
China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network - sohkamyung
http://www.economist.com/news/china/21714383-and-theres-lot-more-come-it-waste-money-china-has-built-worlds-largest
======
xbeta
(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.

~~~
adventured
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
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.

~~~
aninhumer
There are some Median Wealth figures on Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult)

The US apparently has about half the median wealth of many European countries,
although notably not Germany, which is comparable to the US on this metric.

But I'm not sure how meaningful this is or what factors might be affecting the
numbers. (And I'm not even exactly sure what's being measured.)

~~~
flukus
Not sure how seriously that can be taken either. Australia is so high but most
of that wealth is in over inflated property values.

~~~
NamTaf
That's a symptom of broken governmental policy, not so much imaginary value.
People still need to buy houses for them to sell, so it's not like the
property bubble isn't backed by real money. It's just that people are placing
disproportionate value on property over other investments.

For example, say your house went from 400k-500k in a year. For it to be 500k
you still have to find a seller. Yes, there's a degree of paper value there
however it's paper value only because other properties are selling for that.
If you were to somehow remove property from being bought and sold, the money
would just go into other investments. There is no way that 'most' of that
wealth is wealth on paper in the form of property.

The reality is that Australian wages are very high comparitively. Australia is
a wealthy nation.

------
nacc
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.

~~~
neolefty
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.

~~~
nacc
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.

------
bainsfather
"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.

~~~
mseebach
> 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.

~~~
aminok
> 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.

~~~
robotresearcher
All property and privacy rights are societal norms in the first place. Society
isn't violating any natural rights by taxing you. On the contrary, modern
society actively protects you from having all your stuff taken by anyone
strong enough to take it.

~~~
aminok
Both private property and privacy rights are human rights that no society has
a right to violate.

~~~
robotresearcher
Says your societal norm.

~~~
aminok
Says my conscience. That's all a perception of human rights amounts to. I
think most would agree with my perception if the euphemisms and ideological
labels were pealed away.

~~~
robotresearcher
Your conscience being immune to and independent of the strong prevailing
cultural norms of course.

And yet somehow a handful of generations ago a large number of consciences
were pretty definite about the rights of black Africans. Seems impossible to
today's conscience.

Consciences change over time. Every generation thinks theirs is the One True
Correct belief system. Bah.

~~~
aminok
Whether my conscience is affected by prevailing cultural norms won't stop me
from opposing slavery, or the imprisonment of those who refuse to hand over a
share of all currency they receive in private trade.

We must ultimately live by a set of values that make the most sense to us. I
see no reason why I should not.

------
Rezo
Saw this amazing photo of Chinese high-speed trains just the other day:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-
he...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-head-home-in-
worlds-biggest-annual-human-
migration/2017/01/13/fbbaaf24-d968-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_story.html)

Now that's some serious infrastructure investment!

~~~
tuna-piano
The picture
([https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/Wire...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/Wires/Online/2017-01-13/AP/Images/APTOPIX_China_New_Year_Travel_95231.jpg-
ebec7.jpg?uuid=Zant8tl2Eeag5tUC1nUbyA))

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
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Na)

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

[http://www.sfexaminer.com/transit-officials-approve-final-
ei...](http://www.sfexaminer.com/transit-officials-approve-final-eir-geary-
bus-project/)

------
jarboot
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?

~~~
vkou
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?

~~~
jdpedrie
> 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?

~~~
vkou
How many privately funded companies would even consider doing so in the
current regulatory climate? There's a bit of survivourship bias at play, here!

Likewise, if the oil were extracted by the state, rather then a private firm,
it would also not have any problems with piping it over private property.

~~~
jdpedrie
Perhaps, but it's not as though the popularity of oil pipelines is especially
high. They still get built! If anything, much of the bureaucracy and public
would far prefer to build high speed rail in place of a pipeline. Certainly
neither face a particularly positive regulatory environment.

I'm not sure what your second point is getting at. Rail lines face pretty huge
eminent domain burdens along with everything else.

My point was mostly that the hurdles of building rail and pipelines are both
quite high. The economic benefit of oil pipelines are enough to make them
worth the trouble to a private firm. Rail, not so much.

~~~
vkou
They don't have to be popular, but the regulators are happy to disregard that
problem, and fast-track approval.

On the other hand, none of the regulators would even consider doing that to
lay a train track.

My point is that nobody tries to build a rail line, because they know it's a
hopeless affair - they will never get approval.

------
transfire
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
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](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/finalmap.cfm)

------
bluedino
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
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.

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

------
b6
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.

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

~~~
ajmurmann
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?

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

~~~
ajmurmann
Oh wow, according to wiki you are right and it's larger than Shanghai which I
would have never thought. I guess the city feels smaller because of the
central peninsula.

------
Markoff
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

~~~
djsumdog
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.

~~~
Markoff
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

------
joering2
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...

~~~
nindalf
> 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...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711904-worrying-experiments-
new-form-social-control-chinas-digital-dictatorship)

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

~~~
joering2
+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?

~~~
nindalf
> if they don't [deliver on their promise], what will happen

Revolution, Tiananmen Square style.

> you describe China like some sort of wonderland

Do I? China is rich, will continue to grow richer but it is hardly a
wonderland. In fact, my last paragraph about subtle and overt social control
should have made it clear that it is far from a wonderland.

------
bigger_cheese
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.

------
010001001010
"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...](https://www.travelstatsman.com/08082016/high-speed-rail-train-
plane/)

... 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).

~~~
Symmetry
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](https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml)

------
jsudhams
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.

------
MarkMc
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.

------
dfguo
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.

------
known
Sounds like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation)
fiasco

------
joshiej
Reminds me of the board game Ticket To Ride haha

------
brilliantcode
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.

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

------
NotUsingLinux
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..

