I can't imagine there's much value in the US for this, considering we have fairly low tourism to China (and getting the visa was a miserable process, personally) and fewer still would be interested in taking train since we don't have that sort of culture here.
By contrast, Chinese tourism is a huge industry and high speed rail is quite normalized in China.
Given how overbooked the port of LA is (to the point where Chinese sea-vessels are going to the _EAST_ coast in hopes of actually delivering their payloads), freight rail between China and the USA is an obvious benefit to both countries.
So your thought is that the rail line will be done before the COVID induced delays? And, in the future that a railroad is going to be less prone to backups caused by delays unloading than ships that can just anchor offshore?
The back and forth capacity isn't the issue (look, they can even ship to the east coast). It's the capacity in the US to unload (and the capacity in China to load) that are being strained.
> So your thought is that the rail line will be done before the COVID induced delays?
Is COVID19 the only strain we'd see on shipping infrastructure that we'd have over the next 50 to 100 years of China-US trade?
If further stresses are to come out in the decades to come, it makes simple sense to invest into more infrastructure. Now, I don't know if rail is necessarily the best path forward, but its a strange one that's at least worth discussing.
> It's the capacity in the US to unload (and the capacity in China to load) that are being strained.
And an additional unloading spot somewhere else would alleviate the amount of work the LA port has to do.
>I think the port thing is destined to wind down. Mostly this is a temporary fluke - unless climate change or other factors diminish what ports can do.
My understanding is that California has passed laws that have highly discouraged in-state trucking investment, as many older vehicles became unable to be driven in 2020, and entire classes of engines being banned by 2035.
Ports in other states will have to take up the slack.
The alternative under consideration is a freight rail line. Presumably you could build railroads to the ports without needing to use more trucks in LA? Bear in mind that the US does not currently have any freight rail connections to Alaska!
>A belief at the beginning of the 1900s that trade expansion was shifting from Atlantic to Pacific destinations, and the benefit of being closer to Asia than existing west coast ports, proved wishful. Reduced transit times to eastern North America and Europe did not outweigh the fact that rail transport has always been far more expensive than by sea. The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 exacerbated the problem.
While it's possible, high speed rail is generally designed primarily for passenger traffic[0] (although freight traffic can run on them at lower speeds iirc)
China is a hostile communist nation that has been waging an economic cold war against the USA for decades. The only benefit from the US is a full divorce from any form of economic dependence on China, and anything that facilities shipping more Chinese shit into the USA is a huge net negative.
Just consider the opportunity - this is a people moving system, not a stuff moving system. By increasing the exposure of Chinese people to information about their government, outside the reach of the CCP, Americans have the opportunity to educate. Violent revolution may be impossible without horrendous human cost, but the erosion of ccp power could lead to a gradual revolution and peaceful transition to something more liberal and democratic, or at least less imperial and aggressive.
We considered the opportunity back when Nixon opened relations with China. Now's the time to consider that the increasing exposure to China plan has blown up in our faces.
Hundreds of thousands of upper middle class Chinese tourists go through the US each summer. In Yellowstone the tourist attractions and shops often include Chinese signage and culturally relevant products.
A subset of those tourists are notorious for causing damage in national parks, misbehavior with animals, and leaving trash everywhere. One of the more recent incidents involved a Chinese family bathing their dogs in the thermal springs in Yellowstone, ignoring the signage warning that the ground off the boardwalks is nothing more than a crust of dried mud with scalding hot water below. The majority tend to be respectful, but there's a growing resentment against the bad behaviors of the few that translates into tension and prejudice.
Anyway, if imagine that such a train system would be a good thing, making the transport of tourists both ways more economical, and forcing both countries to adjust culturally. Personally, I've spoken out against China in public to the extent that I would be denied entry, but I love that Americans have the opportunity to engage with the Chinese people outside the bounds of their government's control. More of that can't help but be a good thing.
I am skeptical that this will ever come to pass. It seems like a huge outlay (likely higher than expected) in resources for an unclear benefit. My best guess is this is primarily a PR generator.
I agree it'd be awesome tho; I just don't see it happening.
Electric trains instead of polluting ships for freight? I think the value should be quite obvious. Plus, goods can be delivered in days as opposed to weeks. I am not sure why the article was pushing the passenger angle so much.
Trains do not deliver goods in days. Domestically, intermodal freight (primarily by train, bookended by local trucks) takes 1-2 weeks to deliver, usually closer to 2, and sometimes 3 if there is congestion.
Before the major port congestion, Ningbo-LA/Tacoma was usually 2-3 weeks.
Big ocean carriers are very, very efficient carriers of goods. If we don't like the fuel they burn (agreed) we should make them burn cleaner diesel, because it'll still be vastly cheaper and less polluting then building thousands of miles of high capacity train routes through sensitive ecological areas.
Not sure which countries will pay, but the article notes this undersea train network would also connect with Canada and Russia:
> China Railway first unveiled the 8,000-mile high-speed underwater railway project in 2014. The underwater train will connect China, Russia, Canada, and the U.S. including a 125-mile undersea tunnel spanning the Bering Strait then to Alaska.
> Beijing Times also reported that Russia is already onboard.
Chinese tourists don’t really have a great reputation (and honestly, it’s deserved). It’s hard to imagine a plan to continuously train them into the country will survive periods of Republican political control.
I can't imagine there's much value in the US for this, considering we have fairly low tourism to China (and getting the visa was a miserable process, personally) and fewer still would be interested in taking train since we don't have that sort of culture here.
By contrast, Chinese tourism is a huge industry and high speed rail is quite normalized in China.