China laying tracks for 1,000km/h maglev trains

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #122

adambyrtek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that, as you say, decreasing cost of land is the main reason. A simple counterexample would be London which has great public transport and ridiculous prices of land. On the contrary, public transport projects like Crossrail actually increase prices of land and property in affected areas.

Now try to force Americans survive in the abysmal living conditions of the average Londoner. That city is absurdly overregulated, and expensive as hell.

Post by aoeusnth1 » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #104

saberience wrote: post #28

So, as someone that lived in New York for 6 years and California for 6 years, stories like this are incredibly depressing. The US is the world's largest economy and should be the shining example of amazing infrastructure, high-tech, green cities, and forward thinking policies. California is an especially egregious example in terms of infrastructure investment: If California was a country it would be the world's fifth…

I haven't looked at the particulars for this project, but typically the practical limit of high speed rail is 300-500 miles. Beyond that, it's cheaper and greener to fly. If you aren't concerned with cheap or green, and want to focus on fast... Then high speed rail might be a better option until the TSA is involved.

Post by beerandt » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #124

beerandt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrastructure is easy (and cheap) when you don't have to respect property rights or do environmental impact studies. Skipping phase 0 design also eliminates any potential political and nimby dissent (where all options are ruled out as "unfeasible").

>Infrastructure is easy (and cheap) when you don't have to respect property rights or do environmental impact studies. Is there no national/public interest exception in the constitution just for such cases? Where you take someone land buy you pay or give equivalent land back(I know some people would like to get rich quick in this situations)

Post by aoeusnth1 » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #124

beerandt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrastructure is easy (and cheap) when you don't have to respect property rights or do environmental impact studies. Skipping phase 0 design also eliminates any potential political and nimby dissent (where all options are ruled out as "unfeasible").

>Infrastructure is easy (and cheap) when you don't have to respect property rights or do environmental impact studies. Is there no national/public interest exception in the constitution just for such cases? Where you take someone land buy you pay or give equivalent land back(I know some people would like to get rich quick in this situations)

Post by dang » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

20190820234322 wrote: post #43

i_cant_speel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see two posts that can be construed as pro-China within the last year (This being one of them).

I count at least three. No way this isn't an shill account.