> 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.
Be more impressed if you said you were a civil engineer. Living in a house didn't tell me what makes them expensive.
So, Zürich: you remember the tunnel that comes out half way to Adliswil, under Uetliberg?
What did it cost as a tunnel, what would that have cost as a surface road in reality, and what would it have cost as a surface road if the area had been flat? *That* is why you're being called out by loads of people for "a smaller geographic footprint".
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 Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high.
Not to be rude, but have you considered that you may have causation backwards here.
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.
If you think Switzerland doesn't have lots of factions, I don't think you've spent a lot of time in Switzerland.
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 Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. Not to be rude, but have you considered that you may have causation backwards here.
Thanks. I think that a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I answered a similar question up thread a bit. To expand, I think the main reason the Swiss method works is because the country is relatively small and well-aligned. The alignment comes from political cohesion (again it’s a small county) and excess wealth. Once you get to a UK-scale country, the rules change quite a bit. There are more factions and the pace of governmental change tends to flip every few years. As a result, infrastructure projects tend to become enormous as a means of self-preservation. Otherwise, they are just too tiny to survive the political turmoil. You see this in the UK, France, Germany… it’s crazy in the US. A standout exception is China and while they have their own problems, there is a iron-clad unity on really big projects.
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.
If you think Switzerland doesn't have lots of factions, I don't think you've spent a lot of time in Switzerland.
I lived there for several years and I know exactly what you are talking about. There are a billion parties (or it seems like it) while the UK tends to have more factions grouped within larger parties. That said, as an outsider, I always saw this playing out a little differently in terms of national cohesion. Die Zauberformel tends to enforce that by design.
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…
People think they are less unified because there are so many parties but die Zauberformel (magic formula) tends to toss that out the window in practice.
I lived in Zürich for two years and I’ve traveled extensively in the country.
Be more impressed if you said you were a civil engineer. Living in a house didn't tell me what makes them expensive. So, Zürich: you remember the tunnel that comes out half way to Adliswil, under Uetliberg? What did it cost as a tunnel, what would that have cost as a surface road in reality, and what would it have cost as a surface road if the area had been flat? *That* is why you're being called out by loads of peop…
Are you talking about the A3? If I recall correctly, it was like CHF 1B? That’s at least 20X more per km than a surface road? but it’s also more than just a car tunnel.
As for call outs, who cares? Some people will find a reason to nag on any day that ends with a y.
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.
Of course it’s a simplification, but so is E = mc². A good model strips things down to the variables that matter most for the point you’re making. GDP and population, viewed through the lens of political structure, give you a workable baseline without drowning in secondary factors.
Switzerland is a very rich country. But UK infrastructure construction is significantly more expensive than its European peers like France, which is just as budget-constrained as the UK is.
> The Swiss method works because their population is 6X smaller and GDP per capita is twice as high. Not to be rude, but have you considered that you may have causation backwards here.
Thanks. I think that a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I answered a similar question up thread a bit. To expand, I think the main reason the Swiss method works is because the country is relatively small and well-aligned. The alignment comes from political cohesion (again it’s a small county) and excess wealth. Once you get to a UK-scale country, the rules change quite a bit. There are more factions and the pace…
> To expand, I think the main reason the Swiss method works is because the country is relatively small
I don't think that's relevant, as there are many small countries with the same problems as the UK and the UK is only medium-sized.
> and well-aligned.
That's the crux of the issue and it's not because of population size. Small countries are no more aligned than large ones (or medium size like the UK) in general.
Why is Switzerland more aligned politically than its peers? Why is social cohesion higher?