Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Why Did the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Take on Fox News?
In an investigative series, the ABC laid out the connection between misleading reporting on Fox and the January 6 unrest in Washington, DC. " LINK
Good ole Fox News in a tit for tat with Australian TV.
And remember. The dictum - FAIR AND BALANCED - has been removed from Fox News.
Fox News ratings went down dramatically after the last presidential election.
Folks went to Newsmax for the "real" unbalanced news.
So Fox News deleted the Fair and Balanced and just moved onto "real" unbalanced news.
Yes, and the slogan was replaced with MOST WATCHED, MOST TRUSTED. What's your point? Every cable news channel sees ratings drop after a presidential election in the US as people turn their attention toward other things.
Fundamentally, do you deny what Tucker Carlson stated and the footage he shared? Or are you just using your dislike of Fox News to trash a report, the actual evidence supporting the reporting be damned? The beauty of what Tucker Carlson showed is that his criticism was all backed up with video footage of police officers enforcing law and politicians stating what the law is. That he gives his opinion on the matter (and, he's a commentator, so that's what he does) doesn't change that.
Are we still on topic?? This thread is about China's transportation...
China just opened their longest (6.6mile) underwater tunnel in Taihu. The tunnel is part of the 43.9-kilometer Changzhou-Wuxi Highway, which opened to the public on December 30, 2021. It provides an alternative expressway for travelers journeying between Shanghai and Nanjing, Jiangsu's capital.
Amazingly, the construction took less than 4 years.
The Chinese are known for speedy work.
Spending lots of money on a higher speed rail doesn't make much sense in a country that is as sparsely populated as Canada.
Auto Train is an 855-mile-long scheduled daily train service for passengers and their automobiles operated by Amtrak between Lorton, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.), and Sanford, Florida (near Orlando). The train has a maximum capacity of 320 vehicles.
I should think as EVs become more prevelant that an auto train in Canada would work very well, especially if you could recharge on the way.
The 732 mile trip from Detroit to Quebec City is a possibility
Last edited by PacoMartin; 01-17-2022 at 09:59 AM..
Sure there are more people there, but the distance is about the same as between Beijing and Shanghai, but that train serve hundreds of million of people and is also used as connection point for other routes.
And there is a train between Windsor and Montreal, and it takes 11 hours. It takes 15 hours if you include a bus to Quebec. Spending lots of money on a higher speed rail doesn't make much sense in a country that is as sparsely populated as Canada.
It doesn't take having two megacities and multiple megacities in between for high speed rail to make sense--this is very apparently the case for multiple high speed rail routes within Europe which generally does not have all that many megacities. There is sufficient population and the distance is in a pretty sweet spot for a Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto high speed rail. The questionable part would be beyond that because some of the other routes are a bit questionable such as going beyond Quebec City to the Maritimes where distance, challenging geography, and even smaller population centers does make it a hard call OR cross-border routes that would make a good lot of sense but only if there wasn't a large (to consumer or administrative) cost and time delay in crossing the US border on rail. Right now (well, pre-pandemic) there's a pretty extensive and slow stop where the trains come to a halt and agents board the train at the border and check the paperwork of each and every individual passenger and it is very slow going.
The train from Montreal to Windsor taking 11 hours is not a good argument against a high speed rail. It just means that there is not high speed rail existing there. Sparsely populated Canada is fine, because all of the population is clustered within pretty tight areas generally close to the border. Unless you made some sort of absurd legal requirement that you need to serve up HSR where there is no one living like a ring line around the Hudson Bay or something equally ridiculous, Canada being sparsely populated means pretty much nothing.
It doesn't take having two megacities and multiple megacities in between for high speed rail to make sense--this is very apparently the case for multiple high speed rail routes within Europe which generally does not have all that many megacities.
High-speed rail in Europe mainly exists in Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, parts of Germany, North Italy and England. Except for Spain and France, all of these regions have a population density that is similar to China.
The country with the lowest population density is Spain and it failed as it could not attract enough passengers.
High-speed rail in Europe mainly exists in Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, parts of Germany, North Italy and England. Except for Spain and France, all of these regions have a population density that is similar to China.
The country with the lowest population density is Spain and it failed as it could not attract enough passengers.
That's a lot of places and you're allowing for regions of some places like saying parts of Germany, North Italy and England. Well, guess what, despite Canada having a lot of territory overall, the corridors where high speed rail would make sense would also be small relative to the size of the nation and specific areas of Canada. It's not like taking about HSR from Churchill, Manitoba to Whitehorse, Yukon. It's a region, maybe two or three that'd be far smaller in overall track length than what you're talking about.
Also, calling Spain's high speed rail system a failure is pretty much nonsense, even with this pandemic which is unlikely to be permanent. That the system overall and that specific lines do not turn a direct profit at the moment or current ridership per mile is not a reasonable criteria for calling it a failure. There's somewhat reasonable argument that there was some overbuilding on some line and that the network topology so centered on Madrid and a political compromise of trying to evenly spread funding from even early on to every region (and to/from Madrid) are reasonable criticisms for how it built out.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-23-2022 at 07:48 AM..
That's a lot of places and you're allowing for regions of some places like saying parts of Germany, North Italy and England. Well, guess what, despite Canada having a lot of territory overall, the corridors where high speed rail would make sense would also be small relative to the size of the nation and specific areas of Canada. It's not like taking about HSR from Churchill, Manitoba to Whitehorse, Yukon. It's a region, maybe two or three that'd be far smaller in overall track length than what you're talking about.
It still different for two reasons
1. More people are connected directly. The distance of that region is the same as Beijing to Shanghai or London-Paris-Frankfurt-Munchen.
2. Even more are connected indirectly. Someone living in Liverpool and want to go to Copenhagen by train, can take the high-speed train Liverpool - London - Brussels - Hamburg and then the slower train to Copenhagen. That leads to extra passengers that won't exist if you only have a single line.
2. Even more are connected indirectly. Someone living in Liverpool and want to go to Copenhagen by train, can take the high-speed train Liverpool - London - Brussels - Hamburg and then the slower train to Copenhagen. That leads to extra passengers that won't exist if you only have a single line.
The only high speed train in this route is London to Brussels. 200km/h is not high speed.
1. More people are connected directly. The distance of that region is the same as Beijing to Shanghai or London-Paris-Frankfurt-Munchen.
2. Even more are connected indirectly. Someone living in Liverpool and want to go to Copenhagen by train, can take the high-speed train Liverpool - London - Brussels - Hamburg and then the slower train to Copenhagen. That leads to extra passengers that won't exist if you only have a single line.
Yea, there are high speed rail routes where there are much more people within service, and then there are high speed rail routes where there are comparable or fewer. That's totally fine and does not negate that HSR is feasible and a good idea in that corridor. These do not conflict with each other, so it's still a rational thing to say. Where you missed is on saying that because Canada the country is low-density (which it is overall), then high speed rail cannot work, because that makes the glaring error of not recognizing that much of the population is concentrated along certain portions of the country.
And yea, even more are connected indirectly for the corridor as well--certainly not all of the people are going to live within a half mile radius of the high speed rail stops. It's really important to have connecting services, but that doesn't negate anything about the prospects of high speed rail in Canada, because that's how it'd work there as well, and like in your example, some parts like your Liverpool to London stretch, or Brussels to Hamburg and then Copenhagen, would not be HSR. Of course, this network effect does get a lot better though if the US and Canada has some kind of pre-clearance or other sort of system that makes train traversals not such a *****, but that was already mentioned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every cable news channel sees ratings drop after a presidential election in the US as people turn their attention toward other things. 
