China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21714383-and-theres-lot-more-come-it-waste-money-china-has-built-worlds-largest

by sohkamyung • 10 years ago

257 241 10 years ago

bainsfather2• 10 years ago

"Less than a decade ago China had yet to connect any of its cities by bullet train. Today, it has 20,000km (12,500 miles) of high-speed rail lines, more than the rest of the world combined. It is planning to lay another 15,000km by 2025"

The contrast to the UK, where we might someday build the HS2 line London-Birmingham-Manchester, is massive. I am left with a feeling of awe at China's development, and frustration at the UK's stagnancy.

ealexhudson• 10 years ago

China is huge, though, and the UK is not. HS2 is dragging in the UK because it's a massive amount of money to spend in order to shave 45m off a trip to Scotland. The cost/benefit ratio is totally different - and with the Hitachi training they're bringing in, the saving goes further down. HS2 is a large waste of money.

digi_owl• 10 years ago

Huge, and authoritarian. They move whole cities worth of people when it comes time to build a hydroelectric dam, by force if need be.

The west in comparison gets bogged down in NIMBYism and haggling over land value pr CM of track/road. Never mind multiple rounds in court if one of the would be contractors can find any reason to claim the government was biased...

crdoconnor9• 10 years ago

Rail is typically never profitable unless the increase in land value around stations is captured. In the UK they typically leave those spoils to private land owners.

Japanese rail companies manage this: they run the trains at cost - or even a loss - and make profits back from (for example), building malls around the stations and leasing space to retailers.

The UK could really use high speed rail around the London commuter belt. If land value increases are captured it would probably pay for itself, in fact.

davepav• 10 years ago

Smaller countries in Asia have also implemented HS railway really well. I visited Taiwan last year and was in awe at how good their rail network was.

robin_reala• 10 years ago

We’ve invited them to bid though: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/118bn-hs2-bidding-process...

pjc504• 10 years ago

HS2 is not so much about speed as capacity. It does not replace the existing lines, it adds to them. That's why it's been so controversial - it puts railway where there was none. It turns Coventry and Birmingham into London commuter suburbs.

new299• 10 years ago

Forget high speed rail. It would be great if the trains weren't 30+ years old.

On the lines I most often use the carriages don't have automatic doors. I'm constantly embarrassed when I have to show visitors how to open the window, stick their hand out and use the handle on the outside to open the door (which is how it's done).

flukus2• 10 years ago

At least they've still got windows. Around here you have to put up with aircon that doesn't work in summer and a heater that's turned up way to high in winter. I find the older ones with windows provided much better temperature control.

kriro• 10 years ago

On the plus side this is actually an example in the usability classic "The Design of Everyday Things". Iirc Norman concludes that he doesn't have a clue as to why they were designed that way and offers some hypotheses which he dismisses right away (book is at home so I can't check) :D

pjc504• 10 years ago

Is that the Intercity 125 trains? Modern ones have generally fixed this.

pyb3• 10 years ago

Yes, I've always thought it was completely ridiculous. What's the 'justification' for it ?

mseebach• 10 years ago

I am left with a feeling of awe at China's development, and frustration at the UK's stagnancy.

While the UK does feel particularly stagnated on several fronts, I'm not sure abandoning the rule of law, protection of private property, labour protections, at least an attempt at the appearance of corruption-free tenders, high safety standards and the principle that people who are affected should be consulted is worthy of much awe.

peteretep2• 10 years ago

I don't see why getting HS2 built quickly needs any of those abandoning, other than perhaps land seized through eminent domain?

bainsfather2• 10 years ago

That's a valid point. And there is always a tendency to see the good points in other countries and the bad points in your own.

In this case (and also in e.g. building new power stations, new housing, widening roads, expanding London's airports, etc) the contrast is so stark. For sure the UK needn't abandon rule of law in order to build infrastructure in a timely manner.

crdoconnor9• 10 years ago

I'm not sure abandoning the rule of law, protection of private property, labour protections

All 100% unnecessary in order to build a lot of high speed rail.

Except possibly the protection of private property (it would require eminent domain). But, since most British homeowners have been subject to one of the largest handouts in history (in the form of house price appreciation directed by the state), I think the a little leeway on that one is affordable

Plus, like the Chinese (who don't completely ignore property rights), there's nothing stopping us from building railways on stilts.

Cthulhu_• 10 years ago

That's exactly the reason; people own land, buildings are protected, etc. China has less of this problem (benefits of an oppressive or at least assertive regime that puts economic progress first).

I'd compare what China is doing with the high speed trains now with what the US did with the regular train tracks. Look at what it did to the US in terms of economy, and the cost for the native people and nature.

twelvechairs• 10 years ago

As someone who works in the planning and urban design field the real issues are private property and heritage. China doesnt care about either. The UK cares too much. The answer is of course somewhere in the middle. Lets not forget most of the UKs existing infrastructure (including railways, roads, canals) was built on private property and through heritage items too, just in a different environment where this was easier to do.

Where there is clear wider community benefit, IMO consultation should be relatively narrow ('we will build this but if small changes can provide major benefit please make sure we know about them and we should be held to account in planning for them') however compensation should be generous. Few heritage items should be sacrosanct however not many will be affected and losses in heritage should be compensated by greater heritage contributions elsewhere (eg money for conserving heritage items on the at risk register). It really shouldnt have to be so controversial if the right systems are in place. We have to plan for the future and this should not be questionable...

Rule of law, labour practices and corruption-free practices arent incompatible with these projects.

aminok4• 10 years ago

I'm not sure abandoning the rule of law, protection of private property, labour protections, at least an attempt at the appearance of corruption-free tenders, high safety standards and the principle that people who are affected should be consulted is worthy of much awe.

Two points:

1. The income tax that pays for the UK's lavish welfare system violates private property (and privacy) rights on a massive scale. It just doesn't seem that way to you because it's been normalized in the society you've lived your entire life in. Conversely, the type of property that was not made by man, and thus, should be under greater government purview: land, is treated as nearly absolutely private, with the state having very little power to expropriate it for the public good.

2. Laws prohibiting particular labour arrangements are not "labour protections". As Peter Schiff put it, "mandatory vacations, sick days, and bonuses do not expand worker's right, they restrict them. They do not raise compensation, but rather force workers to accept compensation based on government requirements rather than personal preference." It is only demagoguery and ideological group-think that makes people believe otherwise. The same applies to mandatory "high safety standards", which violate the right of consenting adults to engage in voluntary actions and interactions, and ultimately result in top-down cookie cutter standards created by a small body of bureaucrats replacing a wide assortment of personal standards, that would be based on the localized knowledge diffused throughout the economy.

michaelt• 10 years ago

Some of the UK's problems are not due to the rule of law, but the perverse incentives given to politicians.

In particular, the system often rewards politicians who delay making tough (or expensive) decisions.

For example, building a new power station using the latest green technology causes more protests and opposition than keeping a decrepit, polluting power station running for an extra five years. At which point, in all probability it'll be someone else's problem.

So often, a politician presented with a chance to either approve a power station, or call for more impact assessments/consultations/reviews, will be rewarded for choosing the latter.

sfifs• 10 years ago

first world problems.

China is lifting almost a billion people out of poverty with all these projects. Think back to the West in the early to mid 1900s for the right comparison context.

I only hope China's rise into modernity is not accompanied by mega wars of the type that happened with the Western nations rise.

hacker_9• 10 years ago

Developing anything outside London is often not a priority for the government.

lmm3• 10 years ago

HS2 goes to London so that's a dubious explanation.

schuke• 10 years ago

There's also, I guess, a diminishing return for infrastructure investments in a highly-developed country like the UK, especially when it's much smaller than China.

That said though, it's a shame Heathrow still can't get the extra runway it desperately needs...

Symbiote• 10 years ago

It's a shame Heathrow's terminal buildings have been rebuilt in the last 15 years, rather than shut down with an airport in a sensible place constructed to replace it.

The noise of flights landing over London for 17 hours a day, pretty much every 90-120 seconds, is miserable.

Markoff3• 10 years ago

it's easy to grow from rock bottom

djsumdog3• 10 years ago

I've only briefly been in the UK, but I really liked the rail system. It's far better than that of other countries I've lived in. I've gone London-Manchester and back and found it a delightful experience.

gred• 10 years ago

I am left with a feeling of awe at China's development, and frustration at the UK's stagnancy.

To be fair, the UK was overspending on railway long before it was cool :-)

From Edward Chancellor's "Devil Take the Hindmost" [1]:

In January 1845, sixteen new railway schemes were projected. By April, with rail receipts continuing to grow rapidly, over fifty new companies had been registered...
By June 1845, plans for over eight thousand miles of new railway -- four times the size of the existing railway system and nearly twenty times the length of England -- were under consideration by the Board of Trade. In the following month, new schemes appeared at the rate of over a dozen a week.
At the end of October [...] over twelve hundred railways were being projected at an estimated cost of over £560 million. The total amount of outstanding railway liabilities was nearly £600 million. This figure exceeded the national income, estimated at around £550 million, of which perhaps £20 million a year could be spent safely on the railways without starving the rest of the economy of capital.
In Britain, [...] the spirit of laissez-faire dictated that the development of the railways should be left entirely to private enterprise. The uncontrolled expansion of the railway system, in the hands of semi-criminal entrepreneurs, produced a haphazard network. For instance, by the 1850s there were three independent routes from Liverpool to Leeds and three alternative routes from London to Peterborough.
The results of the mania, however, were not entirely negative. With over 8,000 miles of track in operation by 1855, Britain possessed the highest density of railways in the world, seven times greater than that of France or Germany.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Take-Hindmost-Financial-Specula...

b6• 10 years ago

Is the article a bit strange? They say Liu Zhijun was "removed for corruption", which, of course, in China, does not mean anything. They mention the crash in 2011 but not that the government wrapped up rescue efforts the next day and buried the trains.

bluedino2• 10 years ago

Whenever I hear talk of bullet trains coming to the US, I hear people say things like "Americans could easily build better trains than the Chinese."

Then I remind people that they have 20,000km of track, 150 trains and how much operating experience? That's a huge head start.

kalleboo• 10 years ago

Even for US high speed rail, I don't think any of those trains will be designed by an American company.

From Wikipedia: In February 2015 nine companies formally expressed interest in producing trainsets for the system: Alstom, AnsaldoBreda (now known as Hitachi Rail Italy), Bombardier Transportation, CSR [China South Rail], Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki Rail Car, Siemens, Sun Group U.S.A. partnered with CNR Tangshan, and Talgo.[24]

All Canadian, European, or Asian.

bluedino2• 10 years ago

China was going to build the Los Angeles to Las Vegas but the deal fell apart.

djsumdog3• 10 years ago

Even though they might be foreign companies, they do tend to be built in the US. IIRC Alstom in California made all the cars for the new Florida high speed line that starts running this year.

It takes a while before you can start building rolling stock domestically. Melbourne just started making their class E trams a few years back, which they tout as being "made entirely in Victoria" and yet they've had the largest tram network in the work for decades.

jerf3• 10 years ago

Actually, that existing track is part of the problem, not the solution. A new high-speed train is much easier to justify economically when you're looking at (total benefit of high-speed rail) - (cost of high speed rail) than when you're looking at ((total benefit of high-speed rail) - (total benefit of current rail)) - ((cost of high-speed rail) + (cost of removing current rail if necessary)).

There's a name for this effect, but I can't remember it. Another example in the real world is the effectiveness of putting up cell towers in developing countries rather than running wires for landlines.

otoburb• 10 years ago

Perhaps you're referring to the term "leapfrogging", the topic of which Kevin Kelly offers a differing viewpoint from the mainstream acceptance despite explaining this in 2006[1].

[1] http://kk.org/thetechnium/the-myth-of-lea/

Rezo• 10 years ago

Saw this amazing photo of Chinese high-speed trains just the other day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-he...

Now that's some serious infrastructure investment!

idm• 10 years ago

Wow. I can hardly believe what I'm looking at. We're so used to seeing one "bullet train" at a time, and even that is held as a lofty aspiration. Some day, maybe, my country might have one too.

That Chinese train yard picture is so serious. Once upon a time, the Dow Jones industrial average was a composite metric designed to roughly characterize the rail industry, including steel production, machining and manufacture, real estate, and use. The health of that industry was found to be predictive of the health of the entire country, and although the DJIA shifted from rail, it is still predictive of nationwide economic health.

China, in my eyes, just proved how far ahead they are - and my jaw is on the floor. Those trains represent so much. It's not merely that they exist - and all of the economic activity inherent in making them exist - but now that they exist, they are an engine of productivity. All the people who can move now...

tuna-piano• 10 years ago

The picture (https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/Wire...)

was taken in Wuhan, China of more than 20 high speed trains.

How many people have even heard of Wuhan before? It has a population of over 10M.

wluu• 10 years ago

I've heard of Wuhan before, mostly because of the Chinese tennis player Li Na [1], who was born there. She did quite well at the Australian Open for several years (including winning it once) and became quite popular with the local crowd.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Na

sumedh• 10 years ago

That picture is so cool.

I keep reading reading in Indian newspapers where our politicians keep on saying we have to catch up to China but I just dont think its possible.

known• 10 years ago

Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio... fiasco

010001001010• 10 years ago

"High-speed rail (HSR) is best suited for journeys of 1 to 4½ hours (about 150–900 km or 93–559 mi)" https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-trai...

... perfectly suited to link China's smaller cities, but not direct connections to it's major cities.

Maybe driven more by environmental reasons (arguably fewer emissions than plane travel) rather than economic reasons (besides job creation, etc).

Symmetry3• 10 years ago

For even half full inter-city trains I don't think there's any doubt about which is more energy efficient. Trains will tend to win by about an order of magnitude. Planes aren't any worse than cars containing a single person, though.

https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml

transfire• 10 years ago

What a pathetic Debbie Downer article -- quintessential modern America. Most of the article just keeps beating the cost drum -- trains don't generate enough ticket revenue to cover their cost. Meanwhile the U.S. taxpayer givers $41.0 billion a year to the Federal Highway Administration, and most roads don't generate a single dime of revenue.

drawkbox• 10 years ago

Roads, originally an Eisenhower idea [1] as car culture was 'railroaded' in so to speak to win over trains, generate tons of indirect revenue.

People and businesses on either side and up and down every road generate revenue because of it. Same with the internet, trains etc.

You don't have to generate revenue directly from the thing for it to be a great idea. Bean counting away from indirect benefits seems to be overly-existent in our short-term planning modern US culture (not focusing on true investments enough like infrastructure, i.e. broadband etc).

Our interstate systems have been huge benefits even though trains would be nice as well, Amtrak is not competitive.

The interstate system is probably the best thing Ike ever did, good infrastructure projects leave a great legacy and are overlooked. It fueled economic growth across the nation as well as served as helping with defense.

[1] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/finalmap.cfm

ascotan3• 10 years ago

Unless it's a private highway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United...

However, I'm not a big fan of toll roads myself.

phairoh• 10 years ago

The Economist is headquartered in London and as the publication's name implies it commonly focusses on the economical impact of any story it reports. They also don't hide the fact that their editorial positions are rooted in classical liberal economics.

jsudhams• 10 years ago

Not sure all countries have to follow this, china must have done this to compensate the growth hence the infra projects with in countries help. I think other countries rather than spending money on this can develop meaning full telecom infrastructure to villages (connecting all of them) and ensure population is spread out and people continue to there where they are than flocking to cities.

jarboot2• 10 years ago

Currently in China and frequently using the train system here.

I really wish something like this could happen in a country as big as the US. What's stopping them? Politicians? Land rights? Lack of resources?

vkou4• 10 years ago

The United States would rather let an oil company build a pipeline on your land, then a rail company build a high speed train track on it.

Oil is prioritized over rail because it immediately creates jobs, tax dollars, and the government doesn't have to pay up front for it. If you're a politician, which one would you want to support?

jdpedrie3• 10 years ago

oil company build a pipeline

This happens.

rail company build a high speed train track

This doesn't.

There are actually companies that want to build oil pipelines. How many privately funded companies are there that want to (and have the means to) build a high-speed rail line?

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

Gentrified western economies have economic growth of around 2% on average. Developing countries moving from mostly rural or controlled economies to market industrialized economies can, and do, have growth of around 10% or more. That's a fairly big difference in available funds for capital projects.

The same way the US was building trains in NYC, Chicago, etc 100 years ago, China and others are doing so today, but with the advantage of globalization, automation, and mostly solved technical issues for even advanced systems.

Essentially, the point at which your society hits this growth really is going to determine the what kind of infrastructure you're stuck with. The big exception here is being bombed to the point where you have to re-do your infrastructure, which is the case with Europe and why they tend to have newer mass transit infrastructure than the US which saw no bombing on its homeland, and of course has the added problem of a huge homeland which makes more sense to fly around in, than ride around in.

A good example of this in tech is how the US pioneered DSL (Joseph Lechleider at Bellcore) and how quickly the US telcos ran with it. By the time the Europeans and others caught up, DSL had advanced to ADSL2 and ADSL2+ which gave 2x to 5x the bandwidth. Meanwhile, US subscribers were stuck with vanilla DSL for decades because the cost of upgrading was so prohibitive.

There's a problem with innovative countries where they run with revision 1 of some new tech, but then are stuck with rev1 because big infrastructure changes take a long time, and you can expect decades of use before replacement. Or in the case of trains, centuries - the CTA in Chicago is built on tracks originally laid in the 1860's. From a tech perspective its weird to think Chicago was running light rail before homes even had electricity. Waiting until later revisions to build out your infrastructure, either intentionally or not, comes with fairly big dividends. Now is very good time to lay down infrastructure due to all the computing power we have, automation options, lowered costs via globalization, and focus on renewable energy.

That said, infrastructure improvements happens as needed in older economies. The US has an impressive air system, for example, with at least 75,000 flights per day and at relatively low price points. We've probably hit the efficiency and feature maximum with jets as-is, so not much room for innovation here, but its clear for the US, air became the focus instead of trains. You can fly from Chicago to LA in 4 hours. Even a 'fast' bullet train with zero stops would take 10 hours, most likely closer to 15 with stops. Also, air is privatized, so there's no worrying about raising taxes or cutting social programs to pay for a subsidized train expansion, which would take quite a bit political will from taxpayers, most of whom are happy with car ownership for daily commuting and airlines for longer trips.

jarboot2• 10 years ago

Thanks for the detailed response. I never realized how much utility the US plane system has.

allemagne• 10 years ago

The U.S. has about the same amount of land area as China and less than a third of the population. The rail network in the graphic provided in the article mostly avoids the Tibetan plateau, and so basically covers only very populated areas with relatively friendly terrain (notable exception of Urumqi).

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/geog/populationdensityma...

http://www.cgiar-csi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-...

Making network for the entire U.S. with those parameters seems almost impossible. You're either plowing through the Rockies or a desert to reach and go through areas an order of magnitude less populous than, say, Kunming or Chengdu.

That's not to say that the USA shouldn't build a comparable network, that it wouldn't necessarily be profitable, or it wouldn't bring a worthwhile benefit. However, there are real obstacles that don't necessarily point the finger at political differences.

DoodleBuggy• 10 years ago

Politics, lobbyists.

ascotan3• 10 years ago

Because we don't need one? When did a bullet train become a priority for anyone?

Seriously I have to fly 2000 miles soon and I can buy a plane ticket for $200 and be there in 4 hours. Have you checked the cost of a train ticket lately? It's something like 4x the price and 4x slower.

sknuds• 10 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ

nacc4• 10 years ago

As someone who grew in China, I just want to point out that besides the engineering, it is a political wonder as well.

Before the bullet train network was built, China already has an extensive railway network. The first step is to run the bullet train on traditional railways, with a peak speed of 180km/h. People think it's great. No objections.

But to raise the speed further, a new network has to be built, almost side-by-side to traditional railways. This idea horrored almost everybody: new railways for 10s of thousands kms, new train stations (yes for most of the place it needs a separate station), just to be a bit faster? Of course it got a constant concensual blaze from both the citizens and all the official and unofficial media. This state maintains from the beginning of the project all the way a couple years into it operates (which spans many years).

The head of the project, Liu Zhijun had to be in jail of course. Then everything changes, 180 degree. People took the trains and realize it's great. What I (and probably many people too) didn't know before was with the speed increase, the perception of distance changes. The trains run like buses: between major cities, the train runs across in every several minutes. You can just get a ticket, go to the station, an hour later you are on the subway of another city. Many times when we were holding a meeting, people from other cities actually took less time to arrive than someone driving from suburbs.

Then the new railway network gets praise from both national and overseas. The official media shut up about Liu. People start to think Liu as a fanatically great engineer.

I cannot imagine how this project can even get started, and what Liu had to do to get this to work. There must have been a great story, but we may never know.

sandworm1013• 10 years ago

But what percentage of the population actually uses a bullet train in a given week/month/year? (Not trips/population, the percentage of people who take one or more journies in a given timeframe.) Is this just a service for the urban elite? Or do farmers also use them?

The 747 and like jets made air travel affordable and now air travel is cheaper than by boat/rail over long distances (for people, taking into account food and lodging). If you need to attend a wedding more than a few hundred km away, you are going to consider flying. But high speed rail networks in many countries (uk, france) are either extreemly expensive or massively subsidized. All i see are suited office workers heading to jobs in downtown cores.

The carbon footprint of high speed rail, while not as bad as air, also remains much higher than other ground options. Speed always comes at some price.

mtw• 10 years ago

This is wrong. High speed rail networks in France are profitable. Please do some research

whyileft• 10 years ago

Air transportation is only more affordable for a very small portion of the travelers who get the highly discounted fairs. On aggregate of costs for all travelers air travel is more expensive.

As the other comment stated, please do some research before openly spreading false information. Its very dishonest and in the end leads to great damage for countries.

derefr• 10 years ago

This is a similar question to what percentage of people use all those empty condo-cities being built in China. The answer is: a perhaps-negligible number now (except around existing metropolitan centres, where there's respectable usage), but with projected growth toward capacity as GDP rises.

Because Chinese civil-planning policy isn't a matter of election promises, it isn't constrained to showing benefits within four-year periods. A lot of the things China is doing don't "make sense" from an intuitive standpoint if you're imagining anyone expected short-term gains, but do make sense if you imagine they were planning for 10 or 20 years down the line.

nacc4• 10 years ago

The ticket price of the bullet train is usually cheaper than by air (and the train is much, much more convenient than flights), and affortable by average citizens. This has created a huge headache to the airlines, which leads to some healthy competition.

FabHK4• 10 years ago

There can be little doubt that, in terms of environmental impact per passenger kilometre:

bus and train better than car better than air plane.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4003718

dilemma• 10 years ago

The HSR drove down airfares over night when it opened so you ought to praise it.

neolefty• 10 years ago

I have ridden those trains (spent 2011-2016 in China), and they're pretty great, but they're hard to justify economically:

The overall bill is already high. China Railway Corporation, the state-owned operator of the train system, has debts of more than 4trn yuan, equal to about 6% of GDP. Strains were evident last year when China Railway Materials, an equipment-maker, was forced to restructure part of its debts. Six lines have started to make operating profits (ie, not counting construction costs), with the Beijing-Shanghai link the world’s most profitable bullet train, pulling in 6.6bn yuan last year. But in less populated areas, they are making big losses. A state-run magazine said the line between Guangzhou and the province of Guizhou owes 3bn yuan per year in interest payments—three times more than it makes from ticket sales.

I wish it weren't so, but they look like Iridium, as mentioned by a very-downvoted comment. The builder makes enormous losses.

But they're built now, and that isn't going to be undone. I hope.

mozumder2• 10 years ago

Are these supposed to make a profit? Isn't this a state-run project, like highways?

Aren't the debts covered by the state anyways, via taxes?

Also, economic justifications are broad concepts.. how would it compare against a country like the US that has oil and people can therefore drive cars for cheap, whereas China doesn't have oil?

Is high-speed rail a more economically efficient system than cars?

nacc4• 10 years ago

It's a very fine line to walk though: too much profit, people hate it (it's taking money from them), run at a loss, people hate it (it's a waste of tax money).

But since it is built and owned by the government, the economical benefit is also in the equation other than operation profit. A province would welcome the bullet train network even if it has to pay, if it attracts a capital influx to the province. This is usually true: given the convenience of taking the train, a city get connected means you are almost merged into a mega city, economically.

Right now the bullet train is for passenger, but cargo trains are on the timeline now. Think of goods shipped by train but arrive almost as fast as by air: this alone would make the investment a bit worthier than it looks.

avn2109• 10 years ago

Compare this overall bill to the total amount of public and private money spent on interstate highways, bridges, interchanges, rolling stock (aka automobiles) etc in the United States.

By back of the envelope math the comparison seems to favor China. It's not even close.

Obviously also has roads bridges etc. But with a functioning train network you can build far fewer of them compared to America.

Shivetya• 10 years ago

undone, maybe not directly but indirectly. it is quite easy to keep on deferring maintenance until a line is not viable. this will be key to determining if this is a successful expenditure. what gets cut first

leviathant• 10 years ago

But they're built now, and that isn't going to be undone. I hope.

I work in a city where bike commuters have to dodge trolley tracks from electric trolleys that stopped running decades ago. We're converting an old train viaduct into an elevated park, although where that viaduct goes below grade, the construction of a building within the old right-of-way prevents full utilization of what had been old railroad tracks.

In municipalities across America, you can see the scars of old train tracks criss-crossing the landscape, creating curved cuts through square city blocks, turning into hiking trails along rivers, past abandoned ruins of old mills.

With any luck, China's rail system won't suffer the same fate.

nialv72• 10 years ago

The rail doesn't have to be profitable itself (which is a benefit of being state-owned). The more important thing is the bigger picture, is how much economic advantage it generates.

wang0109• 10 years ago

I don't get why the part where Liu Zhijun had to be in jail. Fast trains are intrinsically a great thing for China. People don't just "realize" it's great because of Liu or anybody else. Your "then" logic is misleading. Liu got into jail because embezzlement and favors from project contractors, at least that was part of the story, aside political factions.

est• 10 years ago

Because Liu is basically a railway enthusiast but in power. In order to push projects ASAP he bribed everyone thoroughly.

Each time a new HSR line is open he is the first passenger, and once on Chinese New Year eve he traveled to distant small rail stations and fire drunk station masters on premise.

nacc4• 10 years ago

Maybe I should explain better. I think with a project receiving so much opposition both from the government and citizens, I imagine Liu would have to use extraordinary methods to push it forward, which will hurt the power players hard (especially those who created the opposing voice).

The embezzlement and favours are usually just an excuse. Most people with power (at least in China) get away with it even if everyone knows about it. It only become important when someone who don't like you gets more power.

brohee3• 10 years ago

I love how the Economist map misses a 50M people municipality (Chongqing). Shows how little the world knows about China...

ajmurmann3• 10 years ago

Having been there I think it's hugely inflated. Chongqing isn't really a giant city but a large city with a huge rural area around it that has been declared to be part of the city now. Not sure why that even happened. Maybe so that it can become a special trade zone without much political work?

brohee3• 10 years ago

30M of the 50M people of the municipality are urban, but yes it's more a large conurbation than a city proper.

brilliantcode• 10 years ago

chabuduo is the tradition of cutting corners long formed as the basis for china's fast economic growth. you can build the largest and the biggest infrastructures in the world as fast as possible but it won't be the longest lasting structure which NOT what current day china is about.

FabHK4• 10 years ago

"good enough", if you don't want to google

Markoff3• 10 years ago

as someone who lived better half of decade in China I don't find it that amazing

1. growth of HSR meant less and less slower trains = higher prices of tickets, less available to poorer people

2. prices of these train tickets are actually higher than LCC airways in Europe which will transport me much faster anywhere than HSR

3. buying ticket during peak periods is very difficult

4. train station procedures take probably more time than airport procedures (even within China, much longer compared to Schengen)

5. many of not most of the HSR stations are outside of the cities, so there is no benefit between reaching HSR station and airport

djsumdog3• 10 years ago

Wait, so you have full security screenings for the high speed rail? (Most of Europe's high speed rail goes through the same train stations and standard commuter rail, so there's no additional screening .. although if you're crossing from Belgium to Germany they do often search trains for marijuana) at border stations.

IshKebab• 10 years ago

There's additional screening in Spain too. Though I recall it was a token effort.

Markoff3• 10 years ago

yes, there is first check to get even inside train station, you must have ticket, then right after that is security check, then in some stations there is another check to enter boarding room, then to leave boarding room to platform there is another check and then in the train they check your ticket again, also when leaving station in destination they will again check your ticket to let you go

it's HSR with communist characteristics

no thanks, i will rather use show train in Europe where i can walk straight from my room to train with ticket in my mobile instead of Chinese harassment with thousands of people pushing you all around, it's just one disgusting experience, even Chinese airports are faster and more pleasant

NotUsingLinux• 10 years ago

While I applaud the effort. It's almost obsolete now. When they have a Hyperloop Network then I will be impressed, but given how things look, they will have it before the US..

joshiej• 10 years ago

Reminds me of the board game Ticket To Ride haha

BurningFrog• 10 years ago

Meanwhile, San Francisco spent 13 years on an Environmental Impact Report for one bus line:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/transit-officials-approve-final-ei...

xbeta3• 10 years ago

(Being a Chinese grew up in Canada, and now working/living in the Bay)

In my opinion, most people in the valley or in North America still refuse to give up their lifestyle. They look for something like self-driving cars, all electric-powered "personal" vehicle to invest. And those still drive on the same road/interstates/highway infrastructure and don't give you the benefits compare with high-speed rails.

They don't recognize the real priorities - how to transport millions people everyday efficiently, cost-effectively, and most environmentally friendlies.

They also don't recognize local economy, local businesses thrive with these connected network. It is proven to be the case in China and Japan.

High-speed rail network is what people want - to get from point A to point B quickly. It's not something even the most efficient self-driving car with the best MPG electric-powered vehicle can scale for millions of people everyday.

Instead of investing into some new technologies, they seem like they refuse to take decades of proven technology and just use it in US (high-speed trains were first invented in Japan in the 60s)

But as I understand very well in the culture here, the politics, the corruption, and the oil/automative conglomerate will never make this happen for the actual good for the people.

I would without a doubt to say the US is in its downfall as it didn't pick the priorities to fix the root of the problem.

adventured2• 10 years ago

The US is in fact ascendant, not in decline.

You're using the rail example to imply downfall, and yet the US economy has embarrassed the Japanese economy the last 25 years. In the mid 1980s, the US and Japan nearly had the same GDP per capita; very soon the US will have twice the GDP per capita of Japan.

You're implying rail is so beneficial to economic growth, and let's say I agree with that: and yet the US has been embarrassing most of Europe on economic growth for the last 20 years (Germany's economy hasn't expanded in ten years for example).

If you were right, US GDP per capita should be far lower than the EU or Eurozone, when the exact opposite is the case. Germany has a GDP per capita of the poorest US states (it's nearly on par with West Virginia currently). France nearly has the GDP per capita of Puerto Rico.

I don't believe your premise has any legs to stand on based on the facts. The real implication here is that the US would be staggeringly far ahead if it corrected some of its obvious flaws.

skybrian• 10 years ago

I'm not sure GDP per capita makes sense for this comparison when ownership is distributed so unequally in the US. Taking the mean is basically dividing up wealth equally and that's not what happens.

What is there about the German standard of living for typical citizens that compares unfavorably to the US? How can this be measured? No single number works, but I would suggest looking at medians ahead of means.

noonespecial• 10 years ago

Germany has a GDP per capita of the poorest US states (it's nearly on par with West Virginia currently)

Wow. I did not know or even suspect that! Funny thing. I've lived in both. I'd rather live in a closet-sized apartment in Germany than in a McMansion in West Virginia. It seems like there might be an ocean of inquiry behind that narrow channel of facts. (At least for me personally)

bjourne• 10 years ago

Yes, but I'd rather pick free health care and five weeks vacation. :) Your numbers are correct, but I don't think they are meaningful.

xbeta3• 10 years ago

Global influence is not just about GDP (not sure if there's a power influential index for each country).

We all know American culture for heavily depended on automative and roads don't work for most countries, probably only work in US.

tele• 10 years ago

These are demonstrably false claims.

GDP Annual Growth rate from 1996-2016 in Europe was 1.7%, in the US from 1995-2015 it was 2.1%. [World Bank, Trading Economics].

The German GDP per capita grew from $36,000 to $46,000 from 2006 to 2016. [World Bank], and it ranks in the mid 30's out of 50 states. [Wikipedia].

The per capita GDP of Puerto Rico is $28,529, the per capita GDP of France is $41,329. [World Bank]

For a fair comparison between the US and Germany/France, let's examine the inequality adjusted Human Development Index, as measurements that do not account for income inequality obfuscate the reality of most citizens.

Germany ranks 6th, France ranks 18th, the US ranks 28th. [Wikipedia].

taobility• 10 years ago

Talking about GDP, I am not an expert, but just compared two examples: 1. ST3 project in Seattle metro area. http://soundtransit3.org/ This project will be finish in 25 years, with $53.8 billions in estimation, to construct 62 new miles light rail majorly. 2. The high speed rail project connecting Beijing and Shanghai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing%E2%80%93Shanghai_High-... And this project completed in 3.5 years (from April 2008 to Nov 2010) by constructed 819 miles high speed railroad between Beijing and Shanghai (averaging 186 MPH), and the total investment is $34.7 billion.

In summary, 819 miles HSR vs 62 miles LR, $34.7B vs. $53.8B, and 3.5 Years vs. 25 Years So compared with other countries, how much the inflation US GDP has?

ytruytr2• 10 years ago

A lot of the political pushback in the US is two major factors:

1) Rail systems are almost never profitable. The US, at least in spirit, doesn't like government subsidies. An investment in high speed rail entails paying taxes for it for many years or perhaps forever.

2) The US is much more rural than other developed countries. The land area compared to the population is huge compared to Europe/China/Japan. You almost need a car to get around because there's so much open space. Things are too far apart in many cases to make public transport realistic. Also, since nearly everyone has a car already the need for a rapid mode of transport is mostly met. Yeah it sucks in the big cities but a lot of the people that work there live far enough away that any rail system built would never reach their homes anyways.

You do see big public transport networks in places with extremely high density like New York, which has a similar density to most countries with well developed systems.

The notable exception I can think of to the trend is Russia, which has a lot of public transport compared to population density. This can probably be explained by a history of being a communist country as well as the relative lack of personal cars due to lower income and limited access to trade with countries that manufacture automobiles

dmix3• 10 years ago

The US, at least in spirit, doesn't like government subsidies.

The US gives $0.6 trillion / yr in energy subsidies, about 70% of which goes to oil. Which reduces the cost of cars and trucks.

akshayn• 10 years ago

Highways (tolls) tend to be far less profitable than rail systems (ticket sales). If the US didn't like government subsidies, we wouldn't have built all these highways.

nialv72• 10 years ago

If you've been to Tokyo or Shanghai/Beijing, you would know the New York public transport system is not well developed at all.

xbeta3• 10 years ago

I do agree completely with your statement on rural area with population. It's a fact that nobody can argue with.

But to think about it more, why do people have to live in such lifestyle with so much open "wasted" spaces?

Why everyone "has a car already"? All we talk about is the American lifestyle which most American still refuse to adapt or look different.

scott_karana• 10 years ago

Rail systems are almost never profitable. The US, at least in spirit, doesn't like government subsidies.

Excuse me? Japan privatized its rail system in the late 80s, doesn't subsidize any of the JR companies[1][2] (which are all publicly traded to boot), and has a profitable enough industry that there are now numerous private operators[3] of various sizes who successfully compete.[4]

1 http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurelevel-play...

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyu_Corporation, and see the box at the bottom for lots more

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Greater_Tokyo#Oth...

ghaff8• 10 years ago

Many people do indeed want to get from Point A to point B quickly. That's why there are around 75,000 plane flights per day. There are very few city pairs in the US with the potential volume to justify high speed rail.

There already is high speed-ish rail travel in the Northeast and it's very popular. But, for example, even if you could magically offer 6-8 hour train service between New York and Chicago, relatively few people would take it given that flying would be significantly faster.

ajmurmann3• 10 years ago

I think your point is generally valid for the US. However, Chicago-NYC might be a bad example, since it actuality might be viable. The Shinkansen goes ~200mp/h and thus would be able to go back and forth in 4-5hrs. Given that trains are less weather dependent, can drop you off on there middle of the city rather than the outskirts and don't come with the same security theater you probably come out with a comparable time frame and more reliability on that connection. Things like connecting the west coast to anything but itself are completely unviable though because of the reasons you gave.

astrodust3• 10 years ago

There are tons of city pairs but because the airline industry is heavily subsidized it's often cheaper to fly.

The Boston to Washington D.C. corridor could easily sustain itself if the trains put in place were reliable, expedient, and low-fuss.

There's no technological barriers here, as China has proven, only political ones. A lot of people see Amtrak as a problem, an anachronism, not a solution.

Spooky233• 10 years ago

There are tons of good city pairs. People are paying to be carted like baggage by Spirit.

We subsidize highways and air travel at the expense of other ground options. It shouldn't be 70% cheaper for me to drive my family to Florida or the Carolinas for vacation from NY vs air or rail. But it is.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, do that I95 trip every year. There are dozens of corridors like that.

smpetrey• 10 years ago

There already is high speed-ish rail travel in the Northeast and it's very popular. But, for example, even if you could magically offer 6-8 hour train service between New York and Chicago, relatively few people would take it given that flying would be significantly faster.

Texan living in NYC here. I disagree. I would happily pay to take a 6 hour train to Chicago over a flight anyday. LGA/JFK are nightmares to book last minute flights and high-speed rail is a favorable experience to flying sometimes.

In contrast, there's no "useful" rail network in Texas — at all. If there was a rail network, like the single-high speed line proposed between Dallas and Houston, it would totally dominate and disrupt. People fly to/from cities in Texas all the time.

There are many many cities that would benefit from a rail network because the cost would be considerably lower than flying. If you build it, they will come.

ascotan3• 10 years ago

>>I would without a doubt to say the US is in its downfall as it didn't pick the priorities to fix the root of the problem.

The US is in a downward spiral because we didn't build a government funded $2 trillion bullet train? Are you serious?

>>High-speed rail network is what people want - to get from point A to point B quickly.

Wrong. What people want is to telecommute. I don't want to get shoved into a bullet train every morning.

MarkMc3• 10 years ago

The ultimate goal is to have 45,000km of high-speed track. Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong University, who has long criticised the high-speed push, reckons that only 5,000km of this will be in areas with enough people to justify the cost.

Do you agree with this 5,000km figure? If not, what figure would you choose?

edblarney• 10 years ago

"In my opinion, most people in the valley or in North America still refuse to give up their lifestyle."

You should try living in Europe.

There is no lifestyle to give up by using trains!

... so long as they are made correctly.

Imagine if there were fairly high speed trains that connected SF, SJ, outside the bay - and LA?

And the stations were easy to access through subways/quick trains?

So many fewer people would drive.

Having to deal with the BS of a car, be stuck in traffic, drive everywhere - is not a lifestyle advantage. :)

Once you have easy access to good subways/trams/high-speed trains - you likely don't want to drive unless you have to.

joering22• 10 years ago

This looks great but I honestly wonder - if China is under heavy communism oppression and noone can make enough fuzz about their lifestyle before eventually disappearing... why would Chinese government care about spending money and time building such vast (and beautiful!) network? Serious question...

_jgdh2• 10 years ago

This looks great but I honestly wonder - if China is under heavy communism oppression and noone can make enough fuzz about their lifestyle before eventually disappearing... why would Chinese government care about spending money and time building such vast (and beautiful!) network? Serious question...

China isn't under heavy communist oppression, not the kind that you're thinking. Their style of oppression is different. The Social Contract that the Party offers the People is this - you will not get political choice, you will always be ruled by us; in return you will not have to worry about money because this economy will grow at 7.5%pa. That rising tide will lift all boats, including yours. When all your material needs are taken care of, do you really care who is in charge?

Projects such as high speed rail help the Party deliver on its promise. The Economist points out the ways in which this boosts economic growth, as well as other bonus effects, like allowing people to buy affordable housing in smaller cities that are short commutes away from Beijing/Shaghai and other major cities. If the Party doesn't hold its end of the Contract up, it risks mass unrest, similar to the Tiananmen Square protests. That ought to answer your question.

The interesting question is whether their Social Contract will survive. So far, the people are generally satisfied with the Party's performance but in the years to come growth will inevitably slow, if only because their economy is so massive that compounded growth is difficult. I think the strategy is that by then the Party will have a much more efficient way of enforcing control over individuals than they did in 1989 when the Tiananmen protests took place Rather than crude measures like locking people up or beating them, the Party will use the social score [1] to subtly control the People. If you know that your house payments will rise, or your medical care will be deprioritized, or your friends will ostracize you, or you'll face harassment from strangers or you won't be able to apply to good schools for your children, or all of the above... will you still have the courage to show up to protest, much less stand in front of a column of tanks? [2]

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711904-worrying-expe...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

joering22• 10 years ago

+1 - but:

The Social Contract that the Party offers the People is this - you will not get political choice

then

Projects such as high speed rail help the Party deliver on its promise.

Ain't that contradiction? Why do they need to deliver on that promise? In other words -- if they don't, what will happen, if as you say "you will not get political choice, you will always be ruled by us".

Further you describe China like some sort of wonderland. In such case, why is it so that the reality is far different?

Or is it just american propaganda I'm being fed, and I should immediately abandon my always "bills gotta get paid" worries and migrate to PRC?

spangry• 10 years ago

This is the question that keeps me up at night. Their rate of growth should naturally slow as their economy reaches capital saturation. And there are a lot of worrying structural features of the Chinese economy. For instance, they hit their 2030 metropolitan housing target a few years ago due to their stimulus packages driving a massive residential construction boom. So technically they should cease all residential housing construction for the next 15 years or so... They're also going to have a harder and harder time maintaining their capital controls (e.g. pegged exchange rates) as their foreign currency reserves run down. All hell could break loose if they can't defend their peg against speculative attacks.

If it's a slow melt scenario, maybe there will be enough time for the CCP to re-negotiate the social contract. But if any of a number of possible economic shocks hits China, and they're suddenly staring down the barrel of recession or a Japanese-style lost decade or two, I can't help but think the only way to avoid being dragged out in to the streets by angry protesters would be to declare war on another country (...Japan).

Maybe start taking a more aggressive stance on the Senkaku Islands, for instance. And the vague sense I have (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Trump administration intends to pursue a more 'isolationist' geo-strategic policy.

MarkMc3• 10 years ago

These days when I travel on a train I can work efficiently, play computer games, Skype my family or watch a movie - the personal cost of a slow train compared to a fast train isn't as high as it used to be. So maybe technology has reduced the economic benefit of a bullet-train network.

bigger_cheese• 10 years ago

I'd love it if we could do something like this on the east coast of Australia. I doubt it will ever happen. I fly between Sydney and Melbourne fairly regularly and it can be a real pain. Sydney -> Melbourne route is one of the busiest air corridors in the world so demand would probably be there.

dfguo• 10 years ago

The article merely touches the economic benefits. There is also another elephant in the room which wasn't mentioned - fast way to transport army. All the bullet-train rail are capable of transporting tanks. This will allow overnight transfer of army to any city in China.

China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network

Related Stories