4 ms·

China’s train wreck

22 points by cwan 16y ago

Derbasti 16y 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.
- 5l 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.
- protomyth 16y 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.
- jrockway 16y 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.
  - edtechre 16y 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"?
protomyth 16y 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 16y 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.
edtechre 16y 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.
melling 16y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
- vorg 16y 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 16y 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.

22 points by cwan 16y 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.

5l 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.

protomyth 16y 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.
jrockway 16y 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.
- edtechre 16y 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"?

protomyth 16y 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 16y 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.

edtechre 16y 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.

melling 16y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

vorg 16y 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 16y 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.