World's Longest Sea Bridge Opens After 9 Years of Construction (go.com) 108
Chinese President Xi Jinping inaugurated China's latest mega-infrastructure project on Tuesday: The world's longest sea crossing. From a report: The 34.2-mile bridge and tunnel that have been almost a decade in the making for the first time connect the semi-autonomous cities of Hong Kong and Macau to the mainland Chinese city of Zhuhai by road. The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge spans the mouth of the Pearl River and significantly cuts the commuting time between the three cities. The previously four-hour drive between Zhuhai and Hong Kong will now take 45 minutes. One section of the crossing dives underwater into a 4.2 mile tunnel that creates a channel above for large cargo ship containers to pass through. The project came in over budget -- with Hong Kong alone investing $15 billion in it -- and delayed, as it was originally slate to open in 2016.
Re: Many Chinese died (Score:2)
Re:Another win for China (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Calling "literature degrees" worthless is not the same thing as saying you need a STEM degree to make a decent living. You forget that there is a third option. Forgo college and instead go into carpentry, plumbing, electrical, or some other trade."
I thought Uber drivers all studied literature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming there is no such thing as a wrong decision IS just childish thinking. You have made wrong decisions in your life, we all have. If you aren't recognizing them, that's a problem.
It's not always obvious looking forward, but many times it is. The problem is kids take advice without the necessary cynicism...What's motivating that advice?
If someone is only good at language a lit degree might be the right choice, but taking 200k$ is student loans for a lit degree IS a wrong decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Never change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe instead of using a threshold like "billionaire" you could use something a little less arbitrary. Maybe, say, the top 1% of wealth holders?
You're off with the corporate profits though. US corporations apparently take in about 8 trillion a year in profit. Even the US government, the largest in the world, could operate quite happily on a bit more than a third of that.
Re: (Score:3)
A 20 billion dollar bridge is a win?
Estimate 1% annual maintenance cost, 3% cost of capital.
800 million/year...US$15,220/lanehour...
If it actually saved 3 hours/trip that wouldn't be too bad, but it's enabling cars to go to cities with no place to park them. Replacing a few train trips with car trips.
We'll see how much traffic it gets. Bet it never covers it's costs.
You should move all your money into Shanghai trades stocks. Do it.
Re: (Score:3)
They already have a train. They don't have parking in Hong Kong and Macau for enough car traffic to justify the cost of the bridge.
Re:Another win for China (Score:5, Informative)
The bridge is not for private cars. Indeed, the average person is not allowed to drive on this bridge. It primarily for freight and that will actually reduce pollution and to an extent congestion as vehicles can enter Hong Kong from the mainland and leave on the same day.
Re:Another win for China (Score:5, Insightful)
The bridge is not for private cars. Indeed, the average person is not allowed to drive on this bridge. It primarily for freight and that will actually reduce pollution and to an extent congestion as vehicles can enter Hong Kong from the mainland and leave on the same day.
Freight may get the most use of the bridge- but they're not the real reason either- politics is. This is a physical link- China to wantaway Hong Kong. Just like the interstate system was originally designed for defence purposes (but gets lots of benefits to trade and travel in peace time)- the bridge is a military and political animal that will get lots of use from freight otherwise.
There should be no doubt though- this bridge was partially to be a political show to Hong Kong and partially to be a great way to get tanks and troops to Hong Kong quickly should they ever be troublesome about one party rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know that there are already plenty of roads connecting the mainland and Hong Kong, through the city of Shenzhen; there is no need for another narrow bridge to move tanks.
Of course, everything the Chinese have been/are doing would have a politically biased interpretation from Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
If this bridge were so critical to the movement of tanks and troops, then it would be a horrible way to move them. Destroy a handful of sections longer than basic temporary bridge equipment and you have a 34 mile long bridge to nowhere. If you can operate behind the spearhead then you
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no doubt though- this bridge was partially to be a political show to Hong Kong and partially to be a great way to get tanks and troops to Hong Kong quickly should they ever be troublesome about one party rule.
I was wondering why they chose to build it from Macau to Hong Kong, rather than mainland China, but thanks you just cleared that up for me.</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering why they chose to build it from Macau to Hong Kong, rather than mainland China, but thanks you just cleared that up for me.</sarcasm>
They didn't. There are three different countries at play here. The bridge starts in Hong Kong and then goes to a new artificial island built in the ocean where the Macau and mainland borders meet. At this 3-way customs facility the bridge splits in two, one part goes west to Macau, the other has this fancy flyover arrangement to flip the traffic to the other side of the road before continuing north and joining just south of of the port in Zhuhai.
Re: Another win for China (Score:3)
Considering China's enthusiasm for HSR, it does seem bizarre that they didn't just design another ~25 feet into the whole thing to make room for a pair of HSR tracks while they were at it. The marginal cost would have been fairly low, and it would have turned HK & Macau into the equivalent of a casual crosstown trip for each other.
Re: (Score:2)
There might be a HSR track from Hong Kong into mainland China via Shenzhen (which currently has a branch line to Zhuhai & extension to Macau under construction), but even if the train were allowed to run nonstop through mainland China & skip the border formalities besides those of Hong Kong or Macau, it would STILL be a 1.5-2 hour trip because it's so far out of the way compared to the new bridge/tunnel.
Plus, a train that ran directly between Hong Kong & Macau could probably relax some of the bo
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have parking in Hong Kong and Macau for enough car traffic to justify the cost of the bridge.
What makes you think people will go from China to Hong Kong / Macau rather than the other way? The poor tend not to flow towards rich areas in any great mass, and Zhuhai isn't exactly the bustling economy that is Macau or Hong Kong.
Economic case (Score:1, Offtopic)
A 20 billion dollar bridge is a win?
Quite possibly yes. It connects some locations that are financially very important both locally and globally. Sure it will take quite a while to pay off (presuming it does) but I could see it being a net economic benefit overall. The Big Dig [wikipedia.org] in Boston cost $24 billion so we're not in uncharted territory cost wise.
800 million/year...US$15,220/lanehour...
They are expecting roughly 29,100 vehicle crossings per day which is 10,950,000 crossings per year so accepting your math that would be ballpark $8/crossing. If it saves the amount of time the
Re: (Score:3)
Where are they going to park them?
That number implies 3.4 cars per lane minute. Pretty close to the capacity of the bridge.
Check your math, you lost a zero. That's about $80/crossing, if they can keep the bridge busy 24x7. To cover ongoing costs, will never pay the 20 billion off.
The big dig was also a huge waste, but big government is going to big government. At least the big dig has actual traffic to justify it.
Re: (Score:1)
Where are they going to park them?
You keep ranting about parking like you know something. The completion of the bridge did not create a vast addition to the fleet of cars at either end, so the net amount of new parking necessary is approximately zero; all the existing cars are already parked somewhere. Whatever new demand for parking ultimately emerges will be satisfied with the same low cost labor and unregulated industry that built the bridge in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Hong Kong makes Manhattan look lightly populated.
The 'fleet of cars' exists on one end of the bridge, there is no place to park them on the other end, no undeveloped land to pave. If there were affordable parking places in Hong Kong, they would have a family living on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Your not disagreeing,
It's full, with just a relatively _tiny_ number of 'conspicuous consumption' cars, that cost more to park than most people pay in rent. No room for more.
In any case, the best numbers still project a greater than $80/crossing carrying cost. What's the comparable train fare?
It's just another 20 billion in non-performing loans they can't do anything about for Chinese banks. Small stuff in the big picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of Southern China is on the Hong Kong side of the bridge.
Maybe he thinks of Hong Kong as the island.
I know I generally do. But looking at a map, I do see your point.
I'm there in a couple of weeks, I'll take a gander at this bridge. I like bridges.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the reason the bridge was late and over-budget is that Hong Kong has a lot of regulations and high cost labor. A similar project on the mainland would be drastically cheaper and quicker (and more environmentally damaging and deadly to some workers).
Re: (Score:3)
So yeah, it's a lot of money but one can make an economic case for it.
One could argue the political case is more important. China has been gradually cutting back freedoms and exerting power and influence over Hong Kong which even since the handover from British control has been fairly independent. By making it much easier to go back and forth from the island to the mainland it brings the island closer to government control and eases assimilation as Hong Kong residents will feel less like outsiders and more like Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably won't stay up long enough for that to be significant.
Re: (Score:2)
The big dig was insane. But it was much more than a single 1.5 mile tunnel.
Political patronage was also huge, Mass politicians kicked back federal money to their buddies, SOP.
Re: (Score:2)
China already has physical connections to Hong Kong.
Maybe you should look at a map some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Political patronage was also huge, Mass politicians kicked back federal money to their buddies, SOP.
You say that like its a bad thing.
Ba-dum-bum!
But really I'm making a serious point.
Graft is bad, and wrong, and illegal (three different things) - no question, full stop. But most of the "patronage" is actually paying people for the cost of inconvenience you are subjecting them too.
People here love to decry the horrors of NIMBYism, but in fact people have rights and interests and property, and are right to defend those things when they feel so moved. Big infrastructure projects impact many people and if you
Re: (Score:2)
Political patronage was also huge, Mass politicians kicked back federal money to their buddies, SOP.
This project clearly shows how much more efficient China is at funneling money back to politicians and their buddies.
Re: (Score:2)
it's enabling cars to go to cities with no place to park them. Replacing a few train trips with car trips.
FYI, the bridge is not limited to cars. It is also capable of carrying buses and cargo trucks between the major tourist areas.
Re: (Score:2)
"Estimate 1% annual maintenance cost, 3% cost of capital. "
As the infrastructure of the US tells us, you can ignore that for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Over salt water, no.
Taking the 'American Association of Civil Engineers' word on needed infrastructure investment is like asking your barber if you need a haircut. I know it's politically convenient right now, but get a clue.
Re: (Score:1)
...and now it's in need of replacement.
Infrastructure isn't build and forget (Score:4, Insightful)
We already build most of our giant infrastructure projects years ago.
Your statement implies there is no further need for large infrastructure projects in the US which is plainly not true. Furthermore we have done a rather shitty job of maintaining the infrastructure we have and our public transit options (especially trains) are terrible in most of the country. Our power infrastructure needs rather substantial updating and modernization. Ask Flint Michigan it it's a good idea to never upgrade your water pipes for a century.
Infrastructure isn't something you build once and never worry about again. For a society to grow it needs to keep investing in it in ways both big and small.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
America doesn't build great infrastructure like this anymore. We're broke and getting more in debt every day.
The reason nothing is built in America is dysfunctional politics: Gridlock at the national level, combined with NIMBYism at the local level.
If something on this scale was attempted in America, we would spend $15B just on legal fees.
Re: (Score:1)
If something on this scale was attempted in America
Something of this scale is being attempted in the US, and yes, the costs are absurd.
A $100 Billion Train: The Future of California or a Boondoggle? [nytimes.com]
That mess will cost a quarter trillion by the end. Ultimately the stations will be in a bunch of 21st century Detroits.
Re: (Score:2)
A $100 Billion Train: The Future of California or a Boondoggle? [nytimes.com]
That mess will cost a quarter trillion by the end.
I don't think so. California's HSR is on a collision course with fiscal reality. It will likely be cancelled when the next recession comes.
Re: Another win for China (Score:5, Interesting)
A big chunk of Phase 1's cost is the tracks between Caltrain & BART @ San Jose and somewhere around Modesto, which will get dual-use... LA-SF, and also SF-Modesto commuter rail. It's needed regardless of LA-bound trains. LA-SF is just frosting on the cake... regional commuter rail is the big prize, because it'll open up the Central Valley as East Silicon Valley.
Likewise, Brightline intends to extend Las Vegas-Victorville to Palmdale to connect with CALHSR, so you'll also be able to take the train from SF to Las Vegas (probably BEFORE it's 100% HSR the last ~50 miles into L.A.).
Worst-case, 50 years from now, CALHSR repurposes the bridge structures for vacuum supersonic maglev. The important thing will be ROW-preservation. In 50 years, central valley land will be as expensive & urban as the bay area is today, and CALHSR will be viewed as a spectacularly fortunate real-estate investment, if nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, will any of the HSR network -- commuter or long distance -- actually be available at a ticket price low enough to get people to ride it? Even the initial optimistic plans had the SF -> LA type routes costing way more than a plane flight. You know the commuter service is bound to be more expensive than Amtrak, which hardly competitive as it is about $60 for a Sacramento/San Francisco capital corridor train roundtrip. Not a lot of people are going to want to spend close to $100 on their da
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, Brightline charges $20-40 each way for travel between Miami and West Palm Beach, and $15-30 for travel between Fort Lauderdale and either Miami or WPB. There aren't a lot of people traveling between WPB and Miami daily, but there are a LOT of people using Brightline to travel between Fort Lauderdale and the two cities. Pretty much every affluent professional who lives near downtown Fort Lauderdale & works in downtown Miami or WPB now takes Brightline, simply because it literally cuts the trav
Re: (Score:2)
I have a real difficulty with that proposition for the simple reason neither Miami nor Fort Lauderdale are pedestrian friendly especially not Fort Lauderdale. Unless you want to have to shower and change your clothes again(from trying to walk through the sauna we call climate) when you get to work your going to need a vehicle at both ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Fort Lauderdale doesn't HAVE to be pedestrian-friendly to appeal to Brightline riders who work in Miami. Many of them might end up paying a super-premium to live at Flagler Art Village within walking distance of the Brightline station, but for everything else they'll just drive. Brightline is their loophole that enables them to have a well-paying job in downtown Miami that demands long hours, without having to further endure actually LIVING there. Don't get me wrong... Miami is fun for a few years... but af
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to know the REAL difference between "boondoggle" and "valuable transportation infrastructure"? About 50-100 years (at least, insofar as COMPLETED infrastructure projects go... projects that get started & abandoned prior to being completed to useful length don't count).
In theory, the NEC was a "boondoggle". The Pennsylvania Railroad never made a profit on it due to the astronomical cost of maintaining it as electrified railway. Yet it's the reason why today, you can casually make day trips be
Re: (Score:3)
America doesn't build great infrastructure like this anymore. We're broke and getting more in debt every day.
The reason nothing is built in America is dysfunctional politics: Gridlock at the national level, combined with NIMBYism at the local level.
If something on this scale was attempted in America, we would spend $15B just on legal fees.
It's true that the American political system is not as efficient as the Chinese one. That's both good and bad. Capital-intensive projects take a long time and money in the US, which is bad. In China, grand projects like $17-billion bridges and $32-billion dams get fast-tracked, as do ghost cities and concentration camps.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad an AC posted that.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"America doesn't build great infrastructure like this anymore."
This is not about infrastructure, this is a political dominance game.
Those 2 islands are islands no more.
If they overstretch the liberties they were accorded, these bridges will be used to send tanks and troops very rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at a map. There are much easier ways to get tanks a troops in to Hong Kong. Like over the land that connects it to China.
This bridge connects to Lantau Island, not Hong Kong Island.
Re: (Score:2)
We could do the same if worker safety weren't an issue either.
You need to have a balance. If you spend billions on safety measures that only save a handful of lives, then you can afford far less infrastructure, which means stunted economic growth, which leads to worse healthcare, nutrition, and poverty, all of which lower life expectancy. So you end up killing more people than you save.
The tradeoff between safety and cost is going to be different for a developing country like China that it is in a 1st world country like America.
If you really believe in absolute safe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is still not that bad for a 34 mile bridge considering here in the states a single bridge that spans a river can cost close to a billion.
It has been dubbed the "bridge of death" by some local media. At least nine workers on the Hong Kong side have died and officials told BBC News Chinese that nine had died on the mainland side, too. [bbc.com]
That is better though than the Hoover Dam of Death (>100) [gizmodo.com], or our own Brooklyn Bridge of Death (24) [wikipedia.org], or the worst construction project in U.S. history the the Hawksnest Tunnel (476-1000). [wikipedia.org] But worker safety standards are higher now, even in China.
Re: (Score:3)
Careful what you admire. It's amazing how much cheaper something is when you take worker rights out of the equation.
China's message to Hong Kong (Score:4, Informative)
Vox Borders has a great video about the larger political tensions and strategies that this bridge is a part of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Strange that they built a bridge then. Of course, the parent said "to the island" which is unlikely to have any land borders by definition. Presumably HK island.
Personally, I would presume Lantau Island, as it really wouldn't make sense to build a bridge around Lantau Island to get to Hong Kong Island when all the infrastructure is already in place to move people and freight out to the airport on Lantau Island from anywhere in Hong Kong.
Albert Speer would be proud (Score:2)
Nazi architecture for the 21st century.
Almost a decade? (Score:1)