←back to thread

355 points pavel_lishin | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jmyeet ◴[] No.45387037[source]
As people should know by now, in the last few decades China has built a massive amount of public transit infrastructure, both within cities and regional [1]. Some of the subway systems are pretty amazing (eg Chongqing [2]). I'm interested in how they did this and I think it comes down to a few major factors:

1. They standardize rolling stock. The same stuff is used across the country. I think this is really important. If you think about how the US does things, every city will have its own procurement process. This is wasteful but is just more opportunity for corruption;

2. China had a long term strategy to building its own trains (and, I assume, buses). They first imported high speed trains from Japan and Germany but ultimately wanted to build their own; and

3. Streamlined permitting. China has private property but the way private property works in the US is as a huge barrier to any change or planning whatsoever. China just doesn't allow this to happen.

I keep coming back to the extortionate cost of the Second Avenue Subway in NYC. It's like ~$2.5 billion per mile (Phase 2 is estimated at $4 billion per mile). You may be tempted to say that China isn't a good comparison here because of cheap labor or whatever. Fine. But let's compare it to the UK's Crossrail, which was still expensive but way cheaper than the SEcond Avenue Subway.

California's HSR is hitting huge roadblocks from permitting, planning and political interests across the Central Valley, forcing a line designed to cut the travel time from LA to SF to divert to tiny towns along the way.

There is a concerted effort in the US to kill public transit projects across the country (eg [3]). You don't just do this by blocking projects. You also make things take much longer and make the processes so much more expensive. In California, for example, we've seen the weaponization of the otherwise well-intentioned CEQA [4].

I feel like China's command economy is going to eat us alive over the next century.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/xszhbm/chinese_hig...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7gvr_U4R4w

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-pub...

[4]: https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/s...

replies(6): >>45387070 #>>45388429 #>>45389057 #>>45389234 #>>45389264 #>>45394174 #
rangestransform ◴[] No.45387070[source]
> They standardize rolling stock.

re: buses, we have the same rickety ass new flyers essentially everywhere in the US, that doesn't make them any cheaper

replies(2): >>45387175 #>>45389352 #
kube-system ◴[] No.45387175[source]
I think the gist of the article is that we don't have the same busses across the US. Yes there are only two major manufacturers, but they're all being procured in different ways, in different custom configurations, all across the country.
replies(1): >>45387248 #
bluGill ◴[] No.45387248[source]
We do. What is different is the options. The bus itself is the same, but you can put options on the bus that drive up the price.
replies(2): >>45387295 #>>45389134 #
1. notatoad ◴[] No.45389134[source]
"standardizing" doesn't just mean ending up with the same stuff. it means making an up-front committment to a supplier that you will buy the same stuff, and getting a better deal in exchange for that committment.

if you end up buying a whole bunch of units of the same stuff without planning to, you're wasting all that potential efficiency.

replies(1): >>45392993 #
2. bluGill ◴[] No.45392993[source]
Standard means you buy stuff that is similar to everyone else in ways that matter. paint is easy to do custom - and since everyone wants it they put in paint booths for any scheme. you want them to invest in jigs which costs money but pays off in volume - so work with the engineers to figure out what matters.