Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

freewheeling.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#121

Post by haspok »

steve1977 wrote: post #78

Being Swiss, there's a lot of things I think we could do better. Public transport is not one of them though, I really have to say we got this nailed down pretty well. Even when it doesn't work, it still often works better than in neighboring countries ;)

> Even when it doesn't work

I was genuinely surprised last summer, when a locomotive standing still at a station spontaneously burst into flames, during the busiest commuting period. Had I not been WFH that day, it would have been a major inconvenience, as the whole station closed down for a couple of hours... I thought that this kind of experience was reserved for Eastern Europeans, but the Swiss proudly followed suit.

https://www.blick.ch/schweiz/zuerich/feuer-in-zuerich-zug-am...

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#122

Post by haspok »

dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

> They have a smaller geographic footprint

You might think that saves a lot of money, until you drive around Zürich (think: M25), and realise that about 80% of your drive was through tunnels... and Zürich is not even mountaneous.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#123

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

haspok wrote: post #122
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

> They have a smaller geographic footprint You might think that saves a lot of money, until you drive around Zürich (think: M25), and realise that about 80% of your drive was through tunnels... and Zürich is not even mountaneous.

I lived in Zürich for two years and I’ve traveled extensively in the country.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#124

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

avh02 wrote: post #8
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

> They have a smaller geographic footprint you seem to forget their famous mountains

I lived there. The number of trains that go over the top of the mountains is basically zero.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#125

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

ur-whale wrote: post #43
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

> and GDP per capita is twice as high. And why do you think that is?

Most people will point to banking and finance, but even the industrial sector is highly specialized with much higher margins.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#126

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

troupo wrote: post #82
bootsmann wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long term commitment by the government works for Switzerland because the government is a permanent national unity coalition that has not changed in party composition for over 50 years. The fact that the people in power when things are planned will be the same that reap the rewards 4 elections later helps align politics for long term issues.

This reads as "the political parties in the UK are fully dysfunctional since they cannot plan for checks notes a decade ahead in country where average life expectancy is checks notes 81 years and the country itself has been around for checks notes 1500 years"

No post body was provided.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#127

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

sschueller wrote: post #94
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

But then how is China (much bigger) able to build incredible public transport systems?

China builds everything at a scale that makes no sense anywhere else in the world. They have total political will, lower cost labor, and lax environmental standards (though that last on is changing). Also, their technical ability to terraform is insane.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#128

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

rkangel wrote: post #99
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

It is true that the Swiss have more money to spend on rail, but this makes a compelling case that we aren't spending our money as effectively. A lot of people have spent a lot of time (accurately) pointing out how badly HS2 has gone and why. Very few people have pointed out a viable and concrete alternative.

The issue is that in many large countries, the project _must_ be enormous or else they’ll get cut as the political winds shift to and fro. The result is that they become highly inefficient and expensive. The only real solution is political cohesion.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#129

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

macleginn wrote: post #11
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

How is lower GDP per capita a valid reason for overspending? And a lack of political cohesion shouldn’t be a reason for poor planning.

When the country is big enough, every “successful” project has to be too big to fail. Otherwise, it gets cut when the next lot come in to run the place. It’s a different way to look at the planning mechanism.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#130

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

amunozo wrote: post #52
dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #5

The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. They have a smaller geographic footprint and heavier services economy. The UK still has so much industrial traffic (inclusive of agriculture) and a far less cohesive political environment. This isn’t to say that HS2 isn’t a train wreck (haha - it is) but applying small country policies to big country problems is a a bit…

Always this silly excuse. The Swiss method work because it's good and the country is governed incredibly better than the UK and most of the rest in Europe.

If the country were as large as the UK, it wouldn’t be run the same way. Not even close. The Swiss are very aware of this.
Post reply on HN