China says to Lousiana "Ours is longer than yours..."

[mr friendly guy]

Wow, do you have a dirt file on everyone on the board or just me?

Remembering something you posted = having a dirt file now? Not surprising because you didn't remember the conversation, so I guess you would interpret that as having a "dirt file".

BTW - that interest rate comment that you refer to, all I did was make the comment that there had been two large economic events on the same day. And then said that we didn't know whether or not it was planned, but that even unintentional, the announcements when combined had the potential to cause serious impacts. HOLY SHIT. BIGOTRY CONFIRMED.

I didn't call you a bigot. I said your statements about China was inaccurate. It was Lusankanya who called you out on that.

If you want to call me a bigot, then I'll concede that my border-line troll of the Tibet thread is about as close as you come. But as you say, yourself it's not like I don't say nasty things about everyone. The Australian stimulus stuff is a good example.

And it those comments are inaccurate...

BTW - I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm complaining about China spending money on infrastructure, I'm questioning the return on investment that they'll get out of this (as building a money blackhole isn't good stimulus spending).

linky

The route between Qingdao and Huangdao will be shortened by 30 kilometers, cutting the travel time by 20 minutes at 80 kilometers per hour.

Since you have professed an interest in environmental issues, I am sure you can do the maths about decreased carbon emissions with the number of cars cutting 30 kilometres off their travel.
I know if I could cut 30 kilometres off my travel (up and back each working day) I would be laughing.

But, again, I've already covered the fact that it probably will be a good investment given the location and the details provided in the OP and the increasing level of private vehicle ownership. My only query raised about suitability after that point in the discussion was passed was whether a rail component would have been worthwhile.

Except the sarcastic remark about their ability to build large infrastructure projects.

And I'm not sure if you can call it a gross generalisation to say that China's record when it comes to OHS and building standards isn't excellent. The exception seems to be the large showcase projects (which I seem to recall saying some time ago). Backyard coalmines, melamine in foodstuffs, whole cities collapsing in earthquakes because building regs weren't followed, the drywall sulfur issues and many more toxicity and safety issues make my statement true. There's been some improvement as there hasn't been a major toxicity scandal I've heard of in the past 12 months or so, but the problems still exist.

My point was you only conceded on the so call showcase projects after you were called out on it.

And my comparison that China was like North Korea? Care to point that out, because a lazy few minutes of searching can't turn it up. Perhaps some context might help.

under two minutes of googling reveals

The continued denial of all of this and the ongoing repression of any dissent is one of the reasons why I'm fucking happy that the ChinAlco deal in Australia fell through and a reason why I am super-pissed at Rudd for on-selling so much debt to them. They should in reality be as much of a Pariah state as the NorKs, but aren't because they suckered everyone in with cheap fucking toys.

Hint - if you remember who replied to you, it can narrow down your search parameters. You could disbelief that my google fu is superior to yours in favour that I keep on a dirt file or something.

BTW - your statement about them having influence because they managed to convince us to buy cheap toys is again incorrect and a gross generalisation.

PS - asking for context wouldn't help, since your rant against Chinalco had very little to do with the thread where you made the comparison of the PRC to NK, since the Chinalco deal collapsed because of commercial pressures, and had nothing whatsoever to do with China being dicks.

[bobalot]

I generally regard people who use the term krudd as retarded. Seriously, do you actually think that's remotely witty?

BTW, the $900 stimulus kept the economy afloat. While mining, agriculture & manufacturing shed jobs, the retail sector put on jobs and grew. The stimulus package left Australia in a relatively good position.

[mr friendly guy]

I generally regard people who use the term krudd as retarded. Seriously, do you actually think that's remotely witty?

BTW, the $900 stimulus kept the economy afloat. While mining, agriculture & manufacturing shed jobs, the retail sector put on jobs and grew. The stimulus package left Australia in a relatively good position.

Dude, I used it only as a mimic of Ando, since I am sure it was him and thejester who used the term Krudd. I call him Rudd, because you know thats his name. Also it was Ando who complained about the stimulus package not building enough infrastructure and giving us $900 etc. So I pointed out it was strange that he would criticise China for building infrastructure with their stimulus package.

[bobalot]

I generally regard people who use the term krudd as retarded. Seriously, do you actually think that's remotely witty?

BTW, the $900 stimulus kept the economy afloat. While mining, agriculture & manufacturing shed jobs, the retail sector put on jobs and grew. The stimulus package left Australia in a relatively good position.

Dude, I used it only as a mimic of Ando, since I am sure it was him and thejester who used the term Krudd. I call him Rudd, because you know thats his name. Also it was Ando who complained about the stimulus package not building enough infrastructure and giving us $900 etc. So I pointed out it was strange that he would criticise China for building infrastructure with their stimulus package.

Sorry, I was douche. My apologies.

[Bluewolf]

OK, when you three have finished bikcering like children over rubbish that doesn't matter, can we get back to the thread?

I was going to throw this general question at Lusy (well anyone who knows ) if she can answer: How good is China at maintaining the infastrucure it has built? I seem to recall that with large parts of America. Massive grand spanking projects were constructed but ovver the years the funds to keep them in their state of glory rapidly declined. Does China suffer from the same problem or are they far more sensible with thier funding. I have a feeling that given the size of China and how most development goes from the edge inwards, the coastal areas are best maintained but I obviously can't say for certain on that.

[Thanas]

OK, when you three have finished bikcering like children over rubbish that doesn't matter, can we get back to the thread?

Gladly, as soon as you stopped backseat moderating.


Mr Friendly Guy, do you deny that quality control in china has at times been nonexistent and lacking heavily? Remember the child toys issue and the milk powder. For such things to occur, there has to be a pretty large failure of quality control across the board.

Now, how good is their record on infrastructure upkeep? I remember even their greatest project, the Yangtzee River dam, is already cracking in places.

[Lusankya]

It's hard to say at this point really. Most of the large projects built in China were only built after the 1980s, so there's not much older stuff to go by. Certainly the coastal areas have the "best stuff", but it doesn't necessarily follow from that that the infrastructure inland is less well maintained - because the infrastructure inland largely hasn't been built yet. Railway lines and trains, for example, are just as good inland as they are in the coastal provinces, however inland provinces don't have as much coverage with high speed rail as the eastern provinces.

In my experience, things tend to fit into one of three general categories: "New", which is shiny and nice and well maintained; "temporary", which means it was built in the 90s sometime and is basically there to be good enough for a couple of decades until the area gets developed properly; and "under construction". The middle category is often not that well maintained, but I don't think it's actually intended to last that long anyway.

When I lived inland, for example, the school campus that I taught on was pretty crummy - but the university was moving to a newer, bigger campus just outside of the town, which was reasonably well maintained, save for a few areas of garden which hadn't been landscaped yet, and the Foreign Language department was just the last one to move. There's not really much point in doing much more than the absolutely vital maintenance in that situation, since the money would be much better spent hastening the construction of the new campus. I also worked part time at a kindergarten every couple of weeks, and the kindergarten, as well as the buildings around it were all quite nice. They were in a newer area, though.

Looking at the university I'm currently attending: The campus here is "under construction". Which in the context of the university mean "They've transferred about 20,000 of the students to this campus, and are in the process of expanding the campus so they can fit the other 20,000 here as well. Even though the campus is new, it's already obvious that the campus is not only being maintained, but also upgraded as new technology becomes available. Of course, my university is a key university, so that's to be expected. Even the older campuses of my university, while older, are well cared for.

I guess those examples are schools, rather than major infrastructure, but it pretty much highlights the state of everything in China at the moment. When the country first opened up, lots of developments were built quickly without much concern for the future or quality control, but in recent years quality and longevity have become much more of a focus when building projects - especially government projects. I think it's likely that this will be followed with appropriate maintenance, but it's hard to tell without a crystal ball.

[Shroom Man 777]

That is not surprising for a country that is only just modernizing, unlike the rest of the Wester/First World that's already been modernized for decades and has managed to sort things out after they've grown and developed, while China is still undergoing that process.

[mr friendly guy]

OK, when you three have finished bikcering like children over rubbish that doesn't matter, can we get back to the thread?

Gladly, as soon as you stopped backseat moderating.

Wow. This seems like the second thread I have been in where you had to bitchslap oppress him.

Mr Friendly Guy, do you deny that quality control in china has at times been nonexistent and lacking heavily? Remember the child toys issue and the milk powder. For such things to occur, there has to be a pretty large failure of quality control across the board.

I don't deny there has been shit quality control in areas. I am just pointing out the people who build these grand projects are most probably NOT the same guys who try to sneak melamine into milk (and end up executed) or the guys who build shitty housing. I am going to hazard a guess that there is a big difference in skill set from building housing to building humongous bridges.

On a further note, IIRC it was said no other milk company in the world at the time screened for melamine either. Because no one had thought to cheat the system that way.

Now, how good is their record on infrastructure upkeep? I remember even their greatest project, the Yangtzee River dam, is already cracking in places.

Since most of these shiny new projects are recent, its hard to say on the upkeep angle. Which is why I find it incredulous people (or one person) is already being flippant in regards to predicting a short life span.

[Thanas]

I will freely admit I am no engineer, but the idea that a dam is developing cracks right after it went into business does not speak much for a long life span or good construction methods.

[aerius]

I will freely admit I am no engineer, but the idea that a dam is developing cracks right after it went into business does not speak much for a long life span or good construction methods.

It cracked before it even went into business. Let's just say there's been some issues in the project.

[Lagmonster]

Split Bluewolf's last comment out because Bluewolf didn't know when to shut up.

[weemadando]

BTW - I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm complaining about China spending money on infrastructure, I'm questioning the return on investment that they'll get out of this (as building a money blackhole isn't good stimulus spending).

linky

The route between Qingdao and Huangdao will be shortened by 30 kilometers, cutting the travel time by 20 minutes at 80 kilometers per hour.

Since you have professed an interest in environmental issues, I am sure you can do the maths about decreased carbon emissions with the number of cars cutting 30 kilometres off their travel.
I know if I could cut 30 kilometres off my travel (up and back each working day) I would be laughing.

But, again, I've already covered the fact that it probably will be a good investment given the location and the details provided in the OP and the increasing level of private vehicle ownership. My only query raised about suitability after that point in the discussion was passed was whether a rail component would have been worthwhile.

Except the sarcastic remark about their ability to build large infrastructure projects.

Which others have also been pointing out.

Anyhow - a quick look at this shows that it's a six lane bridge with an expected traffic of 30,000 a day. As we've already established, low rates of vehicle ownership would be contributing to this, and rates of vehicle ownership are climbing rapidly so future proofing is good move.

A comparison though - the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne, an urban area less than half the population, has daily traffic of 165,000 vehicles across eight lanes and similarly was designed to cut about 20 minutes off a commute (over a much shorter distance though). It's good to build this early and have it ready for the anticipated boom in vehicle ownership, but the maintenance costs on a structure that size are going to be phenomenal. And did they actually design with the future traffic rate in mind or just with the current one? Because it's not like countries all around the world haven't made that cock-up.

[mr friendly guy]

It's good to build this early and have it ready for the anticipated boom in vehicle ownership, but the maintenance costs on a structure that size are going to be phenomenal. And did they actually design with the future traffic rate in mind or just with the current one? Because it's not like countries all around the world haven't made that cock-up.

Hard to say, since most articles are copies of another, and hence mention the same terms, like integrating this economic zone with that, or consolidating Qingdao as an important economic zone. However I think its fair that any infrastructure that cuts travel time in China will be useful because of the increasing car ownership in that country, in terms of $$ saved from petrol and decreased carbon emissions.

For the infrastructure project which they have built could be counted as future planning (but also one which carries a higher risk in that it can blow up in their faces) is building an entire city in Inner Mongolia for future residents.

[Big Orange]

Why should they emulate the more unpleasant aspects of Western transport so much? But I'd admit I wonder why America has its up its ass when its decades old roads and bridges crumble away, while China relentlessly pushes ahead with many construction projects no matter what (but that has its consequences: remember all those school buildings' roofs of iffy build quality imploding during the recent '08 earthquake?).

And China, charging ahead with massive construction projects and housing, also has a pretty ugly property bubble, threatening to be like Ireland writ large:

Most Chinese say property price too high :survey

BEIJING - Most Chinese say property prices are "too high to accept" despite government measures to cool the sector, according to a central bank survey made public on Sunday.

Among Chinese households, 72.2 percent thought property prices are too expensive, up 7 percent from one year earlier, according to a third-quarter survey across 50 cities, posted on the website of the People's Bank of China (PBOC), the country's central bank.

Property prices in 70 major Chinese cities rose 9.3 percent in August year on year, the National Bureau of Statistics said.

Additionally, new home prices rose 11.7 percent from one year earlier in August, while prices of second-hand homes rose 6.2 percent.

The study also indicated that 15.6 percent of respondents want to buy homes during the coming three months, down 1.5 percent compared with the same period last year.

Further, 58.3 percent of respondents also say commodity prices are "too high", a drop of 0.6 percent from the second quarter. The study showed 73.2 percent expected prices to continue to rise, up 2.9 percent from the second quarter.

China's consumer price index, a main gauge of inflation, rose 3.5 percent from one year earlier in August, the highest level in 22 months and the second consecutive month the index has exceeded the government's full-year target of 3 percent.

Link

And alongside that and possible boondoggles like that Qingdao Haiwan bridge, in remote regions of the PRC strange ghost towns built for hundreds of thousands stand mostly dormant.

[Simon_Jester]

Why should they emulate the more unpleasant aspects of Western transport so much? But I'd admit I wonder why America has its up its ass when its decades old roads and bridges crumble away, while China relentlessly pushes ahead with many construction projects no matter what (but that has its consequences: remember all those school buildings' roofs of iffy build quality imploding during the recent '08 earthquake?).

Well, China doesn't have a fanatical anti-tax, anti-government movement.

The US has mandatory spending (and effectively-untouchable spending, see the military) that requires it to spend a certain amount of money. The American public contains a very large political faction unwilling to spend enough money in taxes to cover the mandatory spending. Therefore, there is a structural deficit in the budget, and no money left over for 'optional' infrastructure projects that can (theoretically) be put off another year. Everyone delays infrastructure work until later, as long as the existing stuff continues to hold together.

Such is life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I will freely admit I am no engineer, but the idea that a dam is developing cracks right after it went into business does not speak much for a long life span or good construction methods.

It depends entirely on whether or not the cracks are a threat to the structure. Based on the material properties of the substance used, that can actually be calculated--the applied force required for crack propagation is a fairly straightforward consideration. It's entirely possible for cracks to be harmless if the force required to cause further crack propagation is greater than the loading limits for the structure, and if that's the case then the cracks are an undesireable but unproblematic artefact of the settling process for the structure.

[Thanas]

I do not know, but 1.5m deep cracks do not bode well IMO.

[CJvR]

How long until it collapses due to someone cutting costs on the concrete/steel/labour?

I doubt it will do that, cutting corners in prestige projects is very dangerous. Humiliate the goverment and it comes looking for you with an ax! It is much safer to skim off small badly supervised rural projects that will never make the international headlines, consider the carnage caused by defect buildings during the earthquake.