Why CHINA now has a serious problem with its famous BULLET TRAINS

In 2007, there was only one high-speed train line in China, that is, one that reached speeds of 155 miles per hour. However, only 15 years later, China has the most extensive high-speed rail network and already exceeds 23,000 miles. To get an idea, the second country with the most extensive high-speed rail network is Spain, with more or less 2,500 miles. And the third is Japan with 1,800 miles. And it all started in the early 1980s under the leadership of Deng Xiao ping, who was China's leader for almost two decades. After a visit to Japan in 1978, Deng Xiao ping was impressed by the world's first bullet train. From this, the idea of producing high-speed trains was born. But China first had to import advanced foreign technology from France, Germany and Japan.
The expansion of the bullet train network accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis and, years later, it would become one of the symbols of China's booming economy. The problem is that by 2035 they plan to have 70,000 km, or 43,000 miles of high-speed rail lines. That is almost double the current length and these ambitions may be a bad idea. So the question is: if China's high-speed rail network is a symbol of the country's economic development to the world, why is it a bad idea to keep expanding it?
Some sources:
- Japan Forward. Weak Demand for China's High-Speed Trains: A Ticking Time Bomb?
japan-forward....
- The Economist. China has built the world’s largest bullet-train network
www.economist....
#economicsnation #bullettrain #china

[@TaiFei]

I love it when Americans talk about the economics of bullet trains. It always seems like a blind man trying to analyze a Van Gogh.

[@Monitor2023]

Exactly, well saying

[@hellfire6372]

LOL, when your country is trapped in massive real estate debt. I am sure that bullet train debt does make any issues at all!

[@danielraiter]

Please explain what you mean.

[@srenchin]

@@danielraiter Uh, Americans don't know what they are talking about, perhaps.

[@gaoxiaen1]

America has airplanes.

[@JordanConley808]

From what I have seen, China is not worried about all rails being profitable. Some are just to connect people who would ve left out.

[@negi9076]

They might even want to replace all standard rail lines' functionality with high-speed ones. Look at them making freighter bullet trains, double-decked bullet trains carrying roughly 4x more passengers than a 777 can, and bullet trains that go intercontinental with chargeable rail gauge. These are all the features that only standard trains can perform while the bullet trains can't.

[@dennissvitak148]

China loses 50 million dollars on their HSR (high speed rails) system. Per day. PER DAY.

[@hshjdk]

Exactly, its not always about money

[@yl128pang3]

China builds high speed trains to facilitate the people. It is state owned and not really meant to make big profits. Unlike in the West, everything that Capitalists do is to maximize their profits.

[@visitante-pc5zc]

Agreed. Because money grows on trees. Why bothering if something is economically viable?

[@antoniowallace4158]

Money lost in trains is better than money lost to wars.

[@Monitor2023]

GREAT , well saying 👍👍

[@RCSVirginia]

Antonio Wallace Especially wars that were either lost or had outcomes that were worse than when they were started.

[@rogerdodger8415]

Not true. Great advances have came after wars. Look at any war in history on any continent from Africa to the Americas and you'll see that it led to great moves forward in economics, infrastructure, and standard of living for the people. Compare that with the "stable" Soviet Union and you'll see the exact opposite.

[@malharpathak4941]

Wars are always profitable. Countries with a propaganda military won't be able to achieve that.

[@danielraiter]

Depends on what you are fighting for surely.

[@stannislas]

i'm in australia, first thing l learnt on project management course is that. public project should not be evaluated based on financial benifit but econimical benifit, the bullet train in china is one of the example we learnt....

[@stannislas]

serioursly, your channel's name is 'econimics' nation...

[@1colinb]

But wait, what is economics if profits (losses) are disregarded?

[@agalah408]

@@1colinb Then you sing the Monorail song and build it anyway...

[@chinesepetants2767]

@Indi An Fasod Well, if the freedom or demacracy is a must for westerners, president should be elected every 4 years, right? Every party will only get focused on how to win the election and nobody will be interested in long term plans on how to improve natianal infrastructures. So here`s your choice, long term plans or democracy.

[@really7372]

@@chinesepetants2767 Somebody has to pay and if you waste money on prestige projects, regardless of the money, the investment will suffer from lack of maintenance, failure to pay off the debt and eventually bankriptcy. China is on a non-stoppable slide to the bottom Open your eyes and stop digesting CCP lies.

[@jon5269]

I do not agree with this take. Rail doesn't always need to be profitable as it is a public service the same way as the US Highway system doesn't generate money at all. You could also make a comparison of the $900 billion debt to an event that happened around 08 in the US. The US chose to bail out its banks for $650 billion while China has chosen to invest that into high speed rail, which I think is a better decision for the people.

[@garryferrington811]

Freeways and suburbs are going to sink the US economy. We're already close.

[@feifei987]

Many people simply don't understand that you are a very wise person.

[@Iolo3]

Unfortunately no, you've missed the point. Rail is not just create once, then forget kind of thing like roads. It needs multiple stations, personnel, electricity, maintenance as ONGOING COSTS. One thing people seem to forget is that rail also degrades over time so creating 70,000km of rail is going to compound this situation later in years when these will also need maintenance

[@georgecaplin9075]

I completely agree with you. I’ve argued this with a lot of people. You shouldn’t really aim for infrastructure to make money. That’s what coffee shops and car plants are for. UK has an obsession with privatising infrastructure and wringing a profit from it, to pay shareholders who weren’t even the original investors, the state was.

[@師太滅絕]

Rail indeed, need not be profitable. But the lost must be justified by concurrent economic advantage, otherwise, it really defeats the purpose.

[@FureyinHD]

I've spent lots of time on these trains, they rock. But they book out early, book ahead. Very popular. And cheap as hell. They aren't supposed to make money, they are supposed to make China effective and efficient. Its the bigger picture.

[@eng3d]

Exactly. It is precisely what makes US great in the past. US built trains not for profit but to build a country, increase production, join cities, etc. Now US does the opposite, it does not spend a dime if it can't profit from it and you can't push the economy that way. China is repeating what US did a century ago: a government that invests in the country instead of investing in private companies.

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

U.S. railroads were always for profit.

[@redh-4084]

basically the author failed in economy lol, he doesn't even know the uses of transportation, I bet if he were to do trading based on his level, -99.999% lol.

[@finishgoogl7960]

china is doomed & into oblivion

[@dragonflycrashed5511]

> yeah, the bigger picture. like applying stolen technology to acquire 900 billion in debt.

[@kotomoidealmcky]

This is the reason why US cannot build a single speed train because it is all about profit. 😂😢😅

[@OmmerSyssel]

Weird how Highways are never calculated likewise.. Most feared taxation expenses are suddenly not a problem

[@same.6409]

For a merely 6% of its GDP in one year, China can build a massive high-speed rail system that connects ever sizeable cities, even some of its most outlier cities near its strategically competing neighbouring countries, I say it's a super cheap project. It's puzzling why someone would compare China with a 1.3 billion population with..... Switzerland?! The sad truth that whenever the Westerners couldn't explain something happened in China with their knowledge learned from their economy class in school, they always explain it as a thing for the Chinese leaders' face, national pride, and to show-off. However, more often than not, these people just don't understand the strategic horizon of the Chinese, where they often plan things for the next 30-50 years.

[@djtan3313]

Yes

[@tallll70]

The video was not comparing size to Switzerland just referencing it 🙄... What about westerners again? lol

[@same.6409]

@@tallll70 So you are telling us the video, by referring to Switzerland's GDP, not trying to make it sounds a lot of money that China had spent to its viewer?

[@really7372]

miles of railroad in the US? The freight rail network is nearly 140,000 miles. There are six Class I railroads (railroads with 2021 revenue of at least $900 million) and approximately 615 short line railroads (Class II and III). Short lines and Class I railroads.

[@same.6409]

@@randomdude9828 Believe whatever you want to believe, but the fact is, the Chinese high-speed railway has a annual passenger volume of over 2 billion.

[@fredfrond6148]

HS2, in the UK, was gonna cost one 8th of the entire price of the Chinese rail system at 110 billion pounds but lay only track a distance of one hundredth of China’s bullet train distance. Now it has been cancelled. Who is pissing away money now?

[@JohnTr5]

Different view between western countries and China about HSR (high speed rail). Western countries always think about financial benefits because the money comes from capitalists. About HSR China thinks about services for the people & businesses connection to facilitate to support them to make huge productivity and money. So HSR has never been to make financial benefit directly but make people moving faster, production faster, money flowing to China faster and people much more happy and building Chinese pride.

[@bazooka4095]

HSR is not a public service as normal railways, bcs it's very expensive and also they're railways designed to be high capacity railways, building an HSR in a low density area is simply useless. There is a lot of more solutions for connecting low density areas like intercity or tilting trains

[@bastiancooper-queen1849]

Hahahaha you are funny !

[@healthyhabits3374]

Yup it's because the China's regime has a lot of easy & dirty money. So they can do whatever they want to show up, and keep a lot of it for themselves.

[@suhongpan5459]

@@bazooka4095 Because you never think the whole country is one family.

[@taterkaze9428]

Thanks for your input, China bot. China has been capitalist for 40 years. The CCP doesn't understand that foreign investors don't like instability. They can't because they rule with communist idealogy. Enjoy your economic decline.

[@Baldcafe]

The high speed rail might just be my favorite thing about China. Always on time, cheap, clean, fast. It’s literally brilliant.

[@mikatu]

You are mixing China with Japan. Yes, in Japan the trains are all of that, not in China.

[@daweilaotou1269]

@@mikatu I take it you have never travelled on them!

[@rusticcloud3325]

​​@@mikatu I doubt you have proof on what you said about China, even though I agree with you about Japan.

[@reis1185]

​@@mikatu Japan has only 2,830.6 km railway network, not standardized with inconsistent design speed of 250,320,160. China has 42,500 km railway network standardized operating design speed of 350kph.

[@apple-on5pq]

its cheap for you but not general public in China

[@unknowndoe4396]

You said it yourself, the lines are not profitable, but the ability for people to move about the country from rural areas to work in megacities is worth it for individuals and the economy, less economically well off citizens can leave cheaper in rural areas but go to big cities to work for higher wages and return homes during seasons holidays. During Chinese New Year or National Day holidays those lines become swamped. What this video also misses out is that those network rails ars used to transport cargo and delivery, there literally high speed trains that have empited out cabins and boxes stacked high in them for delivery.

[@AllenGraetz]

These are not for commutting. MOst Chinese can not afford to take these bullet trains, not even to get home for New Year.

[@ssrbgangimaribotan6thofthe12]

@@AllenGraetz What do you mean they can't afford it for New Year? Have you ever seen Chinese New Year train station? It's always so packed like sardines. Every time there is a Chinese New Year the high-speed rail tickets are always booked out 2 weeks in advance. I even missed out on vacation plans in my first year here at China due to that (I'm a foreign student btw). The price of the high-speed rail is not so expensive that the Chinese people can't afford it (they cost averaging from 80-180 RMBs on average of short to medium distances, while peak seasons it can cost like 260-320 ish at most, which is around 35-45 USD, which is much cheaper than airplanes, much much longer distances can take much more but it's still much more competitive than plane tickets). You are underestimating Chinese people's income too much and the affordability of their train tickets. Heck the bullet trains are usually booked out atleast 1 week prior in other Chinese national holidays (like the golden week) even if it's not Chinese New Year because people actually love to go visiting famous tourist places here.

[@ssrbgangimaribotan6thofthe12]

@@AllenGraetz Also for commuting there is also the Chinese metro system that exist in every city, which are not explained in the video at all. And it's very affordable too just 4-5 RMB (0.7USD) per trip (for any distance, and you can transit to other lines too). They also have a reliable bus infrastructure too that cost 2 RMB (not even 0.3 USD) for any distance. Or rentable bike (1.5 RMB per hour, or you can buy membership or use your own bike) that are basically everywhere in the city too complete with pretty decent bike infrastructures (albeit I think it's mostly for big cities, while the smaller towns are still modifying their streets for this). You can go to anywhere in any city without the need of a car at all and for cheap too.

[@AllenGraetz]

Leave it a Chinese bot to deny that 2/3 of Chinese citizens incomes are literally on part with subSahara Africa.

[@ssrbgangimaribotan6thofthe12]

@@AllenGraetz technically currently it is on a rapid raise for the recent decade that a lot of western companies started to move out to southeast asian countries, like my home country (which i'm happy that its actually improving the economy of southeast asia). Also affordability of the economy (transport fee, food cost, and housing outside of central city areas) is another factor. If we want to compare economies we can't just use income in USD as a deciding value because exchange rate is different for every country and is a very bad base of comparison, furthermore the exchange rate of USD to RMB IS controlled by the CCP to gain unfair advantage over other countries when it comes to exporting (a lot of countries do this but china is the one that is the most extensively in control of their exchange rates compared to any other countries). When it comes to comparing economies PPP (purchasing power parity) is much more relevant than income or GDP per capita. If i want to choose which country i want to live in in asia other than my home country rn then it's either singapore, japan or china (all in order from first to third).

[@MrDCrosswell]

Rubbish! China understands if you want to build, you need infrastructure. You put the infrastructure in well before it becomes profitable. If you don't, it never does. You demonstrate it yourself with the example of people going to live in a more rural city, reversing the rural drift. Compare it to the current state of U.S. infrastructure: trains are coming off the rails everywhere! Maintenance on rail and rail bridges is not just decades behind, it's stretching into generations! This is going to accelerate the economic downturn there and help in it becoming irreversible. From Nanjing to Beijing, for example, you have to book a month in advance! Don't worry! China's network is going to grow, to full effect!

[@Itsme-vo4fx]

I rode the Chinese Mag Lev bullet train in 2018. This train rides on a magnetic rail which mean the train and rail don’t actually touch each other. The train reached 430 km/h (267 mph). We were told that it could go faster. However, it needed to slow down to be able to stop at its next station. The ride was extremely comfortable with no noise or vibration. This was an experience that I will cherish for a long time since I don’t believe I will ever top that speed in my older lifetime.

[@DaGoook]

Yeah but it’s extremely expensive to build and doesn’t get you downtown. More of a novelty than a true solution to get to Pudong airport.

[@zarthemad8386]

..... and you will never fly. 20000:1 paid ccp shill

[@klauskapalle6768]

Well then be informed this was build by Germany as the developer of the transrapid

[@alielabdimarras7965]

@@klauskapalle6768 Developed with taxpayers money till market readiness and then the stupid germans started hugging trees. China says xiexie

[@jakubbriza7274]

@@klauskapalle6768 Ganz genau!

[@mglee1431]

They already stated that their bottom line is not about earning profit, their aim is connectivity.

[@Monitor2023]

their aim is for the benefit of people and whole country

[@TonyPhilip-it2lm]

Beijing to Shenzhen South (1500 miles) is 99% sold out for tomorrow, all 12 trains/per day.

[@Kemet3.0]

High speed rail would be sold out in the major Chinese cities, but not in smaller cities. As he explained, this is how the conversation about Evergrande began. In the same way as China Airlines, they overbuild and lose money on maintenance. Building mega Chinese airports that appear to be empty. kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3yvkoFqgtWAi6s

[@akltom]

losing money on maintenance? hope you understand what you are takling about. chinese railway is owned by the government. high speed train connect cities together and make the business more convenient, that means more tax money from busiess. it's more like transfer your money from your left pocket to your right pocket. i'm living in a small city in china, i just check the ticket on my mobile phone, all ticket sold out already

[@again5162]

​@@akltomRural Chinese are frugal they prefer to take an older cheaper train and sleep rough overnight than pay 4 times for high speed arrive earlier and have to book a hotel for a night. It's basic economics the high speed rail is inefficient in over 50% of routes

[@akltom]

@@again5162 sorry mate, there is no slow speed train in my town. actually, there was no railways pass my town 5 years ago...

[@lunascomments3024]

​@@akltom actually the HSR situation is like my home cell network. before the pandemic we didn't have any 3G network let alone 4G. We only have 2G which is only useful for calling people. this is happened for straight 10 years since 2G was used everywhere. but then we have 4G for all villages now. and suddenly there's more people holding a phone and subscribed to monthly plan. when you're topping up your plan ofc there will be VAT.

[@extracuap]

😅Inaccurate analysis... building infrastructure is not always based on profits... the profitable part subsidizes the losing part... then the hope will then become a profit over time... we in Indonesia make a road in a lonely place that divides the mountain through the swamp... in the hope that it will boost the economy

[@parikshitsharda4377]

Well it does not seem to be working. China sometimes just builds for the sake of it. Kind off to show off. Like there are so many ghost cities where they built "too much residential and commercial buildings" without there being real demand on the ground. Sometimes they did it so that their GDP figures look good by the creation of artificial demand by these big projects.

[@manu18190]

I completely agree , remote places should have connectivity, money should be definitely pulled from other profitable sources and invested and subsidised for people . But if you build 16 lane expressway to a remote town does it make sense? Think about it

[@rusticcloud3325]

​@@manu18190 16 lane "expressway" isn't even more express than HSR

[@ds2332]

The problem with video is that every infrastructure has to be profitable even if it states it is owned . Look at us here in uk where it got us. Or worse look at USA where not a single high speed railway. Government it to serve people not profit from it. I

[@SunofYork]

Not English

[@angelsjoker8190]

Seeing how fast megacities have grown in China over the last couple of decades, an unprofitable line now might be profitable in ten years.

[@zarthemad8386]

the abandoned ghost cities? you ain't all there are you

[@rusticcloud3325]

​@@zarthemad8386 Where are these cities? Can you name at least some of them?

[@Trgn]

​@@rusticcloud3325Literally Western propaganda: Film sone unfinished projects by private firms. Add some grey filter. Omg China building mass ghost cities. They never show how only few years later those places already filled with people. 😂

[@hsukangli]

Um, in the U.S., you failed to mention LOBBIES as a primary reason why there are no high-speed trains

[@chatGPT-One26]

He is using American think to forecast the future of China! Use a kid garden think vs a adult’s! Two totally different system, one is serve Rich, one is serve people!

[@mikatu]

Exactly, because the high speed would be more used in the east coast, not across the country.

[@OmmerSyssel]

Present low German railway standards is another example of the catastrophic outcome of lobbying against common interests.

[@gabiesanchez8943]

Petroleum and Automobile manufacturer lobbyists to be specific.

[@brianjones7660]

@@gabiesanchez8943 environment loonies as well.

[@whiteknuckles]

The function of the HSR in China is not to make a profit. The function is to connect the country with provinces to promote commerce. The benefit will exceed the cost. Your analysis is short-sighted.

[@Birch37]

First they need to recover $892 BILLION 😅😂😅

[@Monitor2023]

HSR is for the benefit of people in China, not for making money , this is communism . China government put the people on the FIRST.

[@jayceh]

​@@Birch37 so one years worth of US bombing Iraq and maintaining its aircraft carriers, for running trains over a 15 year for the benefit of its own citizens? Sounds like a much better use of funds.

[@rossbryan6102]

IT IS TOO OFTEN FORGOTTEN ON ESTABLISHING NEW ROUTES, EVEN IN AREAS OF LOWER POPULATION AND HIGHER MILEAGE, IF THE LINE IS IN SERVICE , THEN THE LOCAL EXPANSION BEGINS! LOOKING AT OUR OWN HISTORY, THE EXPENDITURES FOR THE FIRST COAST TO COAST RAILROAD CONNECTION WERE CONSIDERABLE, AND IT WAS NOT INSTANTLY PROFITABLE! BUT CONSIDERING THE OUTCOMES, WAS QUITE IMPORTANT TO ENSURING PROFIT BY DEVELOPMENT! THE LESSER POPULATED AREAS OF NORTHWESTERN CHINA , IF DEVELOPED, CAN HELP WITH THE GROSS OVERCROWDING OF THE EAST AND SOUTHEAST!

[@karenko6107]

Totalky agree with your point, that the purpose of China building the HSR is indeed not to make a profit but rather to connect metropolitan areas with remote countryside towns, balancing prosperity levels between the rich and the poor areas of the country.

[@chatsoon6802]

youtubers are more understanding China then the government. really impressive 😂😂

[@heinlich]

Especially when those are just gpt bots.😂

[@lolololo-cx4dp]

What's more impressive is people likes u who trust AI generated content

[@Trgn]

Dont underestimate the nobody youtubers and internet users who has never been out of their mom basement. They are actually all experts in geopolitics, and all other intellectual fields, honing their knowledge for years from 2 minutes youtube videos and internet memes forums.

[@alaindumas1824]

The World Bank report you reference at 5:43 is actually quite complimentary of China's HSR program, not that one would know by listening to your video.

[@jgwill]

The world bank is a joke

[@Victor-ns6pj]

Rail doesn’t need to be profitable everywhere. It’s similar to bus routes within a city - nor all of them profitable, as they serve the purpose of connecting people within a city, making city better and more comfortable place to live. With respect to “ineffective capital allocation” argument - it’s better to build high speed rail than see trillions of dollars vanishing in the aftermath of stock market crash or banking crisis. Most of the stuff on this planet is build despite the low ROI…

[@thierrycs1165]

not to forget billions in weapons & others means of destruction

[@zannierzan9634]

"it’s better to build high speed rail than see trillions of dollars vanishing in the aftermath of stock market crash or banking crisis" How about both building high speed rail AND see trillions of dollars vanishing in the stock market crash? Amazingly, China managed to do the latter twice in less than 2 decades

[@jeffjones114]

Exactly... there is no way that the prices on the trains in china turn a profit... incredibly cheap. also their subways are the say way... you pay like 50 cents for a subway ride (much nicer than usa's)... when you tell them its $2.75 chinese look at you like you are crazy. this is the benefits of a communist government, they create good infrastructure projects to help their people

[@ameyas7726]

But 1 trillion dollars debt for just one rail company is good!!!

[@ameyas7726]

@@thierrycs1165 China has overtaken Russia as the 2nd largest exporter of weapons in the World..

[@fliteshare]

Instead of worrying about financial issues with trains running on another continent. It might be more productive to worry about bridges collapsing under their own weight right around the corner.

[@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq]

Insert Kerch bridge joke here

[@michaelkingpangilinan6988]

Tofu project

[@williampotter2098]

We are spending too much money on giveaways and entitlement programs and have nothing to spend on infrastructure maintenance. Remember this when you vote.

[@markharmon4963]

​@William Potter I do not believe you are talking about 170 billion to Ukraine and back into the hands of military contractors.

[@zarthemad8386]

China has alot of those every year.

[@rusticbox9908]

China has the largest annual migrating population, even before the first HSR line, during peak season 20 years ago, people waited days just to get on the train then another day on the train and further connecting buses. Planes had the same problem. With the new HSR lines people cut down 2+ day single trips to 4-6 hours! Minimize long haul bus accidents and crazy traffic congestion on it's 2 lane expressways! If the Chinese went the north American route, they'd be building 8 lane highways all over the country and the world would be out of oil by now. Even the previous head of national railways has said had they not started building back then they can't build it today due to much higher land acquisition costs! It was definately the right decision! The whole migrating chinese work force got at least 4 more working days/year, Every year onwards!

[@yudistiraliem135]

With 1 trillion dollars in debt, it would be easier to just buy every 50 citizens a bus. Beside the area is already connected by other means, that’s the big problem. A lot more people choose conventional train because they can rest before main destination. It was definitely a wrong choice, could have actually bring the people long terms prosperity with the money such as advance center of research for agrarian products and lifestock.

[@jimglenn6972]

Migrating labor is very restricted in China. Very few social services are available and they are generally looked down upon in the big cities. Also, remember how endemic corruption is in China. Try to get anything done without paying bribes or no-bid contracts. If any big project goes up, people made lots of money illegally for sure.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Stop having people all migrate home for two weeks of the New Year or stage it by province.

[@rusticbox9908]

@@donaldkasper8346 The Chinese people have more freedom than you think,

[@lolololo-cx4dp]

@@yudistiraliem135 definitely not definitely lol

[@陈诚-i9f]

thats the differences between the west and China, in China the state funded project are normally not for profits , include the power supply and telecom , even in the most remote areas people have electricity and internet .

[@st0rwing]

This is similar to airlines. You have profitable routes and non-profitable routes. In many countries, the latter is used by national airlines to drive development to rural areas. Its part of the social responsibility of the operator.

[@yudistiraliem135]

1 trillion dollars in operating lost. Not worth it. It would be more socially responsible to spend it on research centers and educations. Many area still don’t know how to achieve prosperity because their crop and lifestock yields are too low. You can’t make farmers to be rich if they can barely produce more than their immediate needs.

[@st0rwing]

Still better than the country which rather spent trillions on defense than a single HSR.

[@stephenpowstinger733]

It is also a matter of degree. A relatively mild loss is not so bad. Of course, economics is China is somewhat shrouded.

[@xiphoid2011]

Yes ,but the whole airline must be profitable. In the case of China's HSR, the rail system as a whole is losing billions of $ per year. Because of this, you really can't say it's operating as a business, but you can argue that it's another public welfare program, akin to food stamps or cheap housing being for the poor paid by the taxes collected from tax payers. It's fair to some, not so fair to others.

[@st0rwing]

This is a social program. When you look at the ticket priced at a quarter of that of Spain/France HSR, it’s clear making profit is not a priority. Also, 60% of the extension routes cost are funded by the municipal gov, who stand to profit from the rise of property price at the land the route pass thru. This allows the HSR’s debt/asset ratio to be maintained at 65%. To further reduce its debt, the profitable routes are IPO to raise fund to pay off the debt of extension routes. Is this fair to the tax-payer? It’s hard to judge at this stage. Comparing to the trillions spent on foreign military bases, at least Chinese get to enjoy their money physically at some point in their lives.

[@jiajieGao]

One thing that you did not understand is that, Chinese infrastructures is never profitable, bridges that connects mountain villages, bullet train that goes to rural areas, metro that loss millions; the reason that they exist is to be as fair as possible for every each individual no matter where they live.

[@shawep4178]

That's the truth.

[@jan22150]

That doesn't make sense or does it ?

[@TSRHelios]

@@jan22150 if you put it to a broader perspective, the investor is the state. The growth of economy will put money back into the state's account. This is not one off gift that is irrecoverable. So, it makes sense.

[@flipsolo]

I wish the US has a bullet-train “problem”

[@rusticcloud3325]

They don't have a bullet train problem, rather they have a hugely subsided interstate problem.

[@albertleung5823]

道理其實很簡單, 高鐵帶來城市的繁榮, 是政府的長期投資。在票價上雖然負虧, 但在其他方面郤帶來更大的營利。這是資本主義國家下的公司不能做到的! The reason is actually very simple. The high-speed rail brings prosperity to the city and is a long-term investment of the government. Although it lost money on ticket prices, it brought greater profits in other aspects. This is something that companies in capitalist countries cannot do

[@irvinglee9125]

It's not uncommon for rail lines to not be profitable. For example, the NYC Subway system runs a deficit of which has to be subsidized by the state and federal government for both operating and capital costs. However, property values and business increase as a result of mass transit.

[@computer-ot8si]

but China is over-doing too much...lol

[@raphaeldemo9966]

There is an economic incentive with NYC because all those people can efficiently move from home to work contributing to the local and widespread economy. While China they but such an economic burden and it moves one scarcely populated area to the cities.

[@MSBGaming23]

The NYC subway is also a dump.... Lol it could use some profitability

[@RCXDerp]

NYC is a dump

[@rusticcloud3325]

​@@raphaeldemo9966 They want to build on the scarcely populated area because they care about people, not just profit.

[@Oldfogey2014]

This is what happens when you buy one train from Japan, then copies them to make a set.

[@sjcsystems]

It is cheaper and faster to take a train than go to an airport. Electrified high speed rail is the future, air travel isn’t. This is a huge enabler for a developing economy. I’m sorry to say that the USA is being left behind here with their lack of progress.

[@TheTompinai]

US: We built to get profit (money, money, money) CHINA: We built to create wealth (Infrastructure + accessibility = economic opportunities) That is the difference

[@Indian_Rajput]

Actually it happens every where in India too, passenger trains are sometimes loss making but it's compensated by freight trains which earns heavy profit📈

[@mirasolovklose3888]

Connectivity is essential even if its at operating loss but that does not mean you go crazy with high-speed rails. Look at Japan, even after 5 decades their lines are serving high density cities.

[@Jinkypigs]

​@@mirasolovklose3888given their size, china's plan is hardly "crazy".

[@gaoxiaen1]

@@Jinkypigs Right. It's more irrational than mere insanity. China's HSR loses money on every transaction, but it makes up for it with volume! LOL! Keep on "investing" in HSR, Chicoms. Invest more in BRI and BRICS as well as your already obsolete military, while your economy collapses and your people starve because the CCP is tearing out productive farmland for rice fields with topsoil washing away every time it rains. The Chinese people suffer frrom unemployment while their life saings are confiscated to buy worthless real estate bonds and they can't withdraw money to buy food or pay their ovverinflated mortgages on tofu construction apartments!

[@gold9994]

passenger trains are sometimes loss making They always lose money.

[@Train_Nerd]

Railway is a network. In difference to air traffic it's not based on point to point connection, but on interconnection between lines. Smaller lines are feeding bigger lines. In Europe we had to learn this lessons, when after the closing of tracks, the railway declided over decades. And now, after reactivating it is growing.

[@heyhoe168]

Air traffic too has "main bus" structure, simply because of big liners, which is cost-effective only at high load.

[@margaretjones777]

I love trains, but I'm dubious about these arguments. Obviously having some rail connection is better than having no connection, but the case for high-speed upgrades is absolutely unproven. Only one country (Japan) has developed a high speed network that makes an operating profit, and this is probably because it provided a monopoly service after the destruction of WW2. All other high-speed networks have failed to make an operating profit, let alone paid off the costs of their construction. Moreover, the debt incurred by building such networks has often imposed a crippling cost on the national economy. It is no coincidence that Japan, Italy, Spain and France have some of the highest public debt levels on the planet, and have suffered serious economic consequences as a result. As Switzerland and the Netherlands have realized, it is better to plan your railways around the proven needs of your citizens (which usually means regular, reliable "stopping services", even if this seems underwhelming to the rail buffs.

[@heyhoe168]

@@margaretjones777 that is why I strongly believe that 2 way 150 km/s grade rails are superior to 1 way 250km/s. But forces of capitalism leads society to the inefficient way.

[@gaoxiaen1]

Your mom increased prices and decreased customers? She must have been very beautiful, like Eva or Zha Zha Gabor.

[@somethingelse9535]

@@heyhoe168 "But forces of socialism leads society to the inefficient way." Fixed for you..

[@VrataVenet]

Km of lines isn't a good indicator of a network's maturity. For example Spain's line goes from North East to South West, a single line. However, Japan and France have lines that crisscross the country connecting more cities even though it has less km.

[@mikatu]

Spain's high speed train is a joke. Even Germany, France or Italy have better networks than Spain. Also, the spanish network is not profitable.

[@oichilli7309]

I did the maths. Spain and Japan have about 0,007 rail km per km². China has about 0,004 rail km per km²

[@VrataVenet]

@@oichilli7309 another good economic analysis is the number of passenger footfall per stations

[@really7372]

@@VrataVenet What do you mean Spain has a single line? There are several AVE routes. The system is a hub and spoke with Madrid as the hub. The difference is Spain builds highspeed rail where it is neccesary. Also there are other high speed rails other than AVEs. The rail I took from Salamanca to Madrid that was fast but not a AVE. I've been on Renfe's AVEs and China's high speed rail. I found the AVEs to be superior in ride and comfort. Spain is a medium size country not the 4th largest as China. You can transit through Spain easily by auto or bus.

[@cornishdiaspora918]

@@really7372 The Spanish system is superb. I should know, I live in the uk.............

[@bustertn2014]

The issue with HIGH speed rail China is facing is the cost to keep them all running. While they claim to not have debt, China is carrying a higher percentage of debt to GDP than the US is. The way they hide this is by dumping roughly half the debt onto each province, kinda like a state level bond. Unfortunately their provinces don't make money like US states do, and many of the provinces won't ever make money since either their workforce leaves the local area's to work, and not return, or the rates the workers make don't generate enough in taxes to pay the debts. As for the real estate crisis in China, it's STILL going on.

[@Ottovonostbahnhof]

No, China dose not carrying a higher percentage of debt to GDP than the US is, all debt includes. China rail can simply raise the ticket price for 5% to cover all the interest in future, but they never did. That tells how silly your argument is.

[@beijing110]

High-speed rail is the only form of transport that will allow 1.4 billion people to travel efficiently

[@nntflow7058]

No, normal cheaper train that run 200km/h could do that at significantly lower prices. Hence it would allow more poorer Chinese to use it more often.

[@Privat2840]

@@nntflow7058 The solution is to compromise solution. Acquire the right of ways for high speed rail, but for now build convention speed trains. Since one of the major expensive and logistical issue with high speed rail is the right of ways as hi speed rail requires straight lines and very gentle curves. By acquiring the hi speed right of ways now, it prevents massive future costs to relocate buildings that might be built in the future as need arises.

[@nntflow7058]

@@Privat2840 I think clearing the land for future expansion is different than building high speed rail today. It makes sense to clear the land and make room for the rail to be upgradeable for the future. But it doesn't mean that they need to build it now. We know for a fact that the cost to build, maintain and operate high speed rail is significantly more expensive compared to 200km/h train. My focus is on affordability and sustainable. Using 200km/h train and lowering the ticket prices is a way better option for me than using high speed train with expensive ticket prices. Mind you, some of the ticket for these train in China are not cheap by Chinese or even International standard. If the government wants me to use train as much as possible, spending $100 once a month for a train ticket is way too much for me. Many people like me would look for bus instead because its costs us like $20-$30 instead.

[@ArrytroLovesMangoes]

Well, most of the rail networks around the world run through loses. And that is meant to be. Railways are meant to connect pwople not only to make profits. Even the Indian Railways run through loses but they are working on the Diamond Quadrilateral (or the High Speed rail networks). So :)

[@titantitan2851]

900BN...... a bit over the top.

[@beijing110]

@@titantitan2851 Because new lines are still being built on a large scale

[@beijing110]

@@titantitan2851 High-speed rail is the only form of transport that will allow 1.4 billion people to travel efficiently

[@rusticcloud3325]

​@@titantitan2851 You forget that the state can give subsidy to HSR, and guess where the money comes from? Taxing the now rich people that has been using the HSR to increase their personal mobility and hence their personal economic development too. And that's how you should be doing state economics.

[@BlackSkyTrooper]

I always heard the recent news how bad is China!? In realities, they are moving far ahead, and their economy or others in term of macroeconomics, and socio-economic development is far better than so call United States.

[@Monitor2023]

Yes, go and see with your own eyes , don't trust any western media

[@rusticcloud3325]

Realising they started to lag behind China, the Americans seek any way to disregard China and thus starting a propaganda war.

[@gaoxiaen1]

Must be Chinese news.

[@xiawilly8902]

My children are losing money everyday, so we should not have babies at all. LOL.

[@josephguo3429]

a matter of pocket A to pocket B, because the trains 100% made in China, own by State and run by State. any problem?

[@finnwty]

Actually, in China the railway isn't built for profit. The railways are all state owned, they can raise the price to win more profit easily, but this won't happen. If you only evaluate the profitability of the railway based on its own operating costs, this is not correct. Because railways, as the infrastructure provided by the government, can promote the flow of people and goods, greatly promote the economic development of the whole society. So even if the railway loses money due to low prices, the value it creates is much higher than the loss, and it is actually profitable for the whole country

[@AllenGraetz]

Ah yes the old "you just can't measure how important it is" argument. What a load of poppycock. Racking up a trillion dollars of debt is a noose around China's neck.

[@shiningyrlife]

But the debt is real.

[@finnwty]

@@shiningyrlifeyes. But the railways promote economic growth, the whole country win more than the debt it costs, it's also real. You never see this?

[@shawlyin7633]

@@shiningyrlifeBut debts are transformed into high-quality assets of these infrastructures. People not only enjoy the convenience, but the longer the time, the less the debt. The national debt does not serve the people, does it serve the maintenance of wars that waste money like the United States?

[@Sunshine-go8se]

China now has around 42000km high speed rail.

[@1michiganbuck]

The Chinese high speed rail network is a national transportation system akin to the city bus systems in the US. How many US city transit systems make money? There is not a single US city transit system in the major cities that make money. So, intead of thinking of financial success as a problem, think of it as a necessary city service, or country service. And the intangible benefits cannot be bought with any amount of money.

[@brucewilliams8714]

He mentioned Switzerland, arguably the most efficient rail network on the planet. Its state-owned railway - SBB - deliberately decided against high-speed rail (above 200 km/h) in favour of rock-like timetable reliability and inter-connectibility at termini and junctions. And, my word, it works.

[@petergerritgroen3157]

And Germany, old crap 😂

[@GeneralKato]

Size and layout also plays a big role here my friend. Switzerland is tiny and very mountainous, by the time a maglev reaches topspeed and stops again you would have left the country……. Also, maglevs don’t do inclinations very well. Long straights, flat terrain and few corners.

[@OmmerSyssel]

​@@petergerritgroen3157you get what you vote for... Greed is a bad leading principle.

[@rs-dp6pr]

Yeah when you have a country that's the size of Rhode island.. lol..

[@leonpaelinck]

What makes Switzerland so great is the centralised villages. This makes it "easy" to serve the majority of the population with public tranpsortation

[@Matruchus]

Totally missed the point of rail network. It does not need to be profitable. Its meant to move people in massive numbers that cars can't and also move freight. As long as it is government controlled deficits can be covered by the state. That's how rail network has worked in Europe for a long time.

[@ronaldmarcks1842]

Off-the-books Chinese municipal debt related to the high-speed rail system was forced upon municipalities and now approaches an estimated 3 TRILLION USD. Unfortunately, even this enormous expense does not assist Chinese industry, which must rely on expensive, polluting, accident prone trucks to transport goods on already overcrowded highways. The logistical overhang in China is about twice as high in China as it is in the US.

[@BURTONPHOKONTSI-df1gb]

you have never been to china...you know nothing

[@stephendoherty8291]

It has connected China, fed supply for the massive workforce and during very specific holiday windows. Its cut the need for local shuttle planes and air emissions. China otherwise would have had to import massive plane orders and its airplane fuel. China did announce they would slow down its hsr expansion. It also avoided marginalised chinese regions and cut some housing demand in the most expensive cities. The alternative can be seen in india and North America. Intense local plane shuttle traffic, high airport and skylane congestion, heavy plane emissions and time lost in either driving or in the non flightime transit portion, not tp mention local airplane noise into airports buckling under demand. The airport refurb costs fall on the local regions/provinces/states (and taxpayer debt to fund them). That same hsr passenger line could be used at low demand times for faster rail cargo. We also know armed forces love rails cargo hauling ability.

[@stephendoherty8291]

Most state rail systems have public debt.

[@manu18190]

This is noting but false prestige. I agree that public transportation has to be cheap and non profitable, but that is only basic public transportation. If it’s luxurious they offering it at low price and running in losses doesn’t make sense. A train up to a speed of 150 kmph makes sense, any train beyond that speed should be profitable

[@stephendoherty8291]

@@manu18190 While the tgv etc and most high speed rail make an operating profit, it has to be more than one line, it has get trip riders out of cars and planes and not just grow the market

[@yudistiraliem135]

Most of the time cuts are not worth the higher price tag, that’s why people are still using slower train. And in many area china are very beautiful, with modern and comfortable trains you can see why the demand to cut a couple hour of ride is not there. The other video about the subjects has quote from real people that says, riding hsr is tiring because it’s 2 hours. While riding the normal train is relaxing and they can sleep before reaching the destination. Which I understand because we deliberately took night bus with executive tickets for the same reason, we want to have time to drink coffee and take a nap first.

[@stephendoherty8291]

@@yudistiraliem135 Not sure, any hsr is there to cut sleep time. Might say alot for Chinese work culture that makes travelers want to sleep wherever possible. Meanwhile the US rail is in reverse. Do Chinese prefer waiting in airports?

[@user-gl9iz1bp1r]

The Chinese leadership think "holistically" in developing integrated solutions. Moving people efficiently and effectively requires integrated solutions. In America - it is all about the political narrative and those in power remaining in power. Play the ball where it is going, not where it is. May want to learn Mandarin Chinese.

[@brianjones7660]

the 50c Army is back!! How long does it take Mom to fold the laundry? Ever kiss or even date a girl? Exactly.....

[@debasishraychawdhuri]

What percentage of the US GDP is used to commit war crimes?

[@curiouscynic4357]

When you calculate profit you should calculate the profit generated by those travelling this rapid transport. That is intelligent economics.

[@frontseated5983]

Can we discuss the real problems that America has, with their 35 kilometers of high speed rail network ?

[@wadopotato33]

It is not a problem because we don't have 1.4 billion people and cars work. There are very few places where high speed rail make sense.

[@Retroscoop]

It's not just building these railway lines that is expensive, also to keep them "clean" and in top notch condition, absolutely necessary for trains reaching such speeds is costing a lot of money.

[@allwinyay]

Do not forget.. China has enough people to fill the trains and it's efficient public service that is efficiently provided. Main objective is to cover maintenance cost NOT making profits as these are state or government projects.

[@Wunderpus-photogenicus]

From the minds of western economists it might be true. But, China has its own sets of rules and policies, and an economical mindset and aptitude based on Chinese characteristics, which is difficult for a non-Chinese to comprehend. Too many times in the past decades especially upon China's tremendous successes in all major departments, the west had "predicted" or "forecasted" the demise of China and, obviously every one of these wishful thinkings failed flat on their faces.

[@maryhuckaby2239]

China's leaders think lo-o-o-o-o-ong term, both as to social unity and stability within China and as to the development of Eurasian trade for regional strength, stability and prosperity. Current U.S. leaders have the opposite goals - neglect of infrastructure, poor services to rural areas, fracturing and destruction of communities, no intelligent planning (profit-only mentality) and exportation of U.S. chaos to other countries. Instead of using their "moment in the sun" to create a great country, U.S. leaders have squandered it on wars and profit-taking by the few. China is wise. The U.S. is not wise.

[@brianjones7660]

long term as in...One Child Policy? HAhahahahahaha....you are collapsing demographically. Prove it wrong.

[@ozibala]

when Europe and Japan stop supplying spare parts those bullet trains will travel at 0km/h

[@jayceh]

"the US now having trouble with the Interstate... It hasn't had a profitable year since 1992 when it was officially completed... And people still want _more_ roads?!"

[@rusticcloud3325]

Americans tend to forget about this due to excessive "car freedom" propaganda

[@tompickel]

Nice video! However, you can't call the choosing of less economically feasible rail lines a "problem", because infrastructure brings with it life and economic activity in the long run. It's a "problem" for the short run but a very smart investment in the long run. It's an even smarter investment once you include benefits other than financial return. Rather than being a mistake, it's brave preference.

[@iand3lond]

building the high speed railway network isn't the most expensive part. Maintenance is. If they struggle now it is very worrisome for the future. A dense network is neat, but every new connection has diminishing return. If they have to end up closing lines in 20 years because the treasury isn't what it used to be and debts have to be paid, the network is going to be a huge burden. I hope it is not going to happen

[@rgruenhaus]

Investing in your society is always beneficial!

[@anypercentdeathless]

"How to Start a KZbin Channel": 1. Hire different people do every part of the video. 2. Done.

[@same.6409]

@@iand3lond to be honest, I tend to trust these people who have been making these kind of strategic decisions for China, they have a largely positive track record in the past few decades

[@abc24601]

Precisely. Just what I was about to write. The narrator is shortsighted in his comments. Also, the goal of public transportation shouldn’t be profit, then, one part of the network can subsidize the other.

[@MxGrr]

Profitable or not, we need HSR lines in the USA. That’s the way to connect people that are otherwise isolated in the middle of the country with either coast, propel development in areas now in decline, and avoid the high environmental cost of motor travel. Now, if we were only to enamored of our cars.

[@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq]

Slower trains would also do the trick. Just 80 or 100 miles per hour would be plenty and both the long term and short term cost can be cut without having to cut into safety concerns

[@UYT7715Flower]

Give me one example that one city in US that is so isolated that people cannot go to other cities by car or flights, and only HSR can do it with better economic efficiencies.

[@daleviker5884]

@@UYT7715Flower I notice you got no answer, predictably. It's just ridiculous to contemplate building hi-speed rail across the whole width of the US.

[@wadopotato33]

Nope. Trains in China have way to many people on them. I will stick with comfort.

[@cianmcguire5647]

The main reason the USA does not have any high speed rail is due to a failure to invest in public transport (alongside all public services); not population density. The northern corridor is a great example.

[@garryferrington811]

There's more money selling cars and auto insurance. As an old-time politician put it, "The public be damned."

[@Paul-H-Wolfram6608]

The title of this should be, 'Why USA now has a serious problem with its national debt of 31.5 trillion dollars which the US is unable to pay back'

[@rikoscorpion]

That's why we call this 共同富裕。Never giving up on anyone.

[@honesttruth8710]

Serious problem b/c China develops too fast leaving others behind

[@jadawin10]

Almost all new high-speed lines in Europe have to be opposed or even sued... In a dictatorship, it is easy to create new lines, even when they are not in use, it cannot there be opposition.

[@junyin5950]

@@jadawin10 No one would object, because if the railroad took your land it would pay you a lot of money. And if your city is connected to the high-speed rail, it shows that your city is developing rapidly, the urban economy is growing, your land or your shop or your products and so on will bring you more wealth

[@johnchan4136]

290 million people migrating to the city as part of the urbanization process from 60%, the need for high speed mass transit in China is to avoid over crowding and over developing a handful of mega cities becoming like Jarkata, Cairo or New York, Tokyo, London, etc. thereby making real estate prices unbearable. China chose to become an industrial giant mastering high speed transit technology over making a few more real estate tycoons like the Americans or Japanese did to their own demise.

[@sarabande90]

You talk as if the troubles of Evergrande, Country Garden, and the likes did not exist in China. 😆😆😆

[@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq]

When your competing with the islands, you know your models standards are set low

[@johnchan4136]

Just for example; the spill over effect is colossal. Besides Evergrande, CountryGarden and the like do not get to control government policies

[@johnchan4136]

@@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq Egypt is not an island! And many many more, just to name a few. Half hour train ride is already > 175 km and the 2nd or 3rd tier cities within that radius from mega cities have much cheaper housing, maybe at 30% that of the mega cities like Shanghai

[@Eastwind99]

@@sarabande90 He refers to Lehman Brothers collapse, or 2008 real estate bubble in US, or GM bailed out by government...

[@johnpenn74]

Rail does not have to be super fast to be effective. Go to Europe. If you consistenty do 80-100 you can get where you need to go effectively.

[@OmmerSyssel]

All over Europe fast trains (~200km/h) are either running or in planning.

[@rusticcloud3325]

Depends on the distance.

[@tonyv596]

1.2 million homeless people in America....who has a bigger problem?

[@almisami]

Okay, but are these rail lines remotely as expensive as all the tarmac in the USA they subsidize?

[@rusticcloud3325]

Americans just forget about it, or they know but want to make anti-China propaganda anyway

[@kjhnsn7296]

China sees the big picture and takes a long term view. Projects like this simply are not possible in the US due to lack of vision, competing priorities, and frankly corruption.

[@brianjones7660]

Long term One Child Policy........right. Internal collapse as Polymatter demonstrates their population implosion.....

[@Flanker16]

Convenient transportation is to facilitate the flow of people and promote economic prosperity near the railway. In the long run, it produces economic benefits far greater than the capital cost of building the railway.

[@blinkyblonk4912]

Yes its always a terrific idea to spend 9 Billion Dollars to connect a town of 20 000 to a town of 30 000 .

[@gnayreh8507]

It's not about Profit but prosperity for all citizens

[@desshinta9428]

The reason why the US doesn't have a High-speed rail line has nothing to do with population density, but politics and the Lobbying of the automotive industry.

[@cleasanna05]

Those are all factors, America does have a low population density, cities that are spread out and would be harder to attract riders that way. A few areas could benefit but there is alot of politics involved as well

[@Trgn]

I doubt lobbists have that much power. US urban planning and cultural preference was already built around automobiles.

[@ax18-x8l]

WARNING: Do not believe those who has never been to China in the last 5-10 years. I've been impressed. Every single time, as a frequent traveller to China. - - - The derived and rippled effects of providing mobility for everyone (rural/urban citizens/international travellers/goods logistics etc.) at such speed cannot be quantified by the profitability of the rail network alone. By allowing the free flow of people through reducing the concerns of time is the key here, let alone the cost of riding these trains is relatively low when compared to airlines and the time wasted before/after the ride has been reduced to none. Metropolitans are made wherever the trains reach. Second and third tier Chinese cities are larger and more urbanized than ever. Standard of living for average citizens are lifted.

[@xiaolidan1]

High speed train networks in China are like the super highways in the US in the 60s. They’re not meant to be profitable directly but to lift up the overall economy. Its really cheap to ride and genuinely a good thing for the average citizen. I live in the US but often wish we have high speed trains here. My friends in China use it on a regular basis and they love it. One surgeon friend told me that he could perform 3 surgeries in 3 different cities over one weekend. Good for both the surgeon and the patients.

[@daleviker5884]

I'm sure in a country of 1B people they have multiple surgeons for every type of specialty. Why is one surgeon doing operations in 3 different cities instead of three surgeons doing operations each in one city? You are not selling he benefits of rail as much as you are exposing the inefficiencies of totalitarian states.

[@miker3298]

Chinese Government serves the people, profit is a western concept to make a few rich.

[@jaymarcase9737]

This is why healthcare, housing, mass transit, and mostly everything sucks in the USA because everything centers around profit. Nothing can be done for the greater good of the society. It’s short-sighted and why the infrastructure is falling apart.

[@TheChosenFailure]

News flash, Public Infrastructure such as rail isn't meant to be and shouldn't be profitable, the interstate highway system in the US is losing tons of money yet that doesn't mean it is a boon to the economy or the people living in the US. If anything the US should limit car infrastructure and pivot over to rail infrastructure and other public transit as roads are extremely self destructive due to roll resistance, plus cars are very wasteful and space inefficient causing a boat loads of traffic.

[@borissergijevic7357]

The word "profitable" has the whole different meaning in China. Doing something good for people and improving the living standard are priorities.

[@theseb1979]

Public transport does not have to, nor should it, be profitable. The government can make its money back indirectly. By allowing people to travel faster and more there are other benefits, which all translate to more taxes paid into government coffers. This video is based on a very myopic view from a pure capitalist direct profit is king point of view

[@salec7592]

If infrastructure only follows the population distribution as it currently is, then population distribution is perpetuated. On the other hand, traffic connection is antithesis of migration. But, back to first hand :) , if there is a desire to enhance the standard of living (more space per citizen to live on/in), then new settlements can rapidly get integrated into economy if there already are routes in place for that.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

Inexplicably people don't want to move to middle of desert or Himalaya even when impressive fast rail connection is built.

[@lonelywolf159]

@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Because you are talking about a place that is not suitable for human habitation, not a place where people are unwilling to live.

[@tanjinkiat6790]

Law of Declining MARGINAL rate of Utility applies . as the distance of km High speed Rails are built.

[@spider6660]

The Chinese government built it for the welfare of the people. Also, air travel takes a long time in China. Because 60% of the airports belong to the Chinese military. Westerners who say it is debt, how many high speed railways are there in western countries except European? California and China started their high-speed project the same year but China went miles ahead while California was still looking for more than 100 billion dollars to finish the project and also delaying. So which is better? Cost overruns and time delays or building railways to access every population? The benefits of high-speed railway is huge, not only political. Tourism increased in every province especially in southern and western provinces, the Chinese government is moving factories to hinderland areas inorder to reduce pollution in huge cities, fast transport of raw materials from western and northern provinces.etc

[@thefourthrabbit9516]

Just want to point out that high-speed trains are not commonly used in China as a means for commuting ("living in smaller towns and working in big cities"). It is not an affordable option for the working class or even lower-middle class. It is, however, great for tourism and business trips over middle distances. A dense network of high-speed train is also more environmentally friendly (which is conducive to China' carbon-neutral goal) than other means of transport.

[@johnm7267]

Rail travel in China is super cheap and to say it was built for tourists is rubbish. Rail travel in Britain is super expensive, it is sometimes cheaper to fly

[@Vinnie101a]

@@johnm7267: Agree completely with you John. Trains are so popular, and usually the very first choice. Seems like the rabbit has never experienced trains in China.

[@BobfromSydney]

Given the amount of coal-fired power plants in China I'm not so sure the trains are green, even though they are electric.

[@thefourthrabbit9516]

@@BobfromSydney I mean it is definitely not carbon neutral itself, but it is far more efficient than diesel trains.

[@comment8767]

100 new coals plants every year are not conducive to Carbon-neutral goal either. And what do the trains use for fuel, donkey spit?

[@carolemccartney566]

Traveled extensively on the high speed network just prior to Covid. They were excellent! They had a business class seat which is above their first class and is fantastic. City centre to city centre over journeys of 1000 miles or less are quicker and much more comfortable that flying!

[@gaoxiaen1]

Almost everything is wonderful when it's brand-new. Come back in a few years.

[@BMW-lu1pp]

The railroad itself may not be profitable, but the overall economy will benefit from the high-speed rail network especially those inland provinces.

[@apple-on5pq]

but the ticket price is too high for most low income people

[@BMW-lu1pp]

@@apple-on5pq the ticket price is actually very affordable. e.g. Beijing to Shanghai (700 miles) starts at $50.

[@apple-on5pq]

@@BMW-lu1pp you have to consider how much people earn in China. Former Premier of China (Li Keqiang) said that 600 millions of people have a monthly income of approx $140 USD. And 900 millions of people earn $280 or less a month.

[@BMW-lu1pp]

@@apple-on5pq the high speed rail give those people a chance to get to big cities to seek better opportunities. It also attracts business to reach those landlocked provinces. You need to know that 40% of Americans don’t have $400 in their bank accounts for emergencies.

[@lizexi7115]

@@apple-on5pq what bullshit is this. A look at wikipedia page tells u average income is like 12k USD. If 280$ per month then everyone in china is living as beggars on street and 140$ per month then ur starving and eating leaves at that price u cant even afford electricity bill or basic rent in cities. (Li said 140$ for 600millions, where most are farmers living in subsistance farming earning basic income by selling fruits and veges). Urbanization in china is like 60%, which the stats add up. U dont just connect a high speed lane to a farm. U connect it to major cities. U know nothing and spread bullshit like that. 600+ 900 millions math dosent add up bro, 1.4 billions only not 1.5

[@LizzardVictim]

1 year had passed, China HSR is still running. Its national holiday this week and billions of people is using the HSR to travel to other province or other side of the country for holidays. yeah the railway is losing money, but you can see the economic benefits, people spending money on their holiday.

[@marechalrommel]

This projects aren't profit oriented. They are about country cohesion and getting people connected.

[@GregMoress]

Like the non-bullet trains have done for decades???

[@rusticcloud3325]

​@@GregMoress Non-bullet trains are unable to connect people as effectively as bullet trains

[@bensonchen3132]

America does not have high speed train not because of population destiny , its combination of reason, existing railways are privately own and automobile manufactures and Fuel manufactures lobbies for years for not allowing high speed rail to prosper

[@brianjones7660]

Wu mao, try any rail project in North America and wait for the childish enviros to block it every way possible.

[@DJAYPAZ]

High speed trains depend on a rail network that is maintained to a very high standard. Equally, the high speed rolling stock needs to be also maintained to a very standard. These are overheads that can’t be comprised without adversely affecting safety. High speed rail systems are very expensive to build and run. Given these overheads and the initial infrastructure build costs, profitability is dependent on relatively high passenger numbers being carried on each route. It makes sense to connect large population centres with high speed rail and lower population centres with standard rail systems. This is similar to the hub and spoken arrangement used by international airlines. The size of the high speed rail network appears to unsustainable. Routes carrying low passenger numbers will almost certainly run at loss. It appears that there are many such routes. External factors such as China’s declining population will serve to exacerbate this problem further. If the high speed rail network expansion described in this video proceeds it is highly like that debts incurred would adversely affect Chinas entire economy. A refocusing of the overall rail network design to hub a spoke model may well be a fair more profitable approach.

[@daleviker5884]

Good points. Unfortunately, these threads are largely filled by left-wingers, who are naive enough to think that totalitarian regimes ever do things to benefit the population. China's investment in its hi-speeds rail network is for one reason only, and that is military. It is a system that will allow the rapid movement of men and weapons when needed. The economics of the system don't concern the regime the same way it would be a factor in the West. Hitler also invested heavily in railroads in Germany before WWll and built rail in other countries that he occupied. This was all about being able to shift armies more quickly between the different theatres of war that broke out. That's one of the reasons that western Europe has such good rail these days, because the land corridors needed for the rail were just taken by force to support the military, the same as in China.

[@Jinkypigs]

LOL. You know how big china is? They are definitely using a hub and spoke system. But they are also not neglecting cities on the fringes that definitely need better connections to the wealthier cities.

[@dnguyen787]

The main reason why China can build trains or anything easily because all lands belong to state. 😮

[@heinlich]

Is Vietnam also a commie state?!😅

[@dnguyen787]

@@heinlich yes! But is it relevant?

[@Monitor2023]

Good point. In US many people would bring the case to court to stop the government to use their land

[@OmmerSyssel]

​@@Monitor2023USA seems obsessed with obstructing investments in common good..

[@jadawin10]

Almost all new high-speed lines in Europe have to be opposed or even sued... In a dictatorship, it is easy to create new lines, even when they are not in use, it cannot there be opposition.

[@kkchan226]

夏蟲不可以語冰 You can’t make Summer insects to understand what snow looks like.

[@shundi4264]

Profitable as a business - No. Profitable to the society as a whole - Yes.

[@georgeseal8463]

Spain has the same problem, to many lines that are not profitable because they link small populations over long distances. This has been a boom for politicians that inaugurate high speed rail lines to their communities and for the impressive Spanish rail and infraestructure industry. However, people don't know that train tickets are heavily subsidiced resulting in public debt and higher taxation, so finally people overpay and the entire economy suffers. Japan was able to pull it off because it has a large wealthy population that lives in a limited geographical area. Several places are not included in the high speed network (like all of Okinawa) and rural or smaller populations are connected by normal trains. You can take the subway and connect with different trains all with one payment system, but it only works in highly populated, high income areas. Spain, like China, would be better served with conventional rail lines that are economically viable and also transport cargo. Spain has a deficit in cargo rail lines. Cargo trains are much more efficient, and generally safer, than truck transport, and thus create more economic growth and, long term, more employment and prosperity. Bullet trains are a specialist niche application that don't make sence in most markets and geography. They are, however very popular.

[@MontyVierra]

Okinawa?!

[@georgeseal8463]

@@MontyVierra I meant that prefecture is not covered by the high speed rail network that covers the large islands

[@gauriblomeyer1835]

Cost never play any role in the railway sector. A nation has to provide the best opportunities to its people whatever the cost are as in the military, education and community contact.

[@taoliu7312]

Every country is different. A communications company in China could build an internet communication tower for a child to facilitate her classes. Her home is located in a valley where there is absolutely no possibility of making a profit.

[@dstr1]

You are trying to use commonsense to analyse a problem that requires technical knowledge of which you lack.

[@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus]

Seems like that’s what a transport network is meant to do - move people first, then make a profit. One of the advantages of state control.

[@yudistiraliem135]

Hsr is not newly arrived in China, and they are as of this year officially lose more people than gaining. It will be worse next decade. At the very least this show that it could be the right decision hust bad timing as in they should let technology reduce the price first before building it. But they do the same in my country (Indonesia), it shows that the price of the ticket should be 3-5 times higher and the people that use HSR should be 3-5 times more than the normal train, which is madness. They kept asking the goverment to lend them aid though the contract made by the government explicitly says they won’t and even before they win the contract the president said that the only reason they were picked was because they assume their own risk.

[@rusticcloud3325]

​@@yudistiraliem135 Source please. I'm Indonesian too but I doubt your second paragraph.

[@JK-pe6ft]

The USA does not have a high-speed rail network because it prioritises car and air travel. There are plenty of pairs or groups of large cities in the USA where high-speed rail connections could outperform air travel, so low population density is not the only issue there. Moreover, the US's low population density in its urban sprawl is itself a choice: if you fill your cities with wide motorways and parking lots, increase demand for travel by segregating residential and commercial areas, and prohibit medium density developments, then population density is limited.

[@cleasanna05]

Yea but its political nightmare, most cities that could benefit from high speed rail in the US already have existing infrastructure, business, homes, railways, highways that take up alot of the space and property. High speed rail needs specific infrastructure, good luck convincing states and counties to alow it through thier territory if they don't benefit from it. Also, outside of the Eastern seaboard, and a few select cities, the population density is actually pretty low in the US, and cities are very spread out and far apart which would make high speed rail uneconomical for most cities. Americans are also very individualistic and likely would not chose high speed rail if they want to visit multiple places, hang out with friends, and explore other areas in the metros of cities. Lack of population density even in metros makes a high speed train a less attractive option, since metros can be very spread out and a secondary form of transportation(likely a car) would be needed anyway. The only high speed rail that is being constructed now in the US is in Cali, but there are doubts if it will ever truly be finished or get the ridership it needs to be profitable, since it's way over budget now. The other high speed rail projects are still in the proposal phase, and no construction contracts have even been signed. All in all the US is just not a good market for building high speed rail, it would be very expensive to build, people would not want to pay for it, the market would be very selective, and it might have a hard time catching on with most travelers.

[@dstr1]

The US do not gave high s po eed rail network because it's priority is to stuff the pockets of those who fund political campaigns. While the country's infrastructure is going to rot!! It's all about graft!!

[@markhemsworth2670]

If the true cost of carbon is added to flights and fuel for cars, then I can see rail having a real chance... especially in the East. From Boston ,- NYC - DC - Atlanta - Miami. And maybe even over to Chicago. The density is there in this part of the country. I always find it interesting that republicans want to fight against taxes and subsidies, except when it comes to cars (fuel, roads, and all the other infrastructure needed to support single family homes)

[@heyhoe168]

So USA dont build most efficient transport in history just to keep air travel corporations afloat? Nice. Good luck with climate change.

[@davek1833]

Tesla FSD convoy mode

[@4Lights.5Liights]

I never hear what happens when a bullet train hits a deer. or a bear, or a moose.

[@dansklo]

Please let the Chinese handles their own problems. Everyone should focus on solving his own domestic problems, rather than worry about other people's troubles. The world will be a much better place.

[@seowkhoontan9534]

Well said. A very sensible suggestion.

[@lostcarpark]

I think you are only looking at the lines in terms of profit from ticket sales. While the lines to the west of China may not be profitable in the short term, I expect in the coming decades they will allow new development in the connected regions, and significantly improve the economies of those regions. Having railways run by a state company allows considerations other than profit to be factored in.