

  (Source: Shutterstock)





China rail launch




China bullet train



Sources: The Washington Post, Shutterstock

Comments     Threshold


By RufusM on 12/27/2012 12:29:08 PM , Rating: -1

Most of the time there is no ROI for trains. Only those in quite densely populated areas have achieved any kind of ROI at all. The cost of a train ticket is almost always heavily subsidized.

Having said that, China's transportation needs are quite different than those of the US population. A national train system for people here makes zero sense to me. To me, virtual commuting makes much more sense for the US.

By TSS on 12/27/2012 12:44:13 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe not in the sense that the train itself makes money, but it definitly brings benifits. Business men in China would now be able to travel from one side of China to the other, do business, and be back in the same day. When you can reach a greater public to make deals, you've got more opperunity to expand.

Then when you actually expand into another part of china you just hire people locally. Those people still have no need for a high speed rail - but they now do have jobs they wouldn't have had without it. That, in turn, brings in more tax revenue which can be helped in part or maybe even in full to pay for the trains. That's why it's hard to judge it's economic impact, especially in a still developing nation as China.

As a mass transit system, no high speed rail makes sense. Rail hardly makes sense, depends way too much on population density. Trams or Monorails would be a far more efficient mass transit for within a city (using bicyles for even shorter distances), then use massive airplanes for longer distances between population centers and cars for the rest.

But as a transit for the middle and upper class, it beats airplane flights in comfort.

By dsx724 on 12/27/2012 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
Except the flight is 3 hours and the "fast" train ride is 8. I'd take the flight in first class please.

Did I mention the flight ticket is only $120?




By danjw1 on 12/27/2012 6:03:53 PM , Rating: 5
3 hour flight? I guess you aren't flying in the western world. Haven't you heard of TSA? While they have started smaller footprints for train and bus travel, it isn't anything like Airplane security. 3 hour flight and having to be at the airport 2 hours early to be sure you can actually get to and on the plane in time, makes it a 5 hour flight. And First Class? Sure if you are a CEO at a major corporation, but most travel business class at best. After all, employee comfort has to be second to those quarterly reports.




By nafhan on 12/27/2012 3:12:00 PM , Rating: 1
...and for only a trillion dollars, too!

Where rail really shines from an economic perspective is for transporting freight, and for that, speed is usually less important than cost.

I also think that before long self driving cars will cancel out a lot of the other benefits of passenger rail travel (primarily being able to do things other than drive during your commute).

By PrinceGaz on 12/28/2012 4:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Self driving cars? For high speed journeys of hundreds of miles? That seems like a crazy answer.

Rail is unbeatable for transporting large loads of freight over land as happens in the US.

Rail is also extremely good at transporting large numbers of passengers very quickly over distances of hundreds of miles as happens across much of western Europe, as well as China now. Japan realised that decades ago.

For long distances air travel will always be quicker than rail (though by an ever reducing amount unless a replacement for Concorde is developed), but rail is always going to be a lot cheaper to run than the equivalent plane journey, which makes a long distance rail journey (perhaps overnight asleep) a better option than several hours on a cramped plane.

By StanO360 on 12/27/2012 1:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about the last couple of years. But there were only three lines that actually paid for themselves (and I'm sure this does NOT include opportunity cost, infrastructure, capital costs) one in Japan, one in France, and DC-NY Amtrack.


By Uncle on 12/27/2012 1:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
Always an American apologist with excuses, for not being No1. Your interstate highways weren't built by Capitalist, good thing for that otherwise you would be traveling on dirt roads. Some time the state has to intercede for the benefit of the many instead of the few.

By integr8d on 12/27/12, Rating: 0

Read a little before you ask about fantasy ROI numbers.

By Motoman on 12/27/12, Rating: 0
capitalism = Chinese economic system

I think you all need to redeine what socialism mean.

This was gotten from



Public Schools
The police
These are all socilist





sorry bout any spelling mistakes...

I didnt proof read...

By nafhan on 12/27/2012 3:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
The ROI on high speed rail was being discussed. The person you're responding to didn't say anything negative about China. Rather, he said the same system wouldn't be as good of a fit in the US. Similar things get said any time high speed rail comes up.

Anyway, your other stuff. Interesting fact about the Interstate Highway system: a major reason it was funded and built was for use by the military. American generals (specifically Eisenhower) saw how well the German highway system worked for transporting troops, etc., the American government emulated and improved on that. From the perspective of goals the highway system was set out to accomplish (improve interstate commerce and military mobility), it's arguably been a good investment.

Also, from a purely economic perspective China is definitely a capitalist country. So... technically the high speed rail in China is being built by "capitalists". Relevant Wikipedia quote:

