| ▲ | kuboble 3 hours ago |
| Being in Switzerland it looks to me like this is a really tough referendum. Both sides have very good arguments and from the side it looks like either way the Switzerland has to give up some asoects of its high quality of life. If the initiative succeeds, Switzerland will get a large hit from the cancelation of a lot of bilateral agreements with the EU. If the population exceeds 10M then the current rail and road infrastructure will not handle it well. I have already been on a train which refused to move due overload. And it would only depart if enough people have disembarked. The autobahn are already having hours long traffic jams at peak hours and with extra million people it will multiply. And it's almost impossible to significantly improve the throughput of rail and autobahn without extreme projects. It looks like a lose / lose situation is a sense and a people are going to decide which hit to take. |
|
| ▲ | contagiousflow 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Can you explain how adding frequency to the train network will not work to compensate higher ridership? |
| |
| ▲ | tempay 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not simple with the "clock-face scheduling" system which is used which times the trains to all meet at the big nodes (Zürich, Bern, Basel) so connections work. To achieve this trains are supposed to fit into 30/60/120 minute beats which synchronise the entire system. See [1,2] for how this works. Also many of the most important parts of the system are at capacity. Bigger trains can help but a lot of these gains have already been realised in the crowded areas. The current hope is digitalising signaling to allow density to be increased but that's not simple/cheap even if it's cheaper than working on the lines themselves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMbV1rIPhCg | | |
| ▲ | contagiousflow 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not saying this is wrong, that makes a lot of sense. But on the other hand why have I never heard of other, much more dense countries facing this problem? I just never hear of Japan, China, Germany, Taiwan, etc seeing overcrowded trains and raise their hands saying "there can't possibly be a solution!" | | |
| ▲ | tonfa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah there's tons of work ongoing. Lots of line close to the big hubs have ongoing construction to eventually switch to 15min takt. Improvements on various train station (new underground stations in Geneva and Luzern, extra platforms, etc.). https://company.sbb.ch/en/railway-development/future-rail/na... (for example, there's also lots of tram, etc. projects) | |
| ▲ | throw-the-towel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Germany's passenger rail is notoriously failing. China is big and empty compared to Switzerland so there's lots of room to build. Japan's population is stagnant, and so train use might be stagnant too. (No idea about Taiwan.) | | |
| ▲ | mahkeiro 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does it have to do with they way they have to manage way higher population density? Singapore is 2/3 Swiss population on 1/3 of the Canton of Vaud.. They are 18 Chinese cities with a population over 10 million. |
| |
| ▲ | tempay 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not impossible, but Switzerland's geography means tunneling is involved in adding capacity which makes it very expensive. Also the beautiful synchronisation of a country-wide integrated timetable where you can reliably get between any two places in the country with connections that always make sense is a point of national pride. Japan, Taiwan and China all added dedicated infrastructure which took a long time and cost a fortune (vs the shared tracks currently used for intercity/regional/European freight). Tokyo accepts famously absurd levels of overcrowding during peak hours. Deutsche Bahn in Germany is widely thought of a joke due to chronic underinvestment meaning on-time trains are surprising. That said, these technical concerns have nothing to do with the 10 million proposal. It's worth asking why a camp that spent decades opposing sustainability legislation has suddenly discovered the word now that it can be pointed at immigration. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hvb2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can't add more trains if the schedule is full to the brink. You would need to add train tracks, and that requires big projects | | |
| ▲ | throw-the-towel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And it is in fact so full that traibs crossing over from Germany sometimes get denied entry into the Swiss networks because there's no room to fit them in the schedule. | | |
| ▲ | spockz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | AFAICT they only get denied if they are not on time. | | |
| ▲ | throw-the-towel 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well that was my point. They come late, and there's nowhere to stick them in the schedule because it's already full. |
| |
| ▲ | sixhobbits 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | uh they get denied entry if they are late because german trains often are and it wreaks havoc on swiss timetabling where trains still generally depart to the minute and many commuters plan their day around making connections with a 2 minute change time. if the ICE from basel to zurich is late then switzerland runs their own replacement in its spot and denies entry to the german train to avoid knockon delays. yes the schedule is full but its not just no space for more trains, more no space for unpredictable trains | | |
| ▲ | t0mas88 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Netherlands should do this as well, maybe DB will then at some point figure out how to run a train on time. The ICEs from Germany are more often late than on time, which then causes delays for other trains using the same tracks. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kaufmae 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Frequency is basically 15 minutes almost all over the country already | | |
| ▲ | Schiendelman 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's almost laughably infrequent - you can use single level trains with more doors to triple that without even going to automation. | | |
| ▲ | throw-the-towel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Has any railway network managed to get less than 15 minute headways? Metros don't count, they're isolated and often enclosed. | | |
| ▲ | t0mas88 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Jup, quite common in the Netherlands. There are 10 minute trains from Utrecht to Amsterdam. And form Rotterdam and Den Haag to Schiphol. And from Utrecht to Den Bosch and Eindhoven. Most of these are double decker trains and long platforms so they move a lot of people at once. | |
| ▲ | yerich 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The highest frequency city pairs I can think of, at peak periods, looking at available tickets this week: Shanghai Hongqiao to Hangzhou East is about 10 high speed trains per hour, all trains using the same line. Tokyo to Shin-Osaka is also about 10 high speed trains per hour. Taipei to Taichung is 8-9 trains per hour, high speed + conventional. Shanghai to Suzhou is similar. Rome to Florence is 6-7 trains per hour. Hong Kong West Kowloon to Shenzhen North is 6 high speed trains per hour. Beijing South to Tianjin is 5-6 high speed trains per hour. | |
| ▲ | trnglina 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most of Tokyo's mass transit network is absolutely neither isolated nor enclosed, and operates with vastly higher frequencies. Here's is the timetable for a suburban station on a commuter lines: https://train-cloud.navitime.biz/en/odakyu/railroads/timetab... On a weekday at peak hours, there are up to 20+ trains an hour, with commuter trains continuing directly into Metro systems, and directly onto different commuter lines on the other end. | |
| ▲ | spockz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At some point we had 10m intercity intervals between Rotterdam/utrecht and Utrecht/Amsterdam in NL. | | |
| ▲ | tonfa 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Seems like it's 4 per hour on Rotterdam/Utrecht, seems similar to Geneva/Lausanne with 6 per hour. In any case, I think commuters are fine with every 15 min, as long as there's enough seats. (for long distance like trains, my feeling is that frequency below 15min doesn't have a lot of impact, unlike shorter distance public transport like tram/bus/subway) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Asmod4n 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Capping a population is a short term solution creating huge issues for the following generations. Examples: lots of places this happened. |
| |
| ▲ | missedthecue 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree. Enacting the deliberate policy of enforcing stasis sounds very appealing if one is incapable of conceptualizing second and third order consequences. | | |
| ▲ | ausbah 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | that seems to be exceedingly common with boomers. shotgunning lord knows how much for the sake of keeping their current net worth up |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Stevvo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ETCS level 2 can increase rail capacity by orders of magnitude without laying any new track. You can have multiple trains following each other separated by stopping distance instead of having to separate trains between trackside signals. |
| |
| ▲ | d3m0t3p 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think so, faster trains are overtaking slower trains. There is simply not enough space between the station to overtake without having an acceleration that would damage the trains or the tracks. For example in western switzerland the maximal train speed for the fastest trains are ~130 Km/h while the same train can go up to 200 in some swiss-german part, only due to more congestion on the western part.
Trains cannot be bigger, some of them are already too big for the smaller train station and in case of rerouting / unexpected stop this causes issue. You cannot make them higher too. You could get ride of the smaller train , only allowing big city to survive
or decrease the commodity traffic
or increase the rail network
or increase the train station (more tracks allowing to overtake there, and have bigger trains)
There is no easy solution otherwise it would have been done. | |
| ▲ | panick21_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not really, the reality is that in some places Switzerland doesn't use ETCS 2 because it limits our system because ours is better. I think you mean ETCS Level 3. But that's just one of many investments that could be made. |
|
|
| ▲ | easyThrowaway 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are they counting “frontalieri” towards that cap? No? Funny how that works, isn’t? |
|
| ▲ | panick21_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > If the population exceeds 10M then the current rail and road infrastructure will not handle it well. Actually it will do just fine. Maybe if the very party who is proposing this wouldn't have spent 20 years preventing infrastructure improvements it would handle it even better. Maybe if this very same party wouldn't continue to fight sensible transportation choices at every turn. Maybe if this party wouldn't spend endless time and energy trying to put as much money as possible in unpopular and irrational highway expansion projects. There are lots of easy upgrades we can do to our transportation infrastructure. For example, Zimmerbergtunnel 2. This was known to be needed since the early 90s, and was planned. But was not done and is now in planning. We did it in 2 stages, making it much, much more expensive. But in the same period we spend as much as we did on Zimmerbergtunnel 2 on highway expansions that have lesser returns. > And it's almost impossible to significantly improve the throughput of rail and autobahn without extreme projects. Well we should get moving on some extreme projects then, or maybe not have the party that proposing this constantly stand in the way of sensible polices. Anybody who seriously thinks about this will realize having new high speed line across the country would be great. But they would never let that happen. NEAT was an extreme project, and it will provide benefits for centuries. |
