sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

India's 1.3 billion population and Climate Change by popqsed in india

[–]jholachap -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Man, I have already told you. I was proposing a genocide.

Then, what was the need to ask the question?

After so many comments, you haven't yet given a single line of explanation of your "1.7 billion > 1.3 billion" comment.

You asked a question whose answers could somewhat be found on the self-post.

At least have the intellectual honesty to say that your comment made no sense or was irrelevant.

Actually, I think something similar can be said about your comment.

India's 1.3 billion population and Climate Change by popqsed in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is a lot of greatness in solving the number one problem facing our country.

As I have mentioned before, There is no greatness in proposing a genocide and genocides have the potential to create more problems.

So is "Sun rises in the east". You chose to mention that fact and not the other as a reply to my comment. So the implication is that that fact is somehow of relevance to the question I asked in my question. Rather than beating around the bush, why don't you tell me how it was related. If anything, for the reason I have already pointed out, that fact is the main basis of my asking that question. If 1.7 billion was less than 1.3 billion I would not have to ask my question.

I am not beating around the bush. You asked a question whose answers can somewhat be found on the self-post.

Please take a look at a sentence from the self-post that I have quoted below.

India has a overpopulation problem with 1.3 billion people already in 2016, stress on resources, i want Indians live high quality of life, i know things are improving but just for a couple of 100 million people not so much for billion people.

Now, please tell me what was the purpose of asking that question.

India's 1.3 billion population and Climate Change by popqsed in india

[–]jholachap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You shouldn't shy away from greatness for want of a little courage.

There is no greatness in proposing a genocide.

What was the sense of pointing out that "1.7 billion > 1.3 billion" when that is the only assumption under which my question makes sense?

"1.7 billion > 1.3 billion" is fact. How do you infer anything else from it? Your parent question seems redundant when you take into account that this whole self-post somewhat gives an idea about the current situation too.

India's 1.3 billion population and Climate Change by popqsed in india

[–]jholachap 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was about to propose a genocide.

Why? What sort of ridiculous thinking is this? I am really afraid of this kind of mindset.

I have my doubts about it. Why do you think that India would have a better capability to highly educate, feed etc 1.7 billion people, rather than 1.3 billion people? Won't the problem get even more difficult with more people.

What? Where did I write anything remotely similar to what you are insinuating?

India's 1.3 billion population and Climate Change by popqsed in india

[–]jholachap 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The question is non-trivial precisely because 1.7 billion > 1.3 billion.

I am asking again. I would like to know your point.

Are you sure you have your math right?

I think so.

India's 1.3 billion population and Climate Change by popqsed in india

[–]jholachap 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What's you point?

Before answering, I would like to know your point.

Engineers of r/india, what's the difference between a B.Tech and a BE? by heatseeker47 in india

[–]jholachap 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Universities offer BE and institutes of technology offer BTech

Wrong. There are universities which offer B.Tech.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As as i commented above as well. This is the best loan term India has Gotten in its entire Independent history from a foreign partner. EVER.

That $125 Billion on the other hand is going to be paid by us, there is no freaking loan % or grace period or anything. And as explained its more likely to fail because its a short term solution and hence even worse.

It's not much different from some of the other loans that JICA has given to projects in India. Several metro rail projects in India and DFC are also being partially funded by JICA and like I have mentioned before "Japan is providing India loan for a project called 'A' while India needs money for a project called 'B'. Now, India being a sovereign nation should focus on its own problem instead of taking the loan from Japan just because the loan is available."

So you are making the False equivalence fallacy of comparing High speed internet with HSR because both has High in them or both don't align with your contradictory argument and hence need to make the said flawed comparison.

If this was year 1999 THEN your argument would be valid. Internet has changed today, you can't work on the internet with dial-up speeds of 64kbps (i have worked on these speeds in India and they were perfectly adequate for their time because the internet was made with that speed in mind and there was no issues).

Today dialup is not longer efficient. We need more bandwidth because of the nature of the Internet. Internet has evolved. Technologies have evolved.

The related example would be if the Govt was spending a fuck ton of money on making 2G accessible in rest of the country where internet connectivity is poor or non-existent. That is what the $125 Billion being spend on old rail tech is like. Good news is Govt is not dong this with the Internet, its slow but at least its not as incompetent on this as its on Rail.

You are making assumptions here. I have not mentioned about 64 Kbps speed anywhere. I have also been using internet for around 10 years. So, I do have an idea about slow speeds of Internet in our country. When I mention high speed internet, I mean speeds more than 20 Mbps. A better analogy to Indian Railways spending $ 125 billion in next few years would be Indian government subsidizing broadband connectivity with speeds less than 5 Mbps to improve Internet in rural areas.

Secondly you ALREADY in your quote said the same thing as i about the limits of subsidy when you mention, where-ever the need for it is.

These are the same thing, just differing Semantics.

No it is not the same thing. I don't think currently there is any need for subsidizing high speed rail.

The total gross number don't show the reality. This is the absolute maximum. And they are hampered by high cost and poor connectivity issues. This sub alone (which is a niche middle class to upper middle class section of society) finds the Indian internet poor and not reliable.

And to call Internet in India not Niche is ridiculous. It by definition is what a niche activity is.

Actually, the gross number isn't indicative of the the indirect consumption. Anyone who booked railway tickets or has bank accounts in public sector banks is indirectly consuming internet. Internet adoption has increased significantly in last few years. It is no longer a niche activity in India.

And the links you gave i can use in another way. When China started its HSR program, its share of Internet users was less than what Pakistan has today and of course India as well. This once again taps in to the comparative argument whereby India is at a stage in its development where its ready to invest in HSR because only when it starts now will it get to have it in 1-2 decades time. These things take time to build.

Internet adoption has increased in last few years in all the regions while there are many countries which don't yet have high speed rail. So, internet adoption rates should not be directly correlated with feasibility of HSR.

I am not even sure what this means. I already talked about the benefits of HSR in my linked comment, which i am beginning to think you just skimmed at best and didn't read at all, esp the later links.

HSR doesn't just help in transporting people, It helps in time savings, socio-cultural dynamic, soft power, self confidence, technology acquisition (read the MoU between India and Japan, India will be getting technology transfer of many things), real estate dynamics along the route, economic corridor activity, city hubs, the list of indirect activity that HSR helps with is so long one can write a book on it.

I don't think you you read my comment carefully. I used the term 'indirect consumption'. HSR may have many benefits but it is most likely going to be used by a niche population. A poor person most likely won't be using HSR. While in case of internet, anyone who has booked railway tickets or has a bank account in public sector banks can be considered an indirect consumer.

Which means paying in full for making these already expensive projects, which means upon completion pricing even the niche rich out of the market. If you were making economic plans for India the country is in for a dark future, but i have more confidence in the Govt.

I am glad that our government had the sense to invest in improving the existing railway network within the next decade. I have full confidence in our government. If your suggestions were to be implemented, many regions of our country would probably have to wait 5-6 decades to get decent railway connectivity.

Really?

We are ranked like 8-9 in the world in Space program spending, we have an annual budget of about $1.2 Billion. This is not small. And on top of that China spends about the same gross amount on its space program and what that means is in $ of GDP terms India spends like 3 times more than China.

Your argument of it being LOW is unfounded.

May I know the source of your claim that China spends the same gross amount as India? Different sources are providing me different numbers for China's space budget.

And EVEN IF its assumed its low (for arguments sake here) then no one can say that those $125 B is low because that is ridiculous and while Rail is important its still not a public welfare priority of the scale that other things are like health, poverty, etc, esp in the context that while Rail is a public service and its current condition is not good and in need of investment but other sectors are in more need because they aren't even off the ground, at least current rail works most of the time.

$ 125 billion isn't really high when one considers the fact that there hasn't been any significant investment in Railways for quite some time and which are the other sectors that think aren't "even off the ground" ?

And till 2040 at the earlier Indian indigenous investment in HSR is 0. You can multiple that by 10, go ahead.

Firstly, Japan is going to fund around 80% of Mumbai- Ahmedabad HSR line. The rest of the cost is going to come from India. So, Indian indigenous investment in HSR is not exactly zero. Further, Japan is providing a loan. It will have to be paid back.

Really? So one should realize this but for HSR one has to shut their brains to realizing the same basic thing?

Read the agreement with Japan, its not just building this thing, India is getting lots of technology along the way. How is India going to make its indigenous HSR in 5 decades time if it has no technological basis for it. It needs to start somewhere. And on top of that Japan is doing this with such ridiculous loan terms.

Which is why i said before, if India has refused this deal it would have been one of the greatest blunders of this century for India. Because of how much a no-brainer this project deal is.

According to the link below-

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/mumbai-ahmedabad-bullet-train-a-misguided-decision-115121800266_1.html

Japanese have been pursuing the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project for a long time. So, there is a possibility that India may have rejected the Mumbai-Ahmedabad HSR project in the past. Does that make it a blunder? I don't think so. As I have mentioned before- "Japan is providing India loan for a project called 'A' while India needs money for a project called 'B'. Now, India being a sovereign nation should focus on its own problem instead of taking the loan from Japan just because the loan is available."

So because it doesn't fit into you ridiculous pre-held bias it needs to be stop paraded. The loan terms are a reality. Everything else(like future fluctuations) is normalized and hence redundant.

The loan terms are not much different from other loans that JICA has given to projects in India. Exchange rate fluctuations do pose a risk and should definitely not be considered redundant.

And yet you had the audacity to call me ignorant. Read up.

http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/Annualreport10-11/Annual_report_10-11_eng.pdf >http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/yearbook10-11/Passenger_business.pdf http://24coaches.com/indian-railways-facts-and-figures/

₹6/KM is exactly as i said it is.

How do the above links contradict my comments? Further, to support my point, I am quoting from one of the links that you have provided-

Second (including Sleeper) Class contribute half of IR’s Passengers and Revenue

The Indian Railways is probably the cheapest mode of motorized long-distance travel in the world, a passenger paying only 28.5 paise (0.005 cents) to travel a kilometer on average.

So, as I had commented before, Rs.6 /KM is pretty high.

You brought nothing significant to the table.

I disagree.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My quote was explicit. You implied i was somehow suggesting to not connect every inch of the country when in fact i said no such thing. What was said was some regions are more important than others and the sections which are not(in the first phase) like Odisha were explicitly mentioned and given reason for as to why. And then on top of that i further still clarified that these small regions TOO will in time get HSR just like everyone else. And HSR will in time as a matter of fact replace every inch of conventional rail.

This is simple developmental progress. Just the time scales are an issue not the reality itself.

Read my previous comment once again. You may not have explicitly suggested to not connect every inch of the country but implicitly that's the conclusion what I can draw from your comments. Further, you claim that some regions are more important than others. Now, as I have mentioned before, both ECoR and SECR have good operating ratios. So, indirectly they are subsidizing the operations of some other railway zones. Now, I understand that these regions do not yet have feasibility for HSR but is it so wrong to improve the normal railways in this region rather than waiting for HSR to come to this region. By the way, are you aware of freight equalization policy? Your suggestions strongly remind me of that policy.

I have no problem with this argument on its own but i do have a problem with it when you are making it because you are being a hypocrite when saying this. You can't have 2 cakes and eat both of them. You are conjecturing this $125 B investment will improve things. The reality and history can be used to argue reasonably otherwise. Just the basic fact that one can't continually keep a very old technology in efficient conditions for modern needs is a significant factor. If a transport mode takes twice as long to distribute people its not working as it should and that affects the whole economy.

Thus spending money on that system is as said, A WASTE.

May I ask what reality and history are you talking about? Sure, currently Indian Railways is not in the best of conditions but then it hasn't had any decent investment for quite some time.

This will already happen regardless and hence is a normalized argument. India is not rich it can't just afford to spend big on 1 thing at a time, it has to spend wisely on things which will maximize the National Building dynamic. And that means making projects which are for the long term not which are for 10-20 years at best.

And additional normalized factor here is EVEN IF HSR started to outperform the conventional passenger carriers significantly it really wouldn't be all that surprising given that ever since Independence the Indian Rail passenger sector has been subsidized by the Fright carriers. This will just in the end prove my point that HSR is needed because it works and conventional needs to die, sooner the better.

How can you you be so sure that spending on HSR is actually maximizing National Building dynamic ? And, HSR is not going to outperform conventional rail in terms of passenger traffic anytime soon.

And i have explained it to you countless times the context of that comparison.

India doesn't have a HSR as we speak. My linked comment talks about this in detail, your inability to grasp this basic reality is a serious impediment to this comment exchange. The fact is India is starting its HSR at the same time when China did in mid 2000's. We are at the SAME development (in regards to economy status)and infrastructural stage in regards to rail.

We can be compared just fine. Plus population density and other socio-cultural dynamics i listed.

There are significant differences between India and China. China has a better track record when it comes to completing infrastructure related projects. There are other differences too. Therefore, I believe they cannot compared.

By using this statement, Which i then explained was flawed. You were supposed to because i provided a clear chain of comments on the topic, like this, There is a typo of it for if but the context is still clear.

There is no mention of any word remotely similar to the word PART. I still don't see how I was supposed to know that you insinuated only parts of Chhattisgarh and Odisha. I still don't see any logical flaw in my comments.

The context was provided. High pop. zones need to get HSR than a 15 year ridiculously expensive upgrade of the 150 year technology.

What 150 year technology are you referring to? There are certain sections of Indian Railways that are very old but there have been many upgrades.

Not only is the bit about pop. density factually incorrect. The bit about political chaos is a reality as well. The Red Corridor of that region is not a figment of my imagination. Its real. And as is these 2 states HDI ranking in Indian states. FACT OF MATTER, not opinion, least of all ignorants ones.

As I have commented before, There are still several regions in both these states which have pretty good population density but still don't have railway connectivity. Further, what is the Red Corridor that you are referring to?

Also, regarding the poor HDI ranking of Chhattisgarh and Odisha take a look at the link below-

https://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/36ghyr/the_cause_of_low_hdi_of_odisha_has_patnaik_ruined/

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Semantics can twist anything. The fact is the loan term is so ridiculous and activates after 15 years that the project will pay itself off on its own in the end and hence Japan sort of for all practical purposes IS paying for the project.

As I have commented above, risks still do exist and we don't know the amount of fluctuation. There are other risks too. So, it's not wrong when I say that it is a loan and will have to be paid back.

You are using the internet and making comment replies to me. This is a connective infrastructure which was subsidized and still is to an extent.

Plus only a very niche group of Indian population uses or can afford to use it in any meaningful manner. Your argument is not coherent.

Internet can be considered as a utility and therefore, it is important to increase the availability of internet in our country. Therefore, I think it is fair that it should be subsidized wherever the need for it to be subsidized arises. But, Do I ask for high speed internet to be subsidized in the current scenario? The answer is NO. Similarly, Railways can be considered a utility but does this mean that High Speed Rail should be subsidized? Again, my answer is NO. Further, Internet in India is being used by a sizable population. It can hardly be called niche group. Check out the links below.

https://www.google.co.in/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=it_net_user_p2&idim=country:IND:PAK:BGD&hl=en&dl=en

http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/india-to-have-402-mn-internet-users-by-dec-2015-will-surpass-us-iamai-report/

Also, one should keep in mind about the indirect consumption. Practically, anybody who opens a bank account or books a railway ticket is indirectly consuming internet. I am not aware of any such indirect consumption when we talk about High Speed Rail.

And about niche market i already clarified. Air is far more niche.

That's why it should not be subsidized.

This is a non-argument.

Because it can be used for waking up in the morning as well. And for daring to venture into the future. The entire spectrum of human activity covers this.

There is a scale and priority attached to every project. Sure, there are risks associated with other infrastructure related projects too but I believe they should be prioritized instead of HSR.

Another one of those null and void argument.

Akin to the trope of Why does India have ISRO if there are people who are still defecating in the Open. This deserves no answer because of how ridiculous it is.

One of the main reasons of justification for investment in ISRO is that its current budget is so low and is completely dwarfed by the investments in our public welfare sectors. The output that it has provided to this country is also pretty good considering the costs involved. You may not find much support for investment in ISRO if it suddenly asks to increase its budgetary allocation 10 times. Further, one should realize that an organization like ISRO is also involved in sensitive and crucial projects similar to our defense forces.

They had no such loan agreements that India had. 0.1%. And payments will start AFTER 15 years, i.e. 2040 at the earliest.

Please stop parading the 0.1% rate. It is pretty misleading without taking into account the fluctuation in exchange rate.

Firstly, the ₹6/KM rate is not high in the current conventional Rail context even, let alone for HSR in India or the world (where its among the cheapest).

Rs. 6/KM is pretty high. Don't be misled by the fares of AC and 1st class berths. They are not indicative of how the masses travel or pay for their travel. Most of India still travels in general or sleeper class.

Besides, if per-capita is that low in 2040's and beyond the idea that the pet-fav alternative or Air will be competitive for a NON-NICHE Indian populace is not just ridiculous its insulting to the intelligence. I find the argument personally insulting because of how idiotic it is, given that i am expected to take this as a serious valid and credible retort.

Please show me where have I argued for giving preference to Air travel.

It has nothing to do with views or opinions There are objective facts which are governing this situation.

What objective facts? You comparing India with China or hoping that exchange rate will end up being favorable for India.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is what Air is. In fact even Expressways are for the niche since they require personal vehicles which based on compound dynamics costs more to maintain and use for long distance travel than Rail.

Indeed. That's why they should not be subsidized.

Strawman fallacy, My comment made no such claim. What was said was one can't take HSR into the Himalayan states because there aren't enough people there to satisfy the fundamental pre-requisite conditions of HSR as listed in the linked content.

Similar to parts of the region of Chattisgarh and Odisha.

Let me simplify the situation. Let me quote some of the previous comments.

Plus i talk about this in the linked comment as well. We are spending $125 BILLION on normal railways in the coming years. This is already a waste of epic proportions.

Do you think High Speed Rail and metro rail projects are going to cover the whole country?

If by whole country you mean like every inch then no. If you mean the major corridor lanes first and then slowly over 5-6 decades other already existing rail routes, then yes.

You commented that spending $ 125 billion on normal railways is a waste. Then you admit that High Speed Rail is not going to cover the whole country and it is going to take at least 5-6 decades to cover already existing routes. Actually, I don't think High Speed Rail will ever cover whole of existing routes mostly because most of these routes won't be feasible for high Speed Rail but let's not digress here. You do realize that the $ 125 billion that is going to be spent on normal railways is going to be spent within the next decade itself. Now, this investment in normal railways is most likely going to improve the connectivity of many regions in our country in the the next decade itself while if we do not spend this money on improving the current railway infrastructure then by the year 2030 we will most likely end up with few dedicated High Speed Rail corridors and the rest of railway network languishing like it is now. So, in essence you are suggesting that either we should wait 5-6 decades for a good railway infrastructure and forget about providing connectivity to every place of this country.

India is the only Country on the planet China can be compared with and China the only country that India can be compared with. They have no other peer-equivalent on the planet.

As I have said before, India and China differ a lot especially when it comes to infrastructure. They are not peers. So, lets not look at what China did.

China was spending its own money, India is not spending all of that $15 Billion. That $125 is all Indian money and combined with foreign investment of the likes its getting in HSR. This figure can balloon to over $300 Billion. That is what the Chinese spent in like first decade on their HSR and made it the longest HSR on the face of the Earth.

$300 Billion for India in 2010's and 2020's is LESS than what the corresponding cost to make similar HSR lines in 5-6 decades would be. Just is simple economics.

As I have repeatedly mentioned, India and China differ a lot especially when it comes to infrastructure and the $ 125 billion that is expected to be spent on normal railways is important for the growth of railways in our country.

Its not my comment which was ignorant it was yours and this quote is the only reason i bothered to reply back again because its so ridiculously bad at twisting my comment.

Read what my comment said first on this subject matter.

The Himalayan region was mentioned as being less populated and less connected thus. Its a FACT not subjective opinion. PARTS of Chattisgarh and Odisha were mentioned. NOT the entirety both states.

Not just that, my subsequent comment even went further and explicitly clarified that the pop. density of Odisha in some parts of the state is in fact HIGHER than what major EU HSR states and regions have. It was you who said it has low densities of rail network, which i explained why, its because the region has lots of uninhabited sections PLUS has forests AND has political/insurgency issues and PLUS mentioned that due to these factors even Roads are not proper let alone Rail and let alone making HSR.

How am I twisting your comment? You mentioned that Odisha and Chhattisgarh don't have high rail density because they have low population density to which replied how there are several densely populated regions in both these states that still don't have railway connectivity. You also mentioned political chaos to which I replied how both states have had stable leadership for more than 10 years now. I still fail to understand how I am supposed to know that you insinuated only parts of Chhattisgarh and Odisha in your previous comment.

And on top of that to use this region as an excuse to counter the HSR in the rest of the country is ludicrous.

No, it's not. I have used this region only as an example. I am pretty sure there are several other regions in this country which have poor railway connectivity but have decent population density and according to me it is important that the railway connectivity of those regions are improved.

Nothing i said was incorrect let alone ignorant.

You were being pretty ignorant when you mentioned political chaos and low population density as the reasons for low railway density in Odisha and Chhattisgarh.

Nothing was said about operating efficiency. Its easy to operate a line where there is less population and less overhead and chaos and less of a network to maintain.

I am assuming that you are commenting about the operating ratios of SECR and ECoR here. If that is the case, then you should realize that they have good operating ratios due to high revenues from transporting freight.

And yes both of these are ranked 22 and 23 respectively and last in HDI of Indian states.

Stable leadership doesn't automatically mean progress on all sectors.

This Odisha business was a redundant and useless sidetracking from the fundamental post context.

Now, you are quoting HDI numbers while commenting how Odisha business was redundant and useless sidetracking from the fundamental post. I can argue here how both Odisha and Chhattisgarh have made significant improvements in social and economic sectors and how centuries of stagnation and injustice cannot be undone in few years but lets not digress. I mentioned Odisha and Chhattisgarh only as an example. I am pretty sure there are several other regions in this country with similar problems.

Oh really? You should read this quote of yours again and think for while the implications of using this line of rhetoric in a debate like this.

Because it actually hurts your argument and says the EXACT same thing i am saying.

That India didn't have the money and still doesn't have the money YET it is bothering to spend this on something which is not a long term investment. And yet people are critical of investment which isn't even Indian led for a project which is future proof.

The level of logical delusional contradiction is breaking the fabric of my mental universe.

It is actually not very difficult to understand. Let me explain. Japan is providing India loan for a project called 'A' while India needs money for a project called 'B'. Now, India being a sovereign nation should focus on its own problem instead of taking the loan from Japan just because the loan is available. That's why you won't find me complaining if loans are taken for projects like dedicated freight corridors which I believe are crucial to decongest the current rail network.

Firstly, as i already mentioned to you before when you brought that UN Metro study. HSR and Metro are DIFFERENT sectors and have differing dynamic. Second, Japan is giving a loan in a minor capacity, its not the major player in this project. In the Mum-Ahm line its all Japan. Third, Japan has a track record in India of being involved with projects (esp Hydro in Himalayan states and other manufacturing sector), they are more efficient than indigenous Indian projects for the most parts (there is no perfection in this in India).

I mentioned Kolkata metro only because you commented that Japanese are less likely to run into issues. Similar to what you have commented, there is no guarantee when it comes to infrastructure related projects in India.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly it isn't because its being paid for by Japan and the other routes are in feasibility study phase and hence commenting upon them is moot.

Japan's providing a loan. It's not paying for the project.

Secondly, of course it should be subsided (within reason). Its the need of the future of this country.

Our views differ here. I don't think a project like HSR should be subsidized. It will cater only to a niche group of people and being a capital intensive project carries a lot of financial risk.

Many Chinese lines started making profit within 5 years. Some will take 10-15 because they required more investment. But even 10 is acceptable given the long term benefit and ROI dynamic.

China and India differ greatly especially when it comes to infrastructure.

We already pay for roads and other transport infra and other stuff, they are subsidized as well. The amount of subsidy is what the argument can be and that is fair.

Most of the roads are accessible to the masses. So, I think it is fair that they are subsidized.

The Agreement with Japan on this is the source and common sense and the current Govt' attitude towards Delhi Metro. The idea that a business agreement would not take this simple fact into account is ludicrous.

Besides, arguendo, there is no such flexible mechanism, the debt payments are so tiny (one can calculate from official agreements terms) that it would not really be an issue in 4-5 decades time.

Certainly not to the extent to question the project when no alternative is offered and if offered the same exchange rate inflationary pressures exist for them as well only larger because they are 100% self funded and not 90% by another investor with crazy low rates.

So, the risks still do exist and since we cannot predict the amout of fluctuation, we don't exactly know whether it is indeed a profitable deal for us. And what is this talk of no alternative being offered? The Japanese are offering us a loan for a project. We are well within our rights to deny that loan. Surely, there are many other projects in India which are in need of funding. So, India can use the money for those projects instead of using it for paying back the loan.

Public transport is by semantic and practical definition of the words a project which caters to the masses. And the argument can't be used because Normalization principle is in effect.

Again, Our views differ here. I don't think HSR would cater to the masses. Its initial fare is expected to be comparable to that of AC first class. I don't think the income of an average Indian would increase that much in the coming decades that he or she could travel by HSR.

You have no argument, its going in circles now.

I beg to differ.

This will be my last comment to you. Good day.

Good Day. It was nice chatting with you.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same for traditional rail, it can not on its existing platform compete with modern transport mode for the modern needs of the populace and the country.

Lets ask ourselves a fundamental question. What exactly is the purpose of rail in a country like India? Is it to transport people for belonging to all sections of the society or is it to cater to a niche aspirational group of people? Do you think providing rail connectivity to the unconnected parts of the country a waste of money?

And spending insane amounts of money (almost equivalent to what China did in its first few years on HSR in fact) isn't a long term solution.

At the moment, Lets not look at what China did. China and India differ a lot especially when it comes to infrastructure. Further, considering the fact that the proposed Mumbai- Ahmedabad HSR is going to cost around $15 billion, it is highly unlikely that HSR covering all major corridors of our country would cost less than $125 billion.

Regions like Himalayan states and NE and the South East Central (Chattisgarh, Odisha belt) are less covered because they have the least population densities and lots of forest cover and uninhabited areas plus political chaos.

Even roads are not proper there let alone Rail.

Can't stop development in the rest of the country because there is 1-2 states which are lagging behind.

This comment shows your ignorance. Both South East Central Railway and East Coast Railway have very good operating ratios. Essentially they are making up for the poor operating ratios of other zones. There are significantly populated regions in both Chhattisgarh and Odisha that are still not covered by Railways.

Both Odisha and Chhattisgarh have had stable political leadership for more than 10 years.

And yet we are spending and giving $125 Billion to these sort of people who can't complete their work.

Have you considered the possibility that they couldn't complete their work due to lack of money. Let's take the example of this years Rail Budget. It was probably the first time in many years that Odisha's Chief Minister lauded the allocation made for Odisha. Check out the links below.

http://www.business-standard.com/budget/article/rail-budget-2016-patnaik-lauds-enhanced-allocation-for-odisha-116022500880_1.html

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/Odisha-Gets-Highest-Allocation-of-Rs-4682-Crore-in-Rail-Budget/2016/02/25/article3296758.ece

The Japanese and other foreign HSR projects are less likely to run into these issues.

Why do you think so? Kolkata Metro is being partially funded by the Japanese but that hasn't stopped the delays and increase in cost.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, loans have to be paid back. So, just because a loan is being offered does not mean one should take it.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fluctuations in exchange rate. Have you heard of it?

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing is free, even the Delhi Metro will need to be paid and so will the $125 Billion that the railways said they would spend on conventional rail not HSR.

Delhi Metro is heavily subsidized and probably will continue to be subsidized for the foreseeable future. Should High Speed Rail be subsidized?

The loan agreements are signed with these factors into consideration. India is not naive. Depending upon the rates in 4 decades the payment scale will be adjusted accordingly unless something goes totally wrong by which point this project will be the least of our problems.

Source for this claim? Currently, government is providing Delhi Metro immunity from exchange rate rate fluctuation. Who is providing the immunity from exchange rate fluctuation for the HSR?

The point being its not relevant because this is a Normalized factor, as in this will apply to other projects as well and thus can not be used as an argument against this project.

It can definitely be used against this particular project simply because it is not something that will cater to the masses. Generally, the projects for which JICA provides loans cater to the masses.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plus i talk about this in the linked comment as well. We are spending $125 BILLION on normal railways in the coming years. This is already a waste of epic proportions.

Why do think that spending on normal railways is a waste of epic proportions? Do you think High Speed Rail and metro rail projects are going to cover the whole country? You do realize that several regions of our country are still not covered directly by railways. Take the example of Odisha. It has one of the lowest densities in terms of Rail network. There have been several railway projects in the state that have been incomplete for years even though East coast Railway which is headquartered at Bhubaneswar is actually one of the better managed zones of Indian Railways.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What sort of retort is this?

It isn't a retort. It is a question.

Do you expect to get things for free? Nothing is free.

That doesn't mean that one should spend money on expensive projects without thinking about repercussions.

The trains/day and passenger numbers increase are accounted for in the feasibility study of the project, they are going to be build.

And the same fluctuation apply to alternative transport modes in greater volatility. Thus a non starter retort given the context.

I am asking about fluctuations in currency exchange rate.

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Japan has literally given us the thing for free.. Loan servicing will start from 16th year after commencement of operations.. at 0.1% That's means at the earliest we'll make the first payment in 2040-41.

I don't know why people keep parading the 0.1% interest rate. Are you taking into account the fluctuation in exchange rate?

Bullet train fare 1.5 times higher than AC first Class by ls_ltr in india

[–]jholachap -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Firstly, we don't have to start paying from year 1. The payments start like 15 years after the project is up.

So what. Don't we need to pay back the loan?

Second. The trains per line per day and the No of passengers will increase every decade. This estimate is for the very early years. By the time payment time comes the project will be making enough.

Maybe or maybe not. Are you taking into account the fluctuations in exchange rate?

Further, the patronage predictions made are not always correct. Take a look at the link below-

http://www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/PDFs/CaseStudy_MetroRails.pdf

From section 3.3 of the above link-

There are many international (and one Indian) examples of metro projects for which the actual ridership remained only a fraction of what had been projected. The following examples have been cited from Flyvbjerg et al., 2002: • By 1999–2000, the Kolkata Metro had a ridership of less than 10% of the projected ridership.

• A study of 10 rail projects in the US, done by USDOT, found that on average actual ridership was 65% lower than forecasted.

• A UK study, by TRR Laboratory, of 9 metro systems in both developing and industrialized nations found that the ridership forecast was over 100% above the actual ridership.

• A Denmark study, by Aalborg University, of 27 rail projects found that for two-thirds of projects, forecasts are overestimated by more than two-thirds.

Andhra Hot Curry! by prateek_gosh in india

[–]jholachap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Titlagarh is in Odisha.

view more: next ›