China’s train wreck

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-train-wreck/2011/04/21/AFqjRWRE_story.html

by cwan • 15 years ago

22 20 15 years ago

Derbasti• 15 years ago

Yeah, comparing poor young chinese workers who can barely afford a bus ticket to the average US citizen makes a whole lot of sense. That last paragraph really did not fit with the rest of the article.

Besides, Europe provides plenty of examples of pretty healthy railway systems.

5l2• 15 years ago

Not only that, but his comparison of bus tickets to high-speed rail tickets is absurd. In the UK it can cost me anything from £20-70 return London to Edinburgh by bus for example. By regular-speed train without a railcard, it's gonna be about £120, so at least twice as expensive. And you can guarantee if we ever get around to high-speed, it wont be as 'cheap' as £120.

$5.40 => $9 is a pretty good deal then I'd say for bus to high-speed rail. OF COURSE it's gonna be more expensive, and I'm amazed that the price differential isn't even higher.

scottbruin• 15 years ago

The hidden premise in arguments similar to the one the author seems to be getting at is that transporation infrastructure should be financially self-sustaining.

We don't expect that our roads pay for themselves, so why should our trains?

orijing• 15 years ago

Exactly. Transportation infrastructure produces benefits far beyond the direct benefit for those who choose to use the system. There are environmental benefits, congestion benefits (reduced road usage), convenience benefits, etc.

mousa• 15 years ago

I don't know how well more trains would work in America, but I was not impressed at all by his arguments. No countries make a direct profit on their transportation systems. He also throws in corruption which seems like a separate issue.

I can likewise give some anecdotal evidence that whenever I rode trains in China they were fast, convenient, cheaper than buses for longer distances, and most importantly, completely packed with people who weren't burdening the roads.

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

Why is he looking at China? I thought Japan's trains were the exemplary high-speed rail model for the world. I had thought Japan's railways were what inspired the high-speed rail project in CA.

protomyth2• 15 years ago

maybe because China has a rural / urban split that is more a mirror of the USA than Japan, or he was really angling for the CA == China thing and didn't quite get there.

jrockway2• 15 years ago

Why is he looking at China?

Well, China's system is a failure, and he doesn't want the US to build trains, so ... it makes sense.

But something you have to keep in mind is the size of Japan versus the size of China and the US. The most popular Shinkansen route, Tokyo<->Osaka, is about the same distance between Chicago and St. Louis: a 6 hour conventional train ride, a 5 hour drive, or ... a 30 minute flight. So high-speed rail is kind of a hard sell: a 5 hour drive is not that long, and a 30 minute flight is worth the cost if you really need to be there fast. The middle ground, a 2 hour train ride, is not really that compelling, and a ticket would probably cost as much as flying. (The first time I took the Shinkansen, I had a little sticker shock. $200 to ride a train!?)

Rail does make sense for Tokyo to Osaka, though, because the airport in Tokyo is so far away from the city center. It's at least an hour and a half between Tokyo Station and Narita, and then you need to be there in time to navigate the terminal and board 30 minutes before departure. Then you have to do the same thing on the other end. So flying is a net loss between Tokyo and Osaka, which is why the Shinkansen is so successful. Lots of demand, and it's the quickest way to go.

But in the US, the places where high-speed rail will work already have high-speed rail. The other popular city pairs are too far apart -- New York to LA is popular, but that's going to be an awfully long train ride.

edtechre2• 15 years ago

"But in the US, the places where high-speed rail will work already have high-speed rail."

Huh? What do you consider "high speed"?

Anechoic• 15 years ago

> But in the US, the places where high-speed rail will work already have high-speed rail.

Huh? There is no HSR in the USA at present, the closest we have is the "higher" speed Acela service.

Edit: beaten

melling2• 15 years ago

NYC to Boston: 220 miles

NYC to Philly: 90 miles

NYC to DC: 225 miles

The busiest train route is the country is between Manhattan and Long Island. Every day a few hundred thousand people are shuttled in and out of the city on very low-speed rail.

5l2• 15 years ago

But can you turn up 5 minutes before your flight and just hop on?

jrmg• 15 years ago

So high-speed rail is kind of a hard sell: a 5 hour drive is not that long, and a 30 minute flight is worth the cost if you really need to be there fast. The middle ground, a 2 hour train ride, is not really that compelling, and a ticket would probably cost as much as flying. (The first time I took the Shinkansen, I had a little sticker shock. $200 to ride a train!?)

I find that hard to agree with. City center to city center in two hours, in spacious comfort with the ability to do things while I'm travelling (e.g. easily get a laptop out and work as normal, or even just read papers), is a lot more of an attractive proposition to me than five (Five! That's almost a whole working day!) driving or half an hour of cramped flying, with all the airport nonsense surrounding it. It's not for you?

The one place I'd agree a little is on the price - but that's just speculation, and for a lot of people (maybe most of the target marked, depending on expectations), a price compatible to flying is low enough to attract them anyway.

protomyth2• 15 years ago

A side question on rail: Has any municipality in the US given property tax waivers / discounts to get businesses to cluster around rail stops or are almost all stops after the fact?

kposehn• 15 years ago

Profitability in private railways is everywhere - it just isn't with large "public service" passenger railways.

Freight railroading is where the money is at and that is why every single majorly successful railway company focuses on just that.

edtechre2• 15 years ago

That was utterly pointless. As China becomes the largest economy in the world, and its standard of living continues to rise, more Chinese will be able to afford to take high speed trains.

Meanwhile, the standard of living in the US continues to drop. And there are no high speed trains for Americans to take.

Another quality propaganda piece from TWP.

melling2• 15 years ago

Next year China will have more high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined. The US really needs to built at least one route(200mph). It's really embarrassing that we could fall so far behind. D.C. to NYC in 1hr, with a 5 minute stop in Philly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

vorg• 15 years ago

The high-speed trains in China wait for about 60 seconds at each stop.

How many times a station gets stopped at varies, the busy stations by most trains, other stations maybe only twice a day. There's often a handful of direct routes every day. All this means the scheduling of stops must be precise, especially on longer route, e.g the 4-hr Wuhan-Guangzhou line.

jtchang• 15 years ago

This is silly. There will always be things that should be built not because they make financial sense but because they serve the greater good.

Roads, railway, transporters, you name it.

China’s train wreck

Related Stories