In five years, China built the world’s largest high-speed rail system. They now have 4,000 miles of line between all their crowded cities, and it still isn’t enough to put a dent in traffic…because most people can’t afford the tickets.
Megan McArdle writing for the Atlantic argues that politicians, geography, and democracy stand in the way of any meaningful high-speed rail system in the United States. It’s not as crazy as it sounds.
For one, the longest distance between the ten most populous cities in China isn’t much longer than a trip from Washington D.C. to Chicago. Our biggest cities are just a lot farther apart, crossing many more states and through a lot more backyards. McArdle argues that lawsuits, politicians, and the Not-In-My-Back-Yard gang would impede progress of a useful high-speed network. She’s probably right. My home state of Connecticut has been battling about a proposed high-speed bus between Hartford and New Britain for years despite the obvious need for an alternative to the constantly-congested I-84.
That’s where communism comes in. China doesn’t have to worry about the EPA, lawyers, property rights or any of that nonsense. They say the train goes here, and that’s where the train goes. Since high-speed trains need long, flat surfaces, it isn’t as though they go around a protected temple or private homestead. The train goes through it, and that is that. Those trains don’t come cheap either. A lot of regular working slobs just can’t afford the tickets, and instead stick to their cheap cars or tiny electric bikes. As a result, most of these trains barely hit half-capacity, and those trains need a lot of energy to get going. Not what one would call efficient if it can’t even full half the seats.
China has invested over $200 billion in high-speed rail alone over the next ten years, and as a result, ticket prices aren’t cheap. Meanwhile in the U.S., we’ve spread just $8 billion across 13 separate projects. The U.S. won’t have a network like China’s anytime soon without a huge financial investment and the repealing of personal property rights. That sucks. On the same token, our slow and deliberate path to high-speed rail may pay off better dividends as we can see how well China’s high-speed experiment goes. After all, if nobody can afford the ride, whats the damn point?
Source: The Atlantic | Graph: The Transport Politic
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to Hemis. You can follow his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout.
PDF 
About Christopher DeMorro
Are u sure the Chinese bullet trains run half empty? Figures from the Chinese authorities indicated otherwise unless it is cooked up figures in your mind. Expensive tho, I would prefer it in view of the benefits compared to other transportation.
China is developing for the future though. Their economy is booming, so as time goes on, more and more people will be able to afford the tickets. And when they do, they’ll be an extensive, quality network in place.
I live in Shanghai and wonder where the author of this article got his information about the high-speed trains not being full. Due to China’s large population, the trains have a unique system where one can buy “standing” tickets where a person would stand throughout the ride without a seat. Thus, trains can go over 100% capacity as capacity is calculated based on number of seats.
While it is true that high-speed trains are less full than normal trains, they are still running at more than 100% capacity. Average utilization of high speed trains are 120% vs 150% for normal trains which means that all seats are full with 20% additional standing room only tickets sold so what the author is saying about seats not being sold and people not using is totally nonsensical.
I took the Shanghai-Hangzhou and Shanghai-Nanjing high speed trains this month and each time the trains were fully booked and I had to take a much later train that I would have liked because I was unable to get tickets.
Would advice the author to do real research before making assertions that just don’t hold water
The alternative to HSR in term of speed and distance is air travel, and compared to that HSR is a lot cheaper, now if you were to compare it with highways, even if we ignore gas costs over the same distance, the cars themselves isn’t cheap either.
Yes, HSR is more expensive than slower trains, and slower trains are more expensive than steam engines, but HSR today costs about as much as steam engines when it was first introduced. The system is more than just a HSR network, its also the supporting subway and intercity feed lines, until the system is completed you can’t do any meaningful analysis.
As for personal property rights, a HSR line uses abut as much land as a single lane expansion on an interstate, you do the math.
All this just sounds like more rather poorly compiled rationalization for the simple fact that the system in the US is inefficient and falling behind.
Medium distance trains, which are the vast majority of the trains in China, don’t compete with electric bikes or old Toyotas, their competition is the slow night train (soft sleeper or hard sleeper) or the even slow night bus. Buses are packed because they are cheap and they go everywhere. Night trains are packed because they are cheap and they go between most good size cities.
The problem with high speed rail in China right now is that the upper class and middle class are still a bit thin on the ground. As these classes grow there will be more demand for the fast trains, and for regional air travel as well if the Chinese government allows it. Somehow I think the Communists will discourage flight and encourage rail. Call me crazy, but they have a decent amount of coal for electricity, but they have to import most of their jet fuel.
I don’t know when you ere in China, your information to way too outdated.
You miss a key point of China’s high speed railway. I know, as I read repeatedly on Chinese news paper, that the Chinese government repeatedly explains that the no. 1 reason for building new high speed lines (among many other not so important reasons) is to increase transportation capacity for cargo, including coal, oil, cotton, iron and all sorts of materials and products. Meanwhile, for every 100 requests for train cargo service, only around 17 will be offered. Everyone in China knows the Ministry of Railway does not make money by passenger service. It actually loses money and offer huge subsidies to passenger tickets. It makes money by cargo transport. If the high speed rail will make the old lines less congested, the goal is met. If you do not already know the above, I think you’d better study more before you write an ‘article’ on a foreign subject. Thanks.
Wow, only 200 billion dollars??? How much have we spend in Iraq alone and have gained nothing from it?? I can tell you one thing it’s a lot more then 200 million dollars.
And then we have these retards, yes, I am in no mood to pull punches this morning ,that don’t want any infrastructure spending which might be alright if it wasn’t for the fact that these same imbeciles don’t have a problem spending trillions on wars that are not necessary.
While Johnny’s lexicon is unfortunate, his point is well made. My head spins when I read all the naysayers bemoan US poverty as a catchall excuse to allow this nation to slip into third world status when I suspect they are the same jingoists who will borrow any amount of Chinese money to augment the US war machine.
Sweet, well said.
I agree the price for HSR is not cheap comparing with average income. However, I want to remind you that the train ticket price almost never changed in history. I’m not old enough to know about 1950s, but I know regular train price has never changed since 1980s. In 1980s, travel on a regular train is also a luxury for most people, but now it’s dirty cheap for almost everyone. I think this applies to HSR also, I don’t expect any price hike in next 20 years either. With the development now, more and more people will think the price is a piece of cake.
I’ve ridden public transit in and between every major city in the U.S. People simple don’t want it. Most are less than half used. The only groups that ride are criminal and/or druggies that lost or can’t get a license and the terminally poor. In my area the true cost of an average bus ride is $10 that the clueless taxpayer mostly pays for. We should have long ago increased the tax on fuels to Europe like prices and let the consumers figure out the cheapest vs fastest means of travel. Get the government out of yet another stupid idea.
For the same money as two month’s tab to fight in Afganistan, we could have high speed rail??? What are we thinking…
Actually, this isn’t quite true- I’ve been on the 550+ kph maglev trains in Shanghai- For a one way it’s 50 yuan- which is anywhere from $10-$15 based on currency fluctuations. The train, true, isn’t always full, but that was about a year ago, and they fill up faster as the prices drop. The prices, as you can see, aren’t incredibly expensive- much of it is hype; we don’t see any price numbers up here, do we? Proof: http://www.smtdc.com/en/jszl.asp
Please take the train.
The more of you peons crammed into “public” transportation the less chance of getting blocked by a douche-bag driving a Prious slow in the left hand lane.
The train I took from Shanghai to Changzu (110 miles) was full. The tickets are expenses but China’s middle class is growing and you can observe the affluence.
It’s not communism, it’s nationalism, just like German before World War II. I’m Chinese, I don’t believe communism, None of Chinese believes communism, even Chinese Communist Party.
Chris certainly has a point. However, here are some counter points to consider:
1. In 1990 when a HK construction tycoon tried to build the first express way connecting Guangzhou and HK, everybody think he was out of his mind, there was not even private ownership of cars at the time. Now guess whose car market is bigger? China or the US.
2. The high speed trains between Guangzhou and Shenzhen run every 15 to 20 min, they are always full. The trains between Guangzhou and Wuhan are half-full, that’s pretty good for the first year in service.
3. It probably makes sense for China to build now when labor costs are low, lands are cheap and people are still not aware of their property rights. Had FDR not built the interstate highway during the Great Depression, it may never got built. What would America be without the interstate highway system.