• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    This is blatantly false, California has built high speed rail in that time.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      no they havnt, its been hold for almost 10years due to musk and trump meddling both in his first term.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Hundreds of miles have been constructed since 2008. The project just hasn’t been finished yet. This graph and you are wrong.

  • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Is there any comment content out there that isn’t just US-China dick measuring. Just get a room.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    But somehow we’re supposed to believe them when they tell us we live in the Best Country In The World™*. They always forget the asterisk.

    *Terms and conditions apply. “Best” is not a representation of universal experience; your experience may vary. Human rights abuse likelihood subject to change without notice, see Whitehouse.gov for details.

    • Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      And the most free country in the wold #Freedom

      Free to not have any vacation days, free to be bankrupted by medical debt, free to be fired from work because the shareholders can make even more money by having less employees, free to vote for one of two political parties with no real other choice.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Are you referring to China’s shitty government that commits genocide or am I missing the joke?

    • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Eh, the thing is a large majority of their limes are unprofitable for being largely underused

      Why did the Chinese take incredible amount of debt on to fund these lines that do not connect major population centers? Prob for that chart

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        I know this might blow your mind but it is possible to build things in advance of demand and without a profit incentive

        • skisnow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The degree of capitalist indoctrination is so thorough that these people can’t even conceive of something not turning a profit and still being of value.

            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              He proposed of a possibility? Not a good one in my opinion, like planting an adult hedgehog into a womans womb and artificially inducing birth

              • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Implying that infrastructure building to grow economies is somehow alien and inefficient is exactly why the west is declining. Roosevelt era and Postwar America made a habit of it, then make a habit of privatizing everything and allowing private companies to siphon public money into their coffers and let infrastructure decay while expecting unlimited economic growth. The idea that this monster we’ve created is somehow efficient or sane vs building capacity for economic growth is incredibly dumb.

                • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  I dare not fucking wonder how building a train line into fucking nonsense gonna induce economic growth in your mind but I actually don’t want to know

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Most of the lines are used fairly well. Overall ridership of the network was 3.2billion trips last year. It is still growing.

        As for the economics, it is infrastructure, which is going to last for a century or more. It obviously requires upgrades, but having a fast reliable, green form of transport between a countries large cities has a lot of advantages. Not the least are indirect economic advantages. Like for example making business trips easier, but also tourism. That is why Japan, South Korea and Western European countries built hsr as well.

        That also means taking on debt is somewhat sensible, as long as economic growth from the better connections is bigger then the cost of the debt. That is honestly just running the country like a business.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 days ago

        This chart is a good example of what happens when transport infrastructure is judged through a purely economic lens versus what happens when affordable travel is seen as a necessary feature of a civilised society. (Not to mention the jobs created and the carbon saved.)

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yup, the Chinese first built a metro line and then let the area develop, and even Europe is now doing the same (Letňany and Západní brána in the two biggest Czech cities). It avoids demolitions since there is still clear space for cut-and-cover tunnel construction.

          • DreamButt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            If you think about it that’s how people have founded new towns for most of history. They didn’t go somewhere for a “job” or “vacation.” It was simply because getting there wasn’t that hard. See every town on a river, in a valley, or near the ocean

        • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          I would disagree, while I do not believe that public transportation needs to be self-sustaining at all; they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste

          If a train line is not profitable, its not used

          • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste

            Building at capacity might not be the most efficient solution. First, towns grow. Second, China keeps costs down by standardisation (the Chinese HSR system has, if I remember correctly, 3 models of trains and two standards of track). And third, China is vulnerable to earthquakes and floods. So having alternative routes is useful.

            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              The issue specifically is that there is no population centres in which these unprofitable lines run through

              And no, government don’t and should burn thousands billions; and hundreds of millions in upkeep every year because what if maybe urbanization stops and people for whatever reason move back to the countryside

          • roastedpotato@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 days ago

            How do you feel about rural roads? Should we not build them unless we can make them profitable?

            • crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Highly-used roads are even less profitable since they need expensive repairs much more often.

              To your point, though, the idea that every service has to make a profit is most of what’s wrong with me modern society.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 days ago

                The very approach to calculating “profit” is backwards.

                We’re not measuring the economic value ad of the lane of transit. We’re measuring the margin between cost of the lane and the immediate rent produced.

                Concepts like “hours lost in transit” or “physical harm from accidents” goes entirely out the window. Negative externalities are never measured by capitalist economics.

            • bassomitron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Not sure that’s the same. Dumping a bunch of gravel is far cheaper and less wasteful than a rail line.

              Edit: I will add that I don’t agree that profitability should be the foremost consideration when it comes to building public infrastructure.

            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              If rural roads were a high cost investment meant to transport very large crowds and very large amounts of cargo to a place lacking such needs? And if we had a much cheaper alternative capable of running vehicles meant of transporting smaller crowds and small amounts of cargo? Then yea, we should not build those rural roads

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            If a train line is not profitable, its not used

            Peak car/capitalist brain. You gonna hold roads to the same standard?

            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              1 Yes, I would hold high roads as they are comperatively a more expensive investment meant for a larger volume of transportation.

              2 China is state capitalist, but for its dictatorial nature there is no accountability so there is no after effect of such a colossal fuckup

              • crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 days ago

                Any investment or possible “profit” is lost as soon as a road needs repairs. And high-use roads need repairs waaaaay more often and are a lot more expensive than maintaining a rail system.

          • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            I think you have that backward, even accepting the idea that profitability is an important metric. If a rail line is not used it is not profitable.

            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Which part of the

              I don’t think public transportation needs to be profitable at all

              is misunderstandable? I used profitibility as a metric of usage as trains, especially high speed ones meant to transport a fuck ton of people; which I also wrote down

        • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago
          1. Don’t think high ways should exist
          2. Roads are profitable for the rel heavy taxes laid on drivers
          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago
            1. Comprehensive transportation systems have huge indirect benefits for a society. While they lose money in direct fees, they support large economic improvements. For any transportation systems. Cars are good for widely dispersed populations, aircraft are good for long distances, trains are good for large groups of people and medium distances. Why can’t we invest in the right transportation for each use, give people access to the best choice? Instead we limit our choices, limit our options, even when they’re not the right choice
            2. Adding gas taxes and tolls together, typically covers less than half a highways cost, and most roads don’t have tolls. Roads are not profitable or taxes are not sufficiently high.
            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 days ago
              1. By your own outline a high speed rail is not the right fit, the already existing rail lines/ long term busses already met the needs of the areas! As for your second question countries limited resources, china could have spent all that money that it is currently burning maintaining the lines at a loss + astronomical amounts it burned to construct the lines to say transition to renewables

              2. Cannot imagine where you live, but thats not true in Hungary, and I very much so doubt it as its not true for the 2 examples I looked up (germany and england)! Its so not true in fact as the treasury of hungary treats as income (usable for any and all purposes)

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago
                1. Apparently you’ve never seen traffic in the US. We have a great highway system and a great airport system with many travelers. Too many. Way too many. Not only huge amounts of congestion for cars but huge amounts of congestion for flights, both in the air and on the ground. In the US, only a few cities have widely used transit and only one corridor has practical intercity rail. There’s lots of room for more. It needs to have regular service and be faster than cars to be useful. And it would be perfect everywhere there are two cities up to a few hundred miles apart …. Which covers like 80% of our population
                2. In the US, highways do not pay for themselves in direct costs. Gasoline taxes haven’t gone up in decades, most roads don’t have tolls, and even those who do don’t cover their costs. Roads aren’t directly profitable so why do we have a different standard for rail?
        • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago
          1. Rural area are dying out everywhere as jobs are in cities

          2. Government meet needs not create them and that really should not change

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            If your government isn’t planning decades into the future, it can’t meet any needs at all. It takes that long to build things to address large issues. There’s a lead time. If you don’t start planning and building well before there is a need, you’ll always be late and will be seen as useless.

            I guess that does explain the American government actually.

            • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I am happy it doesn’t burn thousands of billions; and hundreds of millions every tear in upkeep so that maybe urbanization stops and people move back to the countryside

  • Nasan@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Do these guys not count because Florida? I know it’s not as impressive as China’s efforts, but it’s something.

  • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Joke’s on you! If the chart was in miles it would be the other way around!