backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by AnnihilatorX.. on Oct 5 at 4:46 AM


China's Shanghai and Hangzhou rail line is the world's highest average speed rail line.  (Source: Reuters)
China continues to advance its high-speed rail program

When it comes to high speed rail transportation, the U.S. is getting left behind. Europe and Japan have long championed high speed rail, and China is currently working to install 16,000 miles of high speed rail track -- or roughly 1/3 of the length of the U.S.'s total interstate highway system -- and spending $1T USD on the project.  By comparison, U.S. President Barack Obama has committed a mere $13B USD in high speed rail investment.  And where the U.S. deployment has struggled with landowner and property concerns, the more efficient Chinese system has simply relocated land owners (despite their protests) and started construction.

A few months back set a speed record (average speed, not top speed) of 236 mph (380 km/h) for its Shanghai to Beijing line.  This week it bumped that speed up even higher recording a speed of 258.9 mph (416.6 km/h) for its new train line between Shanghai and Hangzhou.

The previous train took approximately 80 minutes to cover the 125.5 mi (202 km) between the cities.  The new line will typically travel at around 217.5 mph (350 km/h), cutting that time to around 40 minutes. 

China currently has 4,300 miles of railroad track -- the most of any nation in the world.  While its trains aren't quite as fast at top speed compared to foreign models -- Japan's JR-Maglev train (unrailed), which achieved a speed of 581 km/h (361 mph) and France's TGV at 574.8 km/h (357.18 mph) (railed) -- in average speed it is unbeaten.

So why does the world care if China is beating it in high-speed transportation?  Well China's train system is not only high-speed, it is also high volume as well.  And at the end of the day it's offering its citizens days in extra productivity every year, which will likely have tremendous and unheralded benefits on the economy.  For example, the average citizen commuting on the new record-setting line will save approximately an hour and 20 minutes a day.

Of course the costs are tremendous and China has much work to go before it can reach its hyper-ambitious goals, like 1,000 km/h super-trains, it's clearly setting a blistering pace with technological advancements.

China's train lines are almost entirely managed by state-owned enterprises, though many are publicly traded on stock markets in Hong Kong and China.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/2010 10:48:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
U.S. deployment has struggled with landowner and property concerns, the more efficient Chinese system has simply relocated land owners (despite their protests) and started construction.


Having spent months in Japan using the JR system there, I could see that a similar system could greatly benefit many areas in the US.

Problem is that the people in the US have turned into NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) types and just getting rights of way for a small muni light rail project costs more than building the system.

While I wouldn't want something like China is doing to people happening here, isn't there some kind of middle ground? Or am I just dreaming?

Seems like you have people being kicked out of their homes by city governments claiming that the higher tax income justifies use of Eminent Domain, why not these types of things where there is actually a need?




RE: This says it all....
By Spivonious on 9/30/2010 10:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think most people are hesitant to let railroads through their town because Amtrak is extremely expensive. In lots of cases, it's cheaper to fly than take the train. This needs to be reversed before anyone will be interested in investing in rail.


RE: This says it all....
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 11:46:36 AM , Rating: 5
That and because most of the routes where high speed rail would actually make sense like Seattle-Portland-SF-LA-SD, NYC-Miami, simply aren't going to happen because the geological layout makes it cost prohibitive.

Lastly, American's aren't culturally ready for something like this and it shouldn't be forced on them by their government even if it were affordable to build and affordable to use. The USA is the leading car culture in all the world and any such effort would be better spent on simply building better cars and better roads.


RE: This says it all....
By mxnerd on 10/4/2010 3:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
The problem for us is we don't live in cities packed with people like China, Japan, Europe, or even Taiwan (Yes, even Taiwan has high speed rail)

The high speed rail system in the U.S. probably will not make any profit in the first 10 or even 20 years.


RE: This says it all....
By theapparition on 9/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: This says it all....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/2010 12:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
By the way I would also want all of the buildings on the land that is seized from those people to be bulldozed. Then they could put in a stripmall or fast food outlet that generates more tax income for the local municipality.


RE: This says it all....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/2010 3:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...indifferent...
No not indifferent, more like just resigned to it is all. Don't see that with the new changes to the SC that it will be reversed anytime soon.

The ends really don't justify the means, but if you can use it for something more useful than a apartment complex or shopping, that is better.


RE: This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/2010 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Can I be Devils Advocate for a minute?


Yes, you can. I should say, why stop now? (sarcasm)

I fly allot, every month. About 70% of the year I am away from home. To be perfectly honest with you, even if there was 400+mph trains that linked all of the large urban centers in the US, for me flying is still more efficient.

But.... If I were to want to take a quick trip to LA with the wife for the weekend, that may be an option instead of flying.


RE: This says it all....
By Drag0nFire on 9/30/2010 2:34:55 PM , Rating: 5
To be honest, I think part of the problem (and why rail won't succeed in the US) is this very thought process: that you think it's efficient to spend 70% of your time flying around the country. I'm sure for your business or your personal circumstances, it is efficient. But from a societal perspective, it is a colossal waste of resources (human and natural).

Americans collectively spend too much time travelling. For example, if you work for a West Coast company and live in the East Coast, it would probably be more efficient to live on the West Coast. No one wants to be the guy who has to pick up and move, but that's how it works in China. Rail travel is reserved for returning home on holidays once a year. "Business travel" doesn't exist for factory workers.


RE: This says it all....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/2010 3:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Business travel" doesn't exist for factory workers.
Well.... just say that I do work allot in factories, and the factory workers would not be working if their equipment broke down. This is not something that can be handled by conference call or a video chat.

I love it when everybody knows everyone's elses business better. Fact is that I have sites that I visit all over the US, Europe, and Asia. However I do live on the West Coast and have spent allot of time on the East Coast in the past 2 years. I actually have an apartment there that I spend every other month in.

quote:
For example, if you work for a West Coast company and live in the East Coast, it would probably be more efficient to live on the West Coast.


When I am home there is no guaranty that I will not have to leave and go to some other location. So really there is no ideal location for me to live.

My personal vacations involve staying home.


RE: This says it all....
By AnnihilatorX on 10/5/2010 4:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I fly allot, every month. About 70% of the year I am away from home. To be perfectly honest with you, even if there was 400+mph trains that linked all of the large urban centers in the US, for me flying is still more efficient.


Why so, have you counted the time you need to check-in the airport? That's at least 2 hours in large airports.


RE: This says it all....
By Murloc on 9/30/2010 11:49:53 AM , Rating: 4
that's fine, but lands have always been expropriated from privates to build roads etc. even in democratic countries. They get refunded for their market value of course.


RE: This says it all....
By tng on 9/30/2010 12:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
That has always been the case here until 3 years ago. Our wonderful Supreme Court ruled for a city somewhere (I think in New Hampshire, Delaware?)that razing peoples homes to put up high density housing that brought in more local taxes was a just use of Eminent Domain.


RE: This says it all....
By surt on 9/30/2010 7:32:24 PM , Rating: 3
You understand that eminent domain still involves paying off the property owner, it just means they don't get to choose whether or not to sell.


RE: This says it all....
By SPOOFE on 9/30/2010 10:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
And I'm sure YOU understand that one of the bigger criticisms of applications of eminent domain have involved those payoffs for being much, much too low to be considered anywhere close to "fair".

If you were looking at being screwed over, you'd be a NIMBY-type, too.


RE: This says it all....
By FITCamaro on 9/30/2010 12:17:20 PM , Rating: 1
No one is saying eminent domain doesn't have a place. If a road no longer can handle the volume of traffic it has to bear and there is no other place to put a road, eminent domain being used to widen the road is appropriate.

What is not appropriate is what is going on in certain cities where city governments are seizing land to give it to private developers which then build condos or apartments on it. This results in more tax revenue for the city which is how they claim eminent domain is justified. That it is for the greater good.

That kind of totalitarian use is unacceptable. But the federal government is using it too. It is claiming huge swaths of states where the state might want to develop for use of the lands resources (most notably the tar sands for oil shale) so that these states cannot do so. Why? Because it doesn't meet their environmental agenda. 88% of Nevada is owned by the federal government.

Here's a map that shows federal ownership of state lands as a percentage of land area.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map...


RE: This says it all....
By AssBall on 9/30/2010 2:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Our Wyoming numbers look big on that map, Fit, but most of that is because of national parks, national grasslands, and national forests, most of which are absolutely free for the public to use. Even the feds have trouble cutting through their own tape to "develop" those areas.


RE: This says it all....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all....
By AssBall on 9/30/2010 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, go figure.

Write a well written neutral post with good information and discussion, get rated down.

Write an off the subject incoherent mean spirited rant, get rated up.

It's the DT way I guess...


RE: This says it all....
By FITCamaro on 10/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all....
By Skywalker123 on 10/4/2010 1:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeh, we don't need no stinkin' national parks. Lets sell 'em all and let them pave them over and put up strip malls and condo's. And all them trees are standing around doing nothing, we should cut them down and sell the lumber to China.


RE: This says it all....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all....
By superPC on 9/30/2010 1:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
if humans can find a middle ground we wouldn't have any war.


RE: This says it all....
By FITCamaro on 10/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: This says it all....
By Skywalker123 on 10/4/2010 1:33:12 PM , Rating: 1
Like the British did?


RE: This says it all....
By Pneumothorax on 9/30/2010 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think California/Nevada many homeowner's IWIIMBY "I Want It In My Backyard" Most of us here are upside down at this point and would love the gov to kick us out of our homes and reneg the mortgages!


RE: This says it all....
By MekhongKurt on 10/2/2010 1:48:06 AM , Rating: 3
Since the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago it's constitutional for a government to invoke eminent domain to condemn private property for someone to build a shopping center on -- i.e., for private benefit, not the public good -- our various governments are quite happy to do THAT for their business buddies.

A railway, like a road, sewer or water line, and so on, is clearly within the sphere of the greater public interest. We could use eminent domain -- but politicians often aren't willing to fight with citizens opposed. And some are opposed, utterly unwilling to accept even the most minor inconvenience, no matter how much good their doing so would bring to their fellow citizens. In other words, they're selfish.

I lived in China for several years, and their way of simply moving people out of the way -- with the military, if necessary -- is not something I want to see in the US. However, I would like to see public officials to have the courage to step up and say, "This needs to happen, and the route cuts across the corner of your 10,000-acre ranch -- so, this is GOING to happen. Do you want to keep it simple and accept fair compensation quietly, or do you want us to condemn your property that's needed?"

I *own* agricultural property I inherited from my Father. Many years ago, while he was still alive, the power company needed to run a new line across the land. Dad *could* have fought; he would have lost anyway. Far more important, however, is *why* he didn't fight. It wasn't the money -- he got a one-time pittance. But years later he told me, People further on up needed power, and I just couldn't see fighting that then trying to look at myself in the mirror."

Sadly, that attitude is largely gone in contemporary America, though in many ways it continues to be a great and wonderful nation and though my fellow Americans continue to have many wonderful qualities.


By 91TTZ on 9/30/2010 11:11:18 AM , Rating: 2
If human rights or citizens' rights weren't a concern, any country could do the same thing. License the technology from another country and then simply kick people out of their homes to make room for the system. China doesn't have to worry about people getting mad at them and not re-electing them because the people have no choice.

For instance, when they wanted to build the Three Gorges Dam, they simply kicked 1.2 million people out of their houses and relocated them. When the choice is to comply or "disappear from the census", people will tend to comply.

But before you think this is a good thing, look at their pollution and human rights abuses. Would you really want to live there?




By JackPack on 9/30/2010 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 4
The Three Gorges Dam saves lives by significantly reducing the danger of flooding and landslides.

I love how Americans only look at one side of the equation. No wonder you guys are no longer competitive.


By tng on 9/30/2010 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
You missed as well that geologists are starting to believe that project such as that dam could have seismic impacts as well. Putting a huge weight on an area that already has some unstable faultlines could be asking for trouble in the future.


By AssBall on 9/30/2010 4:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
could be asking for trouble in the future


So does living in a flood zone or next to a volcano, but that doesn't stop people. We have to draw a reasonable line somewhere, which was part of his point.


By tng on 9/30/2010 6:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
I got his point and agree with it. I was just pointing out some useless hyperbole.

I did notice that anyone who posted about not agreeing with the current state of Eminent Domain got rated down. What is that all about?


By FITCamaro on 10/1/2010 8:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Certain people have multiple accounts so they can post and rate people down/up. I don't.

Who cares. An intelligent person can decide for themselves. I read all comments pretty much regardless of rating.


By 91TTZ on 9/30/2010 4:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's a backwards way of looking at things. The flooding and landslides are perfectly natural occurrences. The problem is people wanting to live where floods and landslides routinely take place.

If you moved your house to the bottom of a volcano, is the problem that a volcano is near your house or is the problem that you're living next to a volcano?

And the US isn't competitive? Our economy is still 1.5x as large as China's and we have only 25% of the people. We can breathe fresh air and we can speak out against our government without being dragged off to prison.


By SPOOFE on 9/30/2010 11:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
We're plenty competitive.

We are NOT "ridiculously dominant" anymore, however. We rode quite the wave of economic expansion post-WWII. Gave us a good five decades of nearly-free lunch. Other countries are building up at phenomenal rates, but they have a ways to go before we can see if the US is "competitive".


By FITCamaro on 10/1/2010 8:55:48 AM , Rating: 3
Well he is right on some degree. No, no one has been locked up. But when after Obama takes office, Homeland Security publishes a memo saying to "keep an eye" essentially on people in the NRA or otherwise speak out against the government, I'd say there's something wrong.

When the (in)Justice Department dismisses a case of clear voter intimidation because the people running are admittedly not prosecuting people of a certain race for violating the Voter Rights Act, I'd say something is wrong. This came out in court this week, people can search it (granted those who will rate me down, don't care about the truth).


By AssBall on 9/30/2010 5:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, libel, slander, and threats weren't covered under the first amendment.

quote:
Oh have u also forgot the wire tap bill? oh yea the government can wire tap u without a reason. hmm wait there is a reason, they "believed" that you did something bad, thats enough of a reason, right ?


Um, so how is this so different from a warranted wire tap? The FBI "believed" you did something bad, and convinced a judge to issue a warrant, get typed up by a clerk, sent through the proper channels, by which time it was too late to be useful.

All we did is free up some red tape in our justice system. It is okay to lose the tinfoil hat if you want.


By Fritzr on 10/3/2010 2:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
They had the power to use warrentless wiretaps in time sensitive cases before the Patriot Act. The difference was they had to get a retroactive court order within a time limit if they wanted to use the take.

The FBI has clearly shown that they can be trusted. Herbert Hoover never did anything wrong. Nobody in the FBI abused National Security Letters. An FBI agent is too honest to cheat on tests. I have a really nice bridge for sale, it's on the river in Brooklyn...


By SPOOFE on 9/30/2010 11:06:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
try to say some shit about this country or Obama in public

I was doing that just this afternoon. To a cop. He laughed and agreed.

OH MY GOD WHAT A FASCIST!!!


By AnnihilatorX on 10/5/2010 4:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
You have to agree, totalitarianism is pretty effective driver for development, if the government is good at it.


Weird
By Murst on 9/30/2010 11:42:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The previous train took approximately 80 minutes to cover the 125.5 mi (202 km) between the cities. The new line will typically travel at around 217.5 mph (350 km/h), cutting that time to around 40 minutes.


quote:
For example, the average citizen commuting on the new record-setting line will save approximately an hour and 20 minutes a day.


You really need to check your math sometimes....

Or are you comparing this to a different form of transportation such as planes or car? I could see a plane ride taking 2 hours, but I would image that taking a car from Shanghair to Beijing would take quite a bit longer than 2 hours due to traffic and construction.




RE: Weird
By Murst on 9/30/2010 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, that's Hanzghou to Shanghai....

Beijing and Shanghai are a bit further apart :)


RE: Weird
By Amiga500 on 9/30/2010 12:30:23 PM , Rating: 5
What are you on about with cars?

2 x 40 mins = 80 mins = 1 hr 20 mins

Not difficult. Unless you do a 1 way commute to work? :-S


Interstate is already here
By farsawoos on 9/30/2010 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think something else to consider in all this, too, is that the reason we're so "behind" in high-speed rail is b/c we dumped so much money over the years into an interstate system for cars. While a lot of other countries, especially in Europe where countries are smaller and in close quarters, invested in mass transit to move their people around, we invested in an automotive infrastructure. I don't have any hard #'s, but it seems logical to conclude this was primarily b/c of geographical distance and the typical American "I do what I want!" attitude that the early auto industry played so hard upon. Europe and Japan are different cultures, and the land isn't nearly as large or spread out.

I think State and local governments should be paying greater attention to high-speed rail and mass transit than the Federal government. The geography's a bit more manageable, and I think you'd have a good chance of selling the concept of getting on the train to go to work or to a neighboring town, and leaving the car back at home for longer stretches and for transit to/from train stations. The Federal gov could then only be concerned with ensuring that States and local governments are all conforming to the same basic standards on stuff like rail specs, QA, maintenance schedules, etc.

v0v




RE: Interstate is already here
By SPOOFE on 9/30/2010 11:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't have any hard #'s, but it seems logical to conclude this was primarily b/c of geographical distance

Sort of. It's also a matter of history; Europe is largely built on sites that were designated hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Greater centralization is what I'm getting at. Example: Over half of all French citizens live in or immediately around Paris.


RE: Interstate is already here
By Fritzr on 10/3/2010 3:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
The major selling point of the Interstate system was that it is a military asset. Wheeled & tracked vehicles can use the system to go to any part of US and any straight section can serve as a military runway. Rail can substitute for ground transport, but is much easier to disrupt. Also rail cannot serve as emergency air support.

American rail was and is being badly mauled by subsidized trucking. Passenger rail competes with air travel. Local metro rail competes with buses.

It will need a change in focus and cutback on subsidies to road transport before rail is a serious contender in US.


Clearly...
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's clearly setting a blistering pace with technological advancements.


By purchasing those technological products from Siemens (Germany) and Bombardier (Canada)?

More realistically, they are spending huge amounts of money just to catch up and will need to continue doing so to keep up until they can actually produce meaningful advancements at home.




RE: Clearly...
By US56 on 9/30/2010 12:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and it's largely our money, or it used to be, they are spending for their high speed rail system not to mention other infrastructure and military expansion. I wouldn't buy anything made in "mainland China" if it weren't for the fact that virtually all PC motherboards and video cards are now made in the PRC.


Lies, damn lies, and statistics
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/30/2010 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China currently has 4,300 miles of railroad track -- the most of any nation in the world. While its trains aren't quite as fast at top speed compared to foreign models ... in average speed it is unbeaten.


With a country as geographical large and a population as dispersed, a country like China is going to need more miles of railroad to serve a proportionate percent of the population as a Japan or a European country.

Also, with fewer stops per kilometers traveled, the average speed of the train is going to be higher - fewer stops and starts, which reduce average speeds.

So while these stats seem to say something, they are more a function of the geography than of any specific efforts that China is making in its rail system (except perhaps they can travel in a straighter line since their powers of eminent domain are exercised without fear of political reprisals.) IMHO.




RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics
By MrFord on 9/30/2010 4:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they're talking about high-speed railroad...

4,300 miles barley covers 2 transcon lines from Chicago to the West Coast here. To put it in perspective, there's 140,490 route-miles of rails in the US.


This explains where the TARP loans went
By sleepeeg3 on 9/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: This explains where the TARP loans went
By HolgerDK on 10/1/2010 3:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
How can he be Kenyan when he was born in Hawaii?


By Fritzr on 10/3/2010 4:33:39 AM , Rating: 2
If Kenyan law allows derivative citizenship, then he can be a Kenyan citizen by descent. (Not sure how that law reads...Kenya is a country I've never thought to check for citizenship rules) He is entitled to British citizenship as a British National by this means. As he is a British subject born in Hawaii, he is already a Dual Citizen. Having Kenya recognize him as a citizen due to his father's citizenship would just add a third passport he could legally use :)

It is also possible that he has lost his non US citizenships by being elected or appointed to a policy level position in the US. (US does this for citizens who take similar positions in a foreign government as a citizen of the other country...low level positions such as town mayor don't trigger this loss though)

Currently the official position of the US government is that as long as a citizen takes no action showing a stronger loyalty to the other nationality, the foreign citizenship is disregarded by the US. Holding a policy level position in a foreign government would be evidence of such divided loyalty for example. This was a change of attitude brought about by the acceptance that no country can dictate to another what constitutes a 'citizen'.

A side effect of this is that things like renunciation of citizenship to conform to the laws of a foreign country are not voluntary and therefore may be annulled after the fact. (This is how we can have dual US/Japan citizens with Japan banning Dual Citizenship by law) or just plain ignored (The Philippine citizenship oath renounces all foreign citizenships...US simply ignores this and considers a US citizen naturalizing as a Filipino to be a US citizen regardless of an oath made to a foreign government)


Quickly!
By bupkus on 9/30/2010 2:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
spend those dollars before they become worthless.

If only they were buying those trains from the US; that might even advance the balance of trade. </brainfart>




Equate
By zippyzoo on 9/30/2010 3:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
If you equate the US labor cost and materials to this 1 Tril. Chinese labor materials cost; this would several 100 times the cost to do this in the US.




Order of magnitude?
By luhar on 10/1/2010 8:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

China currently has 4,300 miles of railroad track -- the most of any nation in the world.


Are there some zeros missing?




Totalitarianism is efficient...
By LeftFootRed on 10/1/2010 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sure it may run you over on the railroad to progress, but people make excellent rail grease.




not hardly
By Chernobyl68 on 10/1/2010 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
China currently has 4,300 miles of railroad track -- the most of any nation in the world.

4300 miles of High Speed track, maybe, but I'm pretty sure they (and the US, and the rest of the world) have far more miles of Railroad track, in general.




NYC subways is garbage?
By chick0n on 9/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By killerroach on 9/30/2010 10:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's not on the same level - these Chinese trains aren't going to be for local transit like subway systems or other metropolitan commuter train services are. These are meant more as the freeways of rail travel - a way of getting people from one major city to another major city in very little time. Anything else, and its speed would be wasted by frequent stopping at stations. Such a system isn't competing with the subway, but rather augmenting it.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By chick0n on 9/30/2010 3:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
read the first line of my post. I never said its the same thing

Anyway, even the Subways in China cities are 100x better than NYC's.

if u don't believe me, go there and try it once. you will know what I mean.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By Spivonious on 9/30/2010 10:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Granted, I don't live there, but I think MTA is pretty good. Not up to the London Underground, or Deutsche Bahn, but one of the better public transit systems in the U.S..


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By amanojaku on 9/30/2010 11:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
The MTA is pretty good compared to what? I haven't ridden mass transit in many places in the US (CA, DE, GA, MA, and NY so far), but from what I've seen they are cleaner and more reliable than NYC's subway system. Perhaps I'm biased as I am inconvenienced by the NYC subway system daily. It's filthy, smelly, slow, expensive, crowded, infested with rats and other vermin... Chick0n was wrong to compare a subway to a train, as pointed out by killerroach, but chick0n was 100% correct in his description. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go protest the raise in fares from $2.25 this year to $2.50 next year. It was $2.00 last year, and the service was better!!!


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 11:05:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
one of the better public transit systems in the U.S.


Certainly. I spent 3 weeks there and the MTA got me where I needed to go faster and cheaper than by car. I wish LA had a credible transit system, but every time I go there it is simply not an option. I wind up renting a car and experiencing the joy that is driving on the California interstates.

Toronto's TTC is decent, but without the extensive bus and street car system, the subway would be all but useless.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By Flunk on 9/30/2010 12:02:50 PM , Rating: 1
Toronto is in Canada.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By SPOOFE on 9/30/2010 11:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
LA is also kinda freakish in that it's a disgusting sprawl of metropolitan area. Compare it to San Francisco proper, which is, what, seven miles by seven miles?


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By tastyratz on 9/30/2010 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 5
you want the truth? public transport will never effectively work in the united states.
oh no I offended the prius gen!

Sorry buddy but its a pipe dream (pun intended). The reality is the infrastructure was built into the cities and is heavily used in foreign countries. People are too dependent on independence and its too affordable to have and drive a vehicle to work in the us. Its a vicious cycle because without heavy use public transport does not become economical. It just isn't going to happen.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By Taft12 on 9/30/2010 3:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
What about the day that it is not affordable to drive a vehicle to work?


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By chick0n on 9/30/2010 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 1
I will take public transportation IF NYC have 1/2 as much efficient/quality compared to say, Hong Kong's Subway system.

NYC's MTA is a f-ing joke, now they're cutting back janitors in the stations to cut cost when the stations are already fuxking dirty + infested with Rats/Roaches every-fuxking where. and they just cut more bus services . and they're raising prices every year cuz they're "losing" money. Of course they're losing money those overweight fat ass working in the high up gets millions dollars a year + they just don't do shit.

lmao NYC system is nothing but a fuxking Joke.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By web2dot0 on 9/30/2010 3:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Whether you like it or now, having China gaining all this expertise advantage in building high-speed rail is a BAD thing. Sooner or later, we are going to need high-speed rail to commute, and when that happens, you will be begging for China to lend them THEIR expertise ... at a premium.

You can say all your want about this and that, but the bottom line is we have to retain KNOWLEDGE. We are in the information age.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By 91TTZ on 9/30/2010 4:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
You missed the fact that China isn't developing these trains. They're buying them from foreign countries.


RE: NYC subways is garbage?
By SPOOFE on 9/30/2010 11:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
Make no mistake, China's "special sauce" in this endeavor is not any particular technological aptitude, it's their ability to kick their citizens around with impunity.

An attempt to try this in the States would cost orders of magnitude more, what with all the lawsuits filed to fend it off.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki