Seeing the news surrounding this momentous gathering is a bit nostalgic in a small way.

In 1986, USS Reeves (CG-24) was tapped, along with 2 other smaller ships, to conduct an official visit to Qingdao. It was the first visit in 40 years, and now, it’s 40 years since that took place. I was the electrical officer on Reeves.

We were treated impeccably by the Chinese. The US ambassador was there. This was back in the day when everyone still wore the “Mao uniform,” with no rank or insignia, so you never really knew the status of the person you were talking to.

English speaking amongst the Chinese was abundant. They arranged many outings and tours for us; the only one I recall clearly was the Tsingtao beer plant tour (yes, free beer included). The other notable thing was no lights at intersections along the way. Concrete pedestals about 2′ high, someone in a Mao uniform directing traffic (buses and official vehicles).

It was a real blast.

34 years later I was on my way to Thailand, and the first stop out of SFO for a 3-hour refueling layover was Qingdao. We arrived at night, and seeing the huge city all lit up was quite a spectacle.

Hey, I was just watching a vid Elon posted to X about the largest train station (by far) in the world in China that they built in 38 months.

Yeah, that’s Chongqing East Railway Station (重庆东站) — now the world’s largest high-speed rail hub. Elon reposted a ~5.5-minute video about it yesterday (May 18, 2026), highlighting its insane scale and speed of construction.

Key facts on the station:

• Size: ~1.22 million m² (about 5–6x New York’s Grand Central Terminal, or roughly 170+ football fields). It has 8 floors, integrates high-speed rail, metro, buses, retail, offices, and even airport check-in services.
• Capacity: 15 platforms, 29 tracks; designed for up to 16,000 passengers/hour at peak.
• Location: Built into/on a mountainside in Chongqing’s Nan’an District (western China).
• Timeline: Completed and opened around June 2025 after just 38 months of construction. Peak workforce around 14,000–40,000, with heavy use of AI/robots for piling, assembly, etc., which reportedly tripled efficiency, cut labor costs in half, and slashed safety incidents.
• Scale details: Massive amounts of material (e.g., 2M+ m³ concrete, 366k tonnes steel), including a huge tree-like steel roof structure weighing ~16,500 tonnes that was lifted/slid into place. Cost around $7.8 billion.

It’s a prime example of China’s “station-city” integration approach and part of their massive high-speed rail network (now >50,000 km, ~2/3 of the world’s total).

The video Elon shared (from channels like NextGen Manufacturing) includes aerial/construction timelapses, interior shots, and bullet trains. Some viewers noted parts look AI-enhanced or stylized, but the station itself is real and operational.

Impressive engineering feat on difficult terrain in tough conditions (heat, mountains). It contrasts sharply with slower/more expensive projects elsewhere. What stood out most to you in the vid?

It’s mind-boggling, even considering America’s once great capacity for getting large projects done quickly. Anything comparable in US history?

Yes, America had an era of remarkable speed and ambition on massive projects, especially in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries. Nothing quite matches the Chongqing East station’s combination of sheer floor area (1.22 million m²), integration into complex terrain, and 38-month timeline with modern high-speed rail capacity. But several U.S. feats come close in terms of scale, speed relative to era/tech, and “impossible” engineering under tough conditions.

Empire State Building (1930–1931)

• Timeline: Construction started March 17, 1930; opened May 1, 1931 — just 13–15 months (410 days) total, often cited as 1 year and 45 days. Ahead of schedule.
• Scale: 102 stories, 1,250+ feet tall (world’s tallest for ~40 years). Used ~60,000 tons of steel, massive prefabrication, and an assembly-line approach (materials delivered just-in-time via rail/trucks; steel frame rose ~4.5 stories/week at peak).
• Context: Built during the Great Depression with up to 3,400 workers. Innovative management (design overlapped with construction) and efficiency made it a symbol of American can-do spirit.

This is probably the closest “wow” factor for pure speed on a huge vertical project.

Hoover Dam (1931–1936)

• Timeline: ~5 years (concrete placement in under 2 years), finished 2 years ahead of schedule and under budget.
• Scale: At the time, the world’s tallest dam (726 feet). Required diverting the Colorado River, excavating millions of cubic yards of rock, pouring 4.4+ million cubic yards of concrete (with innovative cooling pipes to prevent cracking), and building an entire supporting city. Peak workforce ~5,000 (total ~21,000).
• Context: Extreme desert heat, remote location, dangerous work. Still generates power for 1.3+ million people today.

A strong parallel to Chongqing’s mountainside build and use of innovation under pressure.

Transcontinental Railroad (1860s)

• Timeline: Main construction push post-Civil War; completed in ~6 years (1863–1869), ahead of some expectations.
• Scale: ~1,900 miles of track across mountains, deserts, and rivers. Linked the coasts, slashing cross-country travel from months to ~1 week.
• Context: Massive labor (Irish, Chinese immigrants, veterans), engineering challenges (tunnels, bridges), and federal incentives. Transformed the U.S. economy and westward expansion.

Other notables include the Erie Canal (completed 1825 in ~8 years, transformative for trade) and various New Deal-era bridges/dams built fast in the 1930s.

On train stations specifically

U.S. “grand” terminals like Grand Central (rebuilt ~1903–1913), Penn Station (original ~1910), or Los Angeles Union Station (1930s) were impressive Beaux-Arts/Mission Revival hubs but took longer (often 5–10+ years) and were smaller in functional scale than modern Chinese mega-stations. They focused more on architectural grandeur than raw throughput/integration. No single U.S. station matches Chongqing’s size/speed combo — America’s rail golden age emphasized network expansion over individual colossi.

What changed? Earlier U.S. projects benefited from fewer regulations, strong political will, wartime/Depression urgency, cheaper labor, and less litigation/NIMBYism. Modern ones often face environmental reviews, unions, funding delays, and higher safety/quality standards — leading to slower, costlier builds (e.g., California’s HSR struggles). China’s approach leverages centralized authority, 24/7 shifts, heavy prefab/AI, and vast labor pools.

These old feats still inspire awe and show what focused execution can achieve. The Chongqing vid highlights how that spirit lives on elsewhere. Which aspect surprised you most — the speed, the integration, or the tech they used?

Ha, Hoover Dam was the one in my head when I asked the question.
 
The deeper issue to me is more the speed than the scale. In the US, the speed could be achieved, but American culture now seems to require a myriad of activists and lawyers dead set against any sort of progress ever. Hell, the “environmental impact study” alone for that train station would take at least a decade.

Yeah, Hoover Dam is a perfect example of that pre-NEPA era “get it done” mindset. Construction ramped up in 1931 with virtually no modern environmental review process—diverting the Colorado River, blasting rock, pouring millions of cubic yards of concrete in extreme heat, all while building a temporary city for workers. It finished two years early despite the challenges. No endless lawsuits or impact statements; the priority was flood control, power, and jobs during the Depression.

The regulatory shift

You’re right that the deeper issue is speed, and post-1960s changes in U.S. institutions and culture play a big role. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969) formalized environmental impact statements (EIS) for major federal actions. Recent data shows median EIS completion (Notice of Intent to final EIS) at about 2.2–2.8 years as of 2024, down from earlier averages around 3–4.5 years, with reforms pushing for 2-year caps on EIS and 1-year on EAs.

That said, for complex infrastructure (especially linear projects like rail/transmission or anything touching sensitive lands), total timelines from concept to groundbreaking often stretch much longer due to:

• Multiple overlapping federal/state/local permits.
• Litigation (rare overall at ~0.22% of NEPA decisions, but it hits big projects and can add years when it does).
• Public comment periods, agency coordination issues, and funding/political delays.

For something like Chongqing East Station—mountainside, massive scale, high-speed rail integration—an equivalent U.S. EIS alone could easily eat years, plus lawsuits from environmental groups, NIMBY residents, or affected communities. Pre-NEPA projects like Hoover or the Empire State Building didn’t face that layer.

This isn’t just “activists and lawyers”—it’s a system that values extensive public input, ecological protection, property rights challenges, and risk aversion after past environmental disasters. It has upsides (better mitigation, fewer regrets like unchecked river damming) but clear downsides in speed and cost. China’s model skips much of that: centralized authority, eminent domain on steroids, state-directed labor/resources, and fewer veto points. They can mobilize tens of thousands of workers 24/7 with heavy prefab/AI and accept trade-offs in quality/safety/displacement that the U.S. wouldn’t.

Broader cultural/institutional factors

• Litigation culture: Easy access to courts lets small groups delay projects (sometimes strategically).
• Fragmented governance: Federalism means more layers than China’s top-down approach.
• Risk tolerance: Post-WWII/U.S. prosperity shifted priorities toward caution over rapid development.
• Data point: U.S. transportation projects with federal involvement often take 5–7+ years in permitting before dirt moves, vs. China’s ability to plan-build-open in 3–4 years for mega-stations.

Reforms are happening—recent laws and agency updates set deadlines, page limits (e.g., 150 pages for EIS), narrowed scope for indirect effects, and expedited options. Some projects (offshore wind, transmission) have moved faster under FAST-41 coordination.

The U.S. hasn’t lost all capacity (private sector/tech builds fast; military projects can too), but democratic accountability + lawsuits + higher safety/quality standards make the old breakneck pace rarer for civilian mega-projects. It’s a trade-off: slower but (ideally) more deliberate. Whether it’s the right balance is the real debate—plenty argue it now hinders progress on housing, energy, and transit where China surges ahead. What do you think would be the minimal viable reforms to recapture some of that Hoover-era velocity without big downsides?