What's new

how did china build its infrastructure ?

I guess this is what makes the difference

It's a slower process, but the outcome is the same in the West. The important difference between China and the West is that China doesn't wait "decades" to make an important decision in the national interest.

Narita to extend runway, but which way? | The Japan Times Online
"Apr 20, 2005 ... Holdout landowners in Narita, Chiba Prefecture, refuse to sell their property off the ... whose parallel taxiway also has to accommodate private land. ... Airport officials, hoping to extend the 2180-meter runway to 2500 ..."

Japanese Landowners Forced to Sell Land for Narita Expansion - SkyscraperCity
"Japan landowners must sell to airport
By KOZO MIZOGUCHI
28 June 2006

TOKYO (AP) - A group of landowners who for decades blocked the development of Tokyo's Narita International Airport were ordered by a Japanese court on Wednesday to sell their property.

The Chiba District Court ordered the 12 landowners to sell six plots totaling 1,116 square yards -- less than a quarter acre -- to airport authorities, said court spokesman Naoto Shikano.


The landowners are part of a left wing group called the Kitahara faction, which spearheaded fierce opposition to the authorities' appropriation of land.

Protests and violent clashes over the airport -- linked to the violent revolutionary politics of the 1960s and 70s -- led to delays in its opening and expansion and resulted in six deaths.

In Wednesday's ruling, judge Makoto Hasegawa asked Narita International Corp. to pay a total of 2.55 million yen ($22,000) to compensate the landowners, Shikano said.

The airport is located 40 miles northeast of Tokyo, and opened in 1978 with a single runway.

A second runway was added in April 2002 -- ahead of the soccer World Cup co-hosted by Japan and South Korea in June that year -- to handle mostly short flights between Tokyo and other Asian cities.

Airport officials have repeatedly pressed the government to allow a longer runway to accommodate jumbo jets, after dropping plans for a 8,202-foot runway when farmers and other residents refused to give up land needed for the project.

The airport authority filed suit in 2002 to purchase the tract from the landowners over protests from opponents who complained about noise and the government's appropriation of land without permission.

A court last year ordered the owners of two other lots to sell their property to the airport authority, allowing the company to begin the long-delayed extension to its second runway.

The project should be completed by 2010 and will cost 33 billion yen ($284 million)."
 
Last edited:
.
not sure about canada but in US, the govt. does not own all the land.

on topic- I think the chinese govt. has worked hard to gain trust of the general populace. and when they do take over land, the number of people opposing are quite minute. As an outsider, it seems they have a pretty good track record of developing infra for public, so the public also puts faith in them

pardon my ignorance on this subject , but what is the situation of land ownership in our country ?
 
.
It's a slower process, but the outcome is the same in the West. The important difference between China and the West is that China doesn't wait "decades" to make an important decision in the national interest.

Narita to extend runway, but which way? | The Japan Times Online
"Apr 20, 2005 ... Holdout landowners in Narita, Chiba Prefecture, refuse to sell their property off the ... whose parallel taxiway also has to accommodate private land. ... Airport officials, hoping to extend the 2180-meter runway to 2500 ..."

Japanese Landowners Forced to Sell Land for Narita Expansion - SkyscraperCity
"Japan landowners must sell to airport
By KOZO MIZOGUCHI
28 June 2006

TOKYO (AP) - A group of landowners who for decades blocked the development of Tokyo's Narita International Airport were ordered by a Japanese court on Wednesday to sell their property.

The Chiba District Court ordered the 12 landowners to sell six plots totaling 1,116 square yards -- less than a quarter acre -- to airport authorities, said court spokesman Naoto Shikano.


The landowners are part of a left wing group called the Kitahara faction, which spearheaded fierce opposition to the authorities' appropriation of land.

Protests and violent clashes over the airport -- linked to the violent revolutionary politics of the 1960s and 70s -- led to delays in its opening and expansion and resulted in six deaths.

In Wednesday's ruling, judge Makoto Hasegawa asked Narita International Corp. to pay a total of 2.55 million yen ($22,000) to compensate the landowners, Shikano said.

The airport is located 40 miles northeast of Tokyo, and opened in 1978 with a single runway.

A second runway was added in April 2002 -- ahead of the soccer World Cup co-hosted by Japan and South Korea in June that year -- to handle mostly short flights between Tokyo and other Asian cities.

Airport officials have repeatedly pressed the government to allow a longer runway to accommodate jumbo jets, after dropping plans for a 8,202-foot runway when farmers and other residents refused to give up land needed for the project.

The airport authority filed suit in 2002 to purchase the tract from the landowners over protests from opponents who complained about noise and the government's appropriation of land without permission.

A court last year ordered the owners of two other lots to sell their property to the airport authority, allowing the company to begin the long-delayed extension to its second runway.

The project should be completed by 2010 and will cost 33 billion yen ($284 million)."

waiting decades for taking a step in national interest ?
Sounds so much like India .:lol:

but still the japs and the west did it , my country it seems will take its own sweet time .:lazy:
 
.
waiting decades for taking a step in national interest ?
Sounds so much like India .:lol:

but still the japs and the west did it , my country it seems will take its own sweet time .:lazy:

I have read many articles and economists cannot agree on the keys to industrialization. Different economists point to different factors. However, I think all of us can agree that a government has to be decisive. If a project is in the national interest then it should be completed within a reasonable amount of time.

Also, based on an objective measure, there is relatively little corruption in China on massive infrastructure projects. Chinese infrastructure projects are affordable, good quality, and built on-time and on-budget.

Moscow traffic: jam today and more jams tomorrow | openDemocracy
"Oct 14, 2009 ... So the price of building roads in Moscow is at least 10 times higher than elsewhere in the world". Some transport experts and ecologists ..."
 
. .
Per mile of subway, it costs 24 times more in New York (e.g. "$2.4 billion per mile") than in Guangzhou (e.g. "$100 million per mile").

Building A Subway Is 96 Percent Cheaper In China INFRASTRUCTURIST

"Building A Subway Is 96 Percent Cheaper In China
Posted on Friday March 27, 2009 by Jebediah Reed

To give some sense of the pace of public works construction in China, the city of Guangzhou is planning to open 83 miles of new subway lines by the end of next year. Meanwhile, New York–a city of about the same size–has been playing around with the 1.7-mile Second Avenue line for decades now. China also builds subways rather cheaply–$100 million per mile versus $2.4 billion per mile in the Big Apple.

Not surprisingly, projects there are more aggressive in all respects: there are 60 tunnel boring machines operating in Guangzhou, while only one is slated for the Second Avenue project; workers put in five 12-hour shifts a week (and if they don’t like it, they can go pound glacial till); and seizing property is a breeze.

An article in the Business section of today’s NY Times takes a smart look at the forces at play as China goes on a transit infrastructure spending spree while it simultaneously becomes evermore sprawling and car-centric.

Here’s one interesting passage, though the story is worth reading in its entirety:

“Nobody is building like they are,” said Shomik Mehndiratta, a World Bank specialist in urban transport. “The center of construction is really China.”

Western mass transit experts applaud China for investing billions in systems that will put less stress on the environment and on cities. But they warn that other Chinese policies, like allowing real estate developers to build sprawling new suburbs, undermine the benefits of the mass transit boom.

“They wind up better than if they did nothing, but it costs them a fortune,” said Lee Schipper, a specialist at Stanford in urban transport.

Mr. Chan defended Guangzhou’s combination of cars and subways, saying that the city built a subway line to a new Toyota assembly plant to help employees and suppliers reach it.

Subways have been most competitive in cities like New York that have high prices for parking, and tolls for bridges and tunnels, discouraging car use. Few Chinese cities have been willing to follow suit, other than Shanghai, which charges a fee of several thousand dollars for each license plate.

The cost and physical limitations of subways have discouraged most cities from building new ones. For instance, only Tokyo has a subway system that carries more people than its buses. The buses are cheaper and able to serve far more streets but move more slowly, pollute more and contribute to traffic congestion.

China has reason to worry. It surpassed the United States in total vehicle sales for the first time in January, although the United States remained slightly ahead in car sales. But in February, China overtook the United States in both, in part because the global downturn has hurt auto sales much more in the United States than in China.

There are many countervailing forces at work. China has passed its own stimulus package and the government is eager to put people to work, create economic activity, and build modern infrastructure. The Guangzhou project is part of major national transit buildout. But the nation’s cities are also sprawling beasts, and in that sense, more suited to cars than trains. Not shockingly, many Chinese prefer the former.
 
Last edited:
. . .
No comments on the change in shanghai ?

People that have been to China say that one year in China is equivalent to three or five years in the outside world. Looking at Shanghai's transformation in a mere 20 years, I'm inclined to believe them.

Shanghai Skyline: Before and After

Shanghai Skyline: Before and After
shangaibeforeandafter.jpg

Back in 1990—top—Shanghai looked like a lovely green city. Only twenty years later—bottom—you can film the second part of Blade Runner in it.

Shanghai has always been an important place. Located on the Yangtze river's mouth, this Chinese city was already a world commerce hub back in the 30s. But it wasn't until Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms that the city exploded. Only fifteen years later, it became the largest cargo port in the world. Twenty years later, it's the megalopolis you are seeing in this photo.
 
. .
The following video slideshow illustrates the heavily-mechanized nature of China's infrastructure construction.

For those of you that are interested in a pictorial overview of the machines involved in the different phases for the construction of the Guangzhou-Wuhan HSR line, the following video is among the best. Also, it is accompanied by a nice soundtrack.

YouTube - Building the highspeed railway // Slide show
 
.
not sure about canada but in US, the govt. does not own all the land.

on topic- I think the chinese govt. has worked hard to gain trust of the general populace. and when they do take over land, the number of people opposing are quite minute. As an outsider, it seems they have a pretty good track record of developing infra for public, so the public also puts faith in them

In China, the gov owns all the land, so every has to pay and lease the land.

In US, you are the "owner" of the land, but
1) you have pay tax for it (does "owner" need to pay tax for something they really really own?)

2) you can not sell it to another countries' citizenes (so the "owners" has no right to sell it as their wish?)

3) you can not declare independence on the land you "own"

so, is that really ownership or just the "rights of use"?
 
.
on topic.

1) money. China's gov controls all the state-owned companies, so money is never a problem.

2) land.

3) willingness and vision. the chinese gov has to spend the money anyway, so they choose to invest in infrastructure to boost the economic.

4) decission making process. no first read, second read in the parliament to exchange private interest from individual to individual.

5) cluture or presure. sacrificing private interest for the sake of general public's.
 
.
they built their country, the government and the people alike

if your looking to pick a secret or trick then there is none, pakistanis/indians are different kind of people than chineese..we look for and give preference to individual interest over national well-being, they dont they are hardworking people who dont like to bum around and gossip all day like we (pakistanis/indians) do
 
.
they built their country, the government and the people alike

if your looking to pick a secret or trick then there is none, pakistanis/indians are different kind of people than chineese..we look for and give preference to individual interest over national well-being, they dont they are hardworking people who dont like to bum around and gossip all day like we (pakistanis/indians) do

That is very nice of you to say but there are still plenty of selfish people in China. It is just that society because of a deep Confucian tradition tend to disapprove strongly of that kind of behaviours.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom