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

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#131

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

pantalaimon wrote: post #13
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…

What does the Swiss method (predicatable and consistent funding for the railway) have to do with population size and density? Germany has the same problem. The railway can't plan much ahead as funding is always at the political whims of the next government, prestigious mega projects get funded while existing infrastructure crumbles - and now you have another mega-project to remediate existing infrastructure over the…

You sort of answered your question yourself…

In a bigger country, it is hard to maintain political cohesiveness over the long term. This means that big projects tend to get so large they can’t be terminated by the next round of government without major blowback. This leads to bloat and delay. The only way around this is total control (like China) but that leads to other issues.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#132

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

eertami wrote: post #83
PaulRobinson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not buying that. The argument made in TFA isn't that the Swiss method works because of population size or GDP per capita, but because the processes and goals are completely different. They work backwards from an agreed goal - written into law - that continuous improvement into infrastructure is a requirement of all governments, regardless of political bent. I actually don't think this is controversial, even in the UK…

> As a country the UK is so quick to dismiss initiatives from other countries that are shown to work there I found British culture so depressingly defeatist that I stopped trying to argue for improvements and ended up moving away. Switzerland isn't perfect but for day to day life it's just much easier to live in. I believe that's partly being a higher trust society but also higher ambition to make infrastructure and…

100% I love Switzerland and I wish I was still living there.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#133

Post by dgb23 »

bootsmann wrote: post #54
mrks_hy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article and can point out which part of the specific method would not work in the UK? There is nothing in the outlined strategy that would be made unworkable. You may reach a different value-engineered point, and it explicitly mentions cargo trains as well.

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.

It’s not a coalition in the true sense. It’s a consensus based executive branch that includes all major parties.

Coalitions are a thing in competitive democracies where you might need it to form a government.

The council members are also typically moderates and are selected in part based on their ability to work across the isle.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#134

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #18
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…

Not buying that. The argument made in TFA isn't that the Swiss method works because of population size or GDP per capita, but because the processes and goals are completely different. They work backwards from an agreed goal - written into law - that continuous improvement into infrastructure is a requirement of all governments, regardless of political bent. I actually don't think this is controversial, even in the UK…

Right, but the only reason the Swiss system works is precisely because they are smaller. Fewer factions and more money to spend. It makes the process work.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#135

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

ben_w wrote: post #21
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…

The UK — actually, no, just England in this case — less cohesive than Switzerland? Switzerland gives a lot power to each canton. It is also famously mountainous, which is hard on infrastructure projects. They're also a through-route from Germany (and Austria and France) to Italy, so looking at just their own economy for industrialisation and load is insufficient, as this wouldn't explain the existence of e.g. https:/…

You’re very close to the answer with Gotthard. The only reason this works is because the country is small enough to maintain political cohesion and rich enough to afford projects like this.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#136

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

fragmede wrote: post #19
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…

Looking at GDP and population, without considering any of the other relevant details is also a bit simplistic, wouldn't you say?

Not in the least. Those two variables are enough to set the baseline for what’s possible given the political structure of a country.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#137

Post by alistairSH »

potato3732842 wrote: post #88
alistairSH wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you've outsourced your morals to the legislature That's basically the whole point of a representative government, no?

>That's basically the whole point of a representative government, no? That attitude is the problem. They're supposed to represent you (or some approximation thereof) not tell you what to think. It's in the f-ing name.

So vote for somebody else.

The laws exist because we, collectively, thought they were a good idea. They can be changed if/when we change our minds.

For this specific thing, the drag while proving lack of damage is the point. Once the road/rail/bridge/whatever is built, it's often too late to simply say "oops". That, plus industry has a well deserved reputation for ignoring the environment when it becomes inconvenient.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#138

Post by fragmede »

dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #136
fragmede wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at GDP and population, without considering any of the other relevant details is also a bit simplistic, wouldn't you say?

Not in the least. Those two variables are enough to set the baseline for what’s possible given the political structure of a country.

If, when claiming two things are sufficient, you have to introduce a third thing (political structure) to qualify them, you're clearly oversimplifying it too much, leading to an erroneous conclusion.

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#139

Post by troupo »

dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #126
troupo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

True :) That's the perfect case for the laugh-cry emoji

Re: Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects

#140

Post by ben_w »

dhfbshfbu4u3 wrote: post #135
ben_w wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK — actually, no, just England in this case — less cohesive than Switzerland? Switzerland gives a lot power to each canton. It is also famously mountainous, which is hard on infrastructure projects. They're also a through-route from Germany (and Austria and France) to Italy, so looking at just their own economy for industrialisation and load is insufficient, as this wouldn't explain the existence of e.g. https:/…

You’re very close to the answer with Gotthard. The only reason this works is because the country is small enough to maintain political cohesion and rich enough to afford projects like this.

They're less unified than the UK. Also less unified than just England, which is where HS2 is entirely located, much to the annoyance of Wales who still has to pay for it.

> their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high

2x per capita * 1/6 the population = 1/3 the available money

Gotthard is longer than all the tunnels in HS2 combined. Total cost: CHF 9.560 billion as of December 2015 (it opened 1 June 2016), about £6.5bn at the exchange rate at the time.

As of 2020, the budget envelope set out by the DfT is £98 billion. HS2 is not fifteen times longer than GBT, it is (currently) four.

Post reply on HN