposed Hiroshima ... an important city but less culturally relevant than Kyoto. That kind of thinking is needed in a hypothetical war. Even if you're 100% warmonger with China, the benefits of open dialog and open trade are huge. ------- I'm not naive enough to think that trade prevents wars. But there is a "soothing" effect of trade for sure.
1270018080 5y ago
20% of US imports are from China. Even through the idiotic tariffs.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Yeah but how much of those imports are actually important? Like some crappy electric lawnmowers, cheap plastic toys, crappy electric scooter that fat americans don't really need. Crappy smartphone, when someone could just buy a low end apple made in india or something. Probably the most important are medical devices.

syngrog66 5y ago

looks at a map of the Earth hmmmmmm... now add in the fact that from the US POV that Russia and China are our two greatest threats. And so probably not a wise idea to make it any easier for them to move people, weapons or troops directly into a US state.

HWR_14 5y ago
In the event of a war, I cannot imagine a better thing than for your enemies to put their troops on an 8,000 mile train ride that has a substantial underwater tunnel.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Rail lines go both directions, and I'd fully expect it to be a target in the first couple minutes of any conflict between the two.
Barrin92 5y ago
wait, are you seriously thinking if the US and China went to war China is going to load soldiers on a commercial underwater passenger train? we're not living in an asterix & obelix comic

monksy 5y ago

The cost of this seems way too low. Considering all of the planning and extras going with this. Cosnidering that they're looking to go through Diomede (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Diomede,+Alaska+99762/@65.7582322,-168.956303,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x57319b5823a210bf:0x17a5670c369b0684!8m2!3d65.758235!4d-168.9519596 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Diomede,+Alaska+99762/@65....) I don't think that's too unreasonable for the underwater portion. It's a big long but with a project like this you have to go there. The other big factor here is going through Alaska.. a lot of that land just isn't developed (nor does a lot of it have mobile signal. Consider what will happen if a train breaks down along the way) Getting the US, CA, etc to go along with this in it's self is just too much of a stretch. CA is not fitted for high speed rail tracks. (Their train network resemebles that of Amtrak in it's current stage minus HSR) The US and Canada are unlikely to let Chinese developers to come in and mess with the rail here. (If they do that's a huge loss for riders and freight, because that would transfer ownership of the rails themselves) I'm guessing here: But it feels like another pro-China fluf piece to advertise their recent high speed rail networks. Or it could be a drive to get investors and then 'walk away'. Another wrench to throw into this: I doubt most people will spend 3d+ for this ride when a plane takes 14 hours. This will probably be used for freight.

unethical_ban 5y ago

It would be huge for China to become the world infrastructure leader, taking the helm at next-gen worldwide transport. I could see them doing this purely for geopolitical flex.

arkades 5y ago

The Bering strait and associated waterways are already a source of tension between Canada, the US, and Russia as global climate change is anticipated to massively increase their commercial value. And China would love to launch a boondoggle of a project that gives them an excuse to station a shit ton of staff and infrastructure in the area for the foreseeable future.

hollerith 5y ago

I am flagging this. It does not cite any sources specifically enough to be worth anything. The other stories on the site are designed to amaze or shock readers but only insufficiently informed ones.