Why do they have to make money? Do we expect every new road built to make money? No it's a public service and benefits everyone, even those who have to drive
@@nntflow7058 Transport is as essential to a functioning modern society as the rest of those (to a basic extent of commuting, services etc) There are many non-essential services that public money is spent on, my council puts up a Christmas tree each year, would that be better spent on the things you mentioned? Maybe, but there are lots of things that money needs to be spent on, and public transport is one of them.
@@Wozza365 Transporting goods and people could be done on normal train. Roads is essentials because its used to connect residential, commercial and industrial areas. Roads for non electric vehicles also part of this. (bikelane, sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, etc.) It's the cheapest form for short and long distance travel and it's flexible and multifunctional. Comparing all roads and railway is insane.
@@nntflow7058 roads are not the cheapest form of transport lol. The costs of everything when added up far outweigh literally any other kind of transport. High speed rail removes trains from the regional tracks, creating more capacity for local trains and cargo
That is absolutely false. Roads take people (and goods) where they want to go, not to an arbitrarily determined station. The Last Mile is where around half of the cost of transport lies, and trains do not take you there. @@Wozza365
High speed rail is ideal for dense passenger flows between large cities between 50 and 400 miles apart. A train with 1000 people on running every couple of mins or so (see Japan or China) simply can't be matched by any other mode of transport in terms of capacity and travel time over these distances.
@@Telencephelon400 miles is equivalent to Paris-Marseille. Pretty normal distance for HSR lines, although air companies (barely) start to compete for this kind of travel. But thinking about HSR lines independantly and not as a network is a failure. From Marseille, you have access to the spanish network, and the italian through Lyon. With major stops all the way.
@@marcbuisson2463 Yeah. What I mean is if we had evidence-based politics then I doubt these would be built. Or at least I, as a citizen wouldn't want the money to go there - especially given how there is always an alternative technological path opening
@@Telencephelon oh nop, on the contrary, with evidence-based policies, they would be built far more than highways. The alternative technological path opening is some kind of semi bullshit that has been promoted for decades by plenty of different people, and outside of the japanese maglev, little to no alternatives will emerge in the coming 40 years. The US don't have massive seasonal internal migrations: your transit system is rarely paralysed by numbers. In France or in China, we have national vacations. Without good HSR, there would be regular collapse of our roads every year. Which, to be faire, already happens a bit. The all highway alternative is just... Not an alternative for us, and the costs of adding lanes upon lanes on major highways is just a ginormous loss of money, that americans love to jump on. Nop, thanks. Furthermore, keeping good transit in the heart of our cities add to the services provided by city centers, and keep them valuable, instead of decaying like american ones.
If there is air transport of 100 to 500 miles distance, then HSR would compete. However, airlines are subsidized; airlines don't build airports; airlines don't run the federal weather service or the air traffic control. If more people took HSR, it would have more support. London to Edinburgh, is as quick by train as flying, cheaper, and without the hassle of flying, and it isn't even high speed! (look at the TH-cam videos on it.) If you ever went London to Paris by train, you would never bother flying. The problem that HSR has, is that it is considered "socialism" to build rail highways, but somehow not to build motor highways. Giving a subsidy to rail is "socialism" but somehow not to motor highways or airlines!
Well , if we take EU as example : airlines don't pay VAT on fuel and have other financial dispensations , all amount to heavy subsidies, whereas the same does not apply to trains. Take away those sweet handouts, and suddenly any train ( slow or highspeed) breaks even .
Where do you get that roads don’t create economic growth and the taxes and fees to fund the building of roads and rail. Rail has a history of not doing that.
I'm sorry to say, but this video focuses far too much on the negatives of high speed rail infrastructure projects and makes out like they are just an endless money pit for the taxpayers. Roadways never receive the same level of scrutiny as railways and are never expected to make a profit, and that is because we simply accept them as necessary transport infrastructure, yet when it comes to railways, they must make money or they are a wasteful subsidy. It's true, roads have their place in society and are ideal for small rural areas where public transport would be too expensive to even justify, and even then there should always be an evolution to buses before we think about skipping to trains since they are more ideal for larger numbers of people. But one thing roads will never be able to claim victory over is the airlines. High-speed trains on journeys of up to 1,000km can carry far more people than airlines (which by the way, are notoriously hard to profit from as well but nobody seems to care as much) and at a greater efficiency with vastly lower impacts on the environment. Italy has proven that high speed trains can replace most of the domestic air travel since Alitalia simply couldn't compete with the efficiency of high speed trains travelling from city to city without the hassle of security and check-in along with being so much more comfortable. High speed rail is expensive, yes, but it has it's place and should be seen as infrastructure expansion, not a private investment scheme.
Now do a similar show on highways. Highways never pay for themselves. No form of transportation, without exception, exists without significant subsidies.
Even the subsidy costs are neglegible since the improved transport generates more income for the economy as a whole and that extra income means more tax revenue.
@@gooser__43 that's kind of a case by case issue with eminent domain. They pay you for the land but dictate the prices, in some cases they sell for less than the lands worth but sometimes more but it's supposed to be based off fair market value. Most of the land they tend to go through, especially on the west coast, is either government owned or owned by large companies. Like in Washington state they built a lot of rail lines through Weyerhauser land, basically just forests they logged once every 20-30 years. They usually try to build alongside roads too since they already own that land making it much easier. There's a fair amount of fuckery that goes on with eminent domain though so they try to avoid it since it complicates projects. It can easily lead to lawsuits and end with actually _overpaying_ for the land, especially if someone sues and wins. There's also sometimes corruption that happens and wealthier people and big businesses can manipulate the government into overpaying for the land. Sometimes they do underpay, but that's typically because the land is worth more than the fair market value to the owner.
Except that roads and highways are, in large part, paid for by the gas tax, from people who actually drive on those same roads/highways. In other words, the users of that transportation system. Does the revenue equal the expense? No. But users of those roads PAY for them. For high speed rail, more people pay for it through taxes than actually use the service. Which is the issue. The train tickets just don’t cover a large part of the infrastructure expense.
@@Vektab you're right. There's also all the economic benefits, which more than make up for the "cost". That's common with a lot of things: Google search engine losses money on paper but the analytics it provides boosts ad revenue more than making up for the cost. All infrastructure costs money up front but the benefits outweighs the cost and they generate a profit in some other way.
@@Vektab Fuel taxes and road use fees pay for about 30% of the costs of interstate highways. For arterial roads that drops to 10-15%. For residential streets it's practically nothing. All of the remainder of those costs come from "other sources". The overwhelming majority of funding for roads is subsidy. Highways never pay for themselves. Never have, never will. Demanding that other forms of transportation pay for themselves entirely without making the same demands on highways is hypocrisy. If drivers had to pay all of the costs of driving then they would do it a whole lot less.
Shinkansen is absolutely reliable; it is always on time to the minute. There is no form of transport anywhere I have travelled that even comes close to the reliability of the JR high speed trains. Count the cost extra hours added to any trip just in case there is an accident on the road or bad weather or some other delay. You can arrive 1 minute before the train leaves verses 2 hours minimum at an airport. HSR done right has no competition worthy of comparison.
I live in Germany. I don't like flying to destinations which are not far. I pay a bit (tiny bit) more even if the flight tickets are cheaper to take a train. I end up saving time and stress if I take a train. Whether or not it is a financial burden, I don't know. It is money invested well. Maybe in future we will have profitable systems.
It's a financial burden because the federal government owns 100% of the company, and through "privatization" gutted the entire formula that was supposed to make trains profitable - the real-estate. You can never make the money back in Ticket sales alone. Thats how the JR is able to operate 6 HSR lines, entirely from their own pocket (with 2 out of the 7 companies that comprise the group being the only ones in the red)
I have lived in Germany, I loved the ICE train! I have always hated the way Americans like to compare trains to streets. I've never understood why a street which sees very few passengers is considered a success, but a train with few passengers is a failure. I've never understood why a train which people pay to use, which generates some money, is considered a "money pit" but a public street which people use for free which generates no money is considered success. Unfortunately, this is typical American thinking. I hope to leave the US as soon as possible and get back to Germany!
you made several logical mistakes. A highway for example is also expensive, air polluting etc. Both, a highway as well as rails arent meant to make money. still they are relevant to economy. list goes on.
“A highway for example is also expensive” Highways are heavily used, making the cost per traveler very inexpensive. Rail is extremely expensive (I have seen the public bond issuance for very short lines), labor rates for maintenance is very low (a friend of mine got into that business, but it was not really a decent wage), and therefore the cost per traveler is extremely high. If one looks at pollution, pollution per traveler is also higher with rail. Rail is 1800’s technology with a definitive sweet spot in carrying heavy freight, carrying light people with this technology is dumb.
@@DavidHalko fun fact: the automobile is only 40 years younger than trains. That cars hasn’t had any filters or fuel efficiency back in the days. You might want to argue that cars has developed. Same goes for trains. You may put some coal in the oven so we can move on. Germany again: German trains are powered by renewable energy. So travellers produce roundabout 6-7 grams of CO2 per kilometre which is ridiculously low. A car would need about 150 grams for that same kilometre. You are right, this is only the pure engine consumption. Still 20x(!) You argue highways are heavily used? Well not by night. Most railways are used 24/7. in the daytime its mostly people transportation. by night it’s goods such as cars and coal for example. (OK maybe we haven’t developed that much) In fact the problem with trains here is that our railway system is heavily used, so the trains get stuck in a kind of traffic jam on daily basis.
@@monoblock. - use H2, CO2 concerns evaporate Rail is a great technology for moving heavy cargo. Trains get stuck in traffic jams because a single rail line is half duplex, while roads are built full duplex. In the US, roads are used heavily at night for cargo, that comes from sea, air, and train ports. If roads are not heavily used in Europe at night, that is an inefficient use, causing congestion problems during the day for normal human travel. It makes sense that heavy items travel by rail, goods travel by night, normal human transportation occurs during daylight hours when the average person is awake. Honestly, automobiles by road should be disappearing in another 40 years, for better autonomous options where we can move through the air & not be so tied to roads. We need to look to the 2100’s and not the 1800’s for human travel options.
I get what you mean but houses are mostly paid by people themselves. In the West people are even overpaying for houses. While Highspeed rail is payed by taxes. If you don't want to buy a home: that's okay, you dont have to pay for one. If you'll never travel by Highspeed rail: that's okay, but you still are going to pay for it and the future stations in villages of 26 people. Your house is an investment that is going to be worth more in time, HSR doesn't do that. By the time it ears back it's investment you need new rail/ trains.
@xanderx2523 it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The only point I was making was that sometimes we pay more for things like some little extra comfort even though you can't justify them economically. Things like high speed trains are just things that we all buy together. I'm not saying that there aren't problems with most of these projects because of politicians, but the video went way beyond that. I was once in a train in Switzerland, out of necessity, and it was this beautiful track in the mountains. I've heard 2 guys talking about it and they said: they would never build it now. It would be a pretty boring ugly world if everything would need to be justified purely financially.
I had a similar idea: if the government were offered to receive the cost in hard cash, will they agree to remove a train line between Paris and Lyon? People clearly could make this trip in a car, we will just subsidize them.
@@xanderx2523that is not entirely true, since houses need infrastructure, in order for people to live in them. Schools, hospitals etc. And most of that is paid by the governments.
High speed rail is public transportation. Not everything has to be profitable for public uses. High speed rail can help grow economies. But of course hsr have to be between big cities and decent distance to make it worthwhile.
4:34 The station in Otero de Sanabria is not just a station, it's a PAET (Puesto de Adelantamiento y Estacionamiento de Trenes, or a "Site for Passing and Storing Trains"). To allow faster trains to pass slower trains and to store trains, you need PAETs. It's procedure to build a PAET every couple hundred miles, to allow slower trains to use the high-speed lines without compromising the speed of high-speed trains. To minimize construction costs for the PAET, this location was selected, due to it's cheap land and relatively flat terrain. The 4.2 million aren't only the costs of the station, it's the cost of the train storage and the multiple tracks that are needed for this kind of site. The station itself is only a fraction of the cost. They just decided to also build a station at the PAET, which is the norm in Spain. Also, the station not only serves the town with 26 inhabitants, it serves ~6000 by providing service to the many towns in the Sanabria region of Spain.
HSR is the only mode of transport that can carry hundreds or even thousands of passengers over long distances in a relatively short amount of time while also being powered by electricity. The only downside, it's hella expensive for most countries.
Once you drive your car to the rail, park it, wait, get to the terminus, walk to the destination… it may be faster to drive - which is what I have found. HSR requires building infrastructure around it, to guarantee ridership.
@@DavidHalkothat's absolutely not the case. Decent transit is not a money pit. It's just that the people that make the most money out of it (aka, land owners around train stations) are not those that keep the transit in a good shape most of the time. In Paris, when a new station is added in a neighborhood, land prices tend to get higher by around 50% to 100%. And it's not cheap to begin with. A single metro stop can create multiple billion dollars in added value, as well as in taxable value. But yup, indeed, since transit companies are most of the time public and not real estate ones, they end up in the red. But take away the transit network of Paris, and we will collapse entirely, and the wealth created there too.
@@marcbuisson2463 - “absolutely not the case. Decent transit is not a money pit” Watch the video. Money pit. “It’s just the people that make the most money out of it…” Then raise the prices on the tickets, to accommodate the cost, so it is not a money pit. Proper costing encourages innovation. Proper costing also controls pricing of the land surrounding the metro (people do the cost-benefit analysis.) “In Paris…” It is already built. I understand standardization benefits. Many short stops where the trains remain in the densely populated area seem to be used well there! Keeping those lines purposefully built, with connections from elsewhere via other technologies was smart. There is a cost to ripping & replacing railroad ties, rails, wheels, trains, etc. Extremely expensive. A hidden cost that subsidies hide. We are in the 2000’s. Lighter & less expensive technology that builds 3D (to consume space in the air) can accomplish a lot. Newer technology may be able to add higher degrees of privacy, as well (to discourage pick pockets.) Maybe other competing older technology can achieve similar goals. I am a fan of Gondolas, used in places where retrofitting trains is unfeasible. Add more & remove some as needed on always running lines. Low infrastructure & power requirements, cars provide privacy. Redundant cables for safety, like elevators. Above ground tunnels joining buildings in urban areas with walkways & moving walkways are nice. Used those before. Ticket usage on static & moving walkways for above ground tunnel maintenance.
I did a similar study of motorways. I found that of the billions of miles of motorways the number of that made profit was ..... zero! Of the number of miles of motorways that received a subsidy was....billions! The carbon foot print of building a maintaining motorways was enormous, far greater than any other type of transport. It is good to compare these things!
So you want to ignore a large part of this video? 10K's of people use the road to go to work every day, trucks shipping use it, emergency vehicles use it. Without the road, just about all of them would not be possible. Before u say trains do the same, they don't. It is like 'would u use a canon to kill a fly'. Trains go from point A to point B. With 1000's an hour, they are not going from A to B. They are going everywhere. SO unless you want to spend a few 100K to build a RR track to run a train to your house, and you are not wiling to walk 15 blocks to a train station, the road grid is better than rail.
are you sure you made your calculations right? The GDP, GDP per capita and tax revenue would be higher without motorways? You also calculated the higher accident/death rate of non-motorway roads?
@@h.mandelene3279 i think the contex of the @guillermo comment is goverment investment vs profit not about the usage and he is get the point and depends on circumstances trains or even HSR can be away more usage and benefit from motorways for examples in ukraine and russia war how trains are use to transport logistic and heavy equipment faster and much more larger capacity than roads
80B of debt for HSR is nothing compared to some country spending trillions on useless war. Debts are in local currency. Local savings has to used one way or another, for war or for HSR. Might as well be for the latter.
If you build it, they will come. If you look at the early pictures of the construction of the New York subway system, many of the lines were built into very lightly populated areas, in many cases farmland. Once the system was in place, people moved into those areas and built them up.
Why is there always the concern of infrastructure projects being profitable or not? If someone would now argue with the high maintenance costs, then I have another question: For what are the states collecting taxes then?
It comes down to what would have the highest return? My city recently celebrated the anniversary of the city bus system. They mentioned how many miles they drove and how many people rode the bus. With those numbers, the city would have paid for everyone's taxi rides and saved 1/2 of the money they spent vs doing the whole bus system. Being that is today's rate so in other words, many years back, they would have saved alot more than 1/2 to just pay for the taxi. People driving are doing millions in commerce every day, easily paying for what it took to build the roads.
My first experience with a HSR train was from Odawara to Tokyo, then from Tokyo to Hakodate in Dec 2022. It was a far nicer experience than taking a domestic flight. It is slower, yes, even after factoring in passing thru the domestic terminal, but there are way fewer steps than boarding a flight and we got nice scenery, nice Ekibens and we're free to move around the cabin. We'll be taking the HSR in Taiwan in a few days, looking forward to the delicious Bian Dang!
China too s building high-speed railways to nowhere, where not enough people need to go that could justify it. They're bleeding money operating it, an can't pay the debt for their construction. They are also building high-speed rails into territories they've conquered in order to demonstrate their sovereignty.
I think you could make a similar video on airports. Here in Germany the infamous new airport of Berlin was probably not the cheapest and there are several local airports nobody really needs.
Airports seem cheap vs rail. 1 bad German airport is not representaive. At say $100m each you can build lot of airports for the $900,000m cost of European HSR. . .. Planes are faster and dont require huge tracks of land between every 2 destinations it's almost wacky how politicians claim trains are so great.... Shows how propoganda and media collusion can push any idea..
If you look at the Amtrak lines that actually make money, you'll see that it is basically the Northeast Corridor, a mostly business line between major cites with developed public transit, and a unique line from Virginia to Florida that transports not only people, but their cars. Both cases solve the first and last mile problem that gets them from their starting point to a local transportation hub, and from a transportation hub to their destination. Rail is great on trips that would take more than three hours on the interstate, but if you are going to give it all back in time and aggravation trying to get from the station to your destination, it's just not worth it. High speed rail only benefits those who can not comprehend travel beyond the little islands of public transit on either end of the trip.
Having experienced both, I would much rather have a medium speed, high frequency, and timely Rail system like in Switzerland, than a high speed train that is always late.
It's more about where and how you build HSR. In a small country like Switzerland, HSR is not necessary. But in a country like China, it does make sense because of its huge population. An HSR will cut down on time and ensure connectivity between major economic hubs and inland China. Hence, it makes sense. Some countries simply build HSR because they see it as an achievement as they're emulating other countries that have such technologies. This copy and paste methodology doesn't work everywhere.
If a 4h journey is reduced to 50 mins for two economic hubs, then it is worth the investment. The model is only effective if their users use it to do productive work. You don't want to cut down travel time between two rural areas as their contribution to the economy can not compensate the cost of the investment. Same goes for your roads, bridges, ports, hospitals, schools and universities. It's an investment done in favour to boost economic growth of geographical areas. That's how it works.
You completely forgot about one country, Germany. Where there is a different approach. There are almost non high speed train only lines in the country, but tons of mixed traffic lines. Because we don´t want to spend tons of money for new lines only to run a few high speed trains. So there are fast 200 kph commuter trains on the high speed lines too, and especially at night, freight trains. And they can make the high speed lines profitable, since they benefit greatly from them too. At night freight trains can go 100-120 kph on the high speed lines for hours straight, and cross the whole country in one night, because on theese lines, there are absolutely no obstructions. No tight curves, no big stations where tracks need to be switched, no steep grades, no corssings, nothing.
The problem with high-speed rail is not the concept itself; it is that they can only make economic sense in very select cases. Namely, you need to have **extremely** high population densities along a roughly linear path, with distances between city pairs long enough to make it preferable to buses or slower trains, but not long enough to make airplanes competitive in spite of the hassle and discomfort. There are almost no places outside the Valeriepieris circle where this is the case. To put this into perspective, contrast California's high-speed rail projections of 11.5 million riders per year with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which runs around 140 million passengers per year. In addition to this, the costs run up further when you take into account that high-speed trains must run on dedicated and exclusive tracks -- slower passenger trains and freight trains cannot use the same tracks, limiting the tracks' usefulness. The tracks must also have much shallower grades and no sharp turns for obvious reasons, which add dramatically to the costs.
You are mistaken. High speed trains can handle steeper grades. The LGV Sud-Est goes up and down the Morvan without tunneling, saving money and 77 km in comparison with the original Paris-Lyon line along the Saone river. The Koln-Frankfurt NBS with its 4% slopes is 180 km shorter than the classical line along the Rhein.
Saying that high-speed track's usefulness is limited because it can't be used by freight and commuter trains is like saying the outside lane of a motorway's usefulness is limited because lorries can't use it.
@@alphamikeomega5728 You do realize that outside lane is just one of the lane right? There are other lane that could be use spontaneously without disrupting traffic by different types of road vehicles. While a single rail track can't be occupied by 2 different trains going the same direction. You just made false equivalence....
It's not surprising the cost is so prohibitive to construct a HSR in the US. Even back in the good old days of steam trains they had to get cheap Chinese labor to build them tracks.
You made a huge mistake. Sure, they are not profitable, but they are not for-profit operated. Most of the HSR lines are there for public service, and they don't have to turn a profit. Spain made a huge mistake, since most lines are useless, but most lines in Europe have a usage that make them resonable to operate. For example, how many highways are profitable? And public hospitals? And subways? Exactly, they are public service, not for-profit!
Yeah whenever someone says that trains aren't profitable you should just point put how car infrastructure are just waaaaaaaaaaay more expensive but basically every nation doesn't even bother thinking about it when "investing" (wasting would be more appropriate) money in highways
I agree, visualeconomic should see trains as hospital, highways, ports, schools, airports are: public infrastructure that are not built for profit but to serve people and. Get them in a fast manner where they need to go, sure building stations for them in places with not enough demand or population is a mistake but if the japanese model is emulated correctly elsewhere then we will reduce traffic, pollution and better connect people
He literally talks about social profitability including all the externalities not only financial profit from ticket sale. It includes financial as well as economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. The two examples they give Madrid - Barcelona line while being financially profitable (ticket sale covers the cost of running) the social profit is negative it only returns 80c of economic and social benefits on each euro invested into it. While the Madrid - North line not only returning meagre 20c on each Euro, it also financially unprofitable meaning it is losing money every day it operates.
@@upwizard at least that line is reducing traffic while providing a good fast service plus why doesnt he do such a consideration for american freeways and highways that are banckrupting the cities of USA and some politicians want to add more lanes to them
Also one main difference between China and devloped countries is its low car ownship and low airline access. China only has 200 cars per 1000 people bs US's 900 per 1000. China hs 200 some airports vs US with more than 5000. So rail is the main inter-city transport method in China, with traveling by cars and flying not really practical for most of the 1.4 billion people.
If China's high speed railway network is largely unprofitable now, while the infrastructure is fairly new, will they be able to continue to operate at all when the system ages and requires massive increases in the cost of maintenance and repair? I think that the key feature is how far apart a countries biggest cities are. In England and most of Europe, a mere couple of hundred km of line will connect a countries two or three biggest cities. In the US the two biggest cities are four thousand km apart. Even by HSR, the trip would take at least twelve hours, which is twice the time flying would take. And the airport infrastructure that enables a flight to LA would also be necessary to go the comparable distance from New York to London.
I live and work in Japan and need to carry tools and chemicals on person for my job into many of the cities, which can't legally go through security or check-in at airports. Given how unpredictably stuffed with people many airports can be, how expensive flying is, and how much time it takes to get on-and-off the planes, I regularly use shinkansen and most of the time it is faster cheaper more convenient and comfortable than airplanes. I can load up with whatever number of days' supplies and tools and nobody cares. Plus JR the operator company had been privatized so they know why they keep running these trains.
@@cestmoi1262 Perfect for JAPAN's needs as it's both profitable and very beneficial for them (not sure if we can say the same for Maglev though). If that doesn't apply to your country then sure, but don't apply it to HSR in general.
@@zeroyuki92 HSR makes sense when your rail network is already at capacity and you need a new line anyway. Same reason why tohoku shinkansen is being built, the main trunk osaka-tokyo shinkansen is at peak capacity
1. Construction of track pollution is less than construction of roads 2. HSR is for intercity transportation, Subway is for intracity transportation 3. HSR is very suitable for travel between 1 ~ 5 hours, compare to taking plane, where most of the time wasted in the check in and security. And much more comfortable, cost effective and environmental friendly compare to flying. 4. China HSR debt is a tiny fraction of US debt and they are all internal debt. 5. The so call slow line, because it stops at more stations, so can pickup more passengers
I read in other source, would be interested to confirm: China's high-speed trains where expected to help people from remote underdeveloped areas to commute to work in the more prosperous regions. That did not work, the number of commuters is insufficient for the trains to be profitable and does not grow. In case of traditional "slow" trains at least those rails can be used for cargo trains and would help the economy in the other way but high-speed rails cannot be used for commercial cargo transportation so those rails become a waste. Anyone heard something about it?
I loved Rory Sutherland's (He is a marketing executive in the UK) suggestion that instead of building high speed for billions of pounds just make the trip on regular trains more enjoyable. That could be done for a fraction of the price. I encourage you to watch his TH-cam video on it. Years ago I rode a train along the Rhine River in Germany and the scenery was fantastic. I enjoyed that trip much more on the normal train then I would have on high speed rail.
the main purpose of HSR is reduce travel time and thats why country like china prioritize HSR, as indonesian for us the 350 km/h jakarta bandung HSR reduced travel time from about 4 hours to about 40 minutes is a game changer,. we also have other kind of trains including panoramic,sleeper and luxury train but the HSR is the best.,
Mr. Sutherland is absolutely right. Here in the US we really focus too much on “high speed”. What we don’t realize is that the vast majority of passenger rail services in the world are NOT high speed. Rail services can MORE than make up for ho-hum speeds with frequent service, high reliability, and good connectivity - these are the things that we really lack in the US, not speed.
Are they? I live in south florida and we have a high speed train between Miami and Orlando. It's sold out almost every trip. Driving is 3.5 to 4 hours. Train is less than 2 hours. LA to San Francisco is being built... It will be a huge success. The LA to Las Vegas high speed is being built.
I heard on other channels the Chinese high speed rail network being used as a prime example where most routes can never be profitable and run at very low seat occupancy.
That is not true. In weekend the frequency of high speed trains is very high, and if you do not book the ticket at least 2~3 days before departing , you may not travel on the time you want.
As far as I can tell the high speed train network here going from Amsterdam-Brussels to either Paris or London has made a nice profit pre pandemic. And is returning to profit post pandemic, with ever rising passenger numbers. And I feel we need to also look at the FACT air traffic is heavily sponsored mainly due to lack of tax on fuel. I agree that many lines do not make sense, and probably should not have been build. HOWEVER the trains connecting large metro ereas like London, Paris and the Randstad (which includes Rotterdam, The Hague and Amsterdam) do make sense. Currently most countries want to, or already have abolished short haul flights between these cities. And airlines are starting to offer combined tickets with high speed trains. As soon as Co2 and plane fuel is taxed properly, I feel the profitability of these high speed lines will increase. The Dutch part of the high speed service of Thalys already runs on wind energy, while the rest of the netwerk especially in France runs on nuclear energy. While I agree we need to be careful to implement high speed where it doesn’t make sense, I don’t feel it is a failure everywhere. I am happy that I can take a train here in Amsterdam (as I have done many times) and be in London, Brussels or Paris within just a few hours. Without having to be in the airport at least 2 hours ahead of time for all the security checks.
Just look at that disaster in Commifornistan. After years of delays and massive cost overruns, the only section that's open is from Merced to Bakersfield. Basically a fast train from no place to no where. Not to mention that CA can't keep the lights on now, let alone the electricity demands of a high-speed rail line.
So in other words the trains aren’t a “scam”. The people who are stupid, corrupt and wasteful are also stupid, corrupt and wasteful with high speed trains.
‘are trains profitable? No!’ better question- are roads profitable? Just because infrastructure isnt profitable doesnt mean they shouldnt be built and operated
The analysis does not account for how the alternative modes of transport are worse. A fairer comparison between high-speed rail and the alternatives would account for the extra costs of short-haul air travel subsidies, and the fact that fuel and road taxes and vehicle registration fees almost never cover the running maintenance costs of road and highway networks.
Much of the Chinese high speed rail network is part of the military infrastructure to make it impossible for independence movements to succeed in Western provinces. Still, it seems like many of the lines will end up abandoned as the continued expansion of network collides with demographic collapse. It seems like in 20 years there will be a lot of talk about the Chinese "Rust Belt".
Whittle invented the centrifugal compressor jet engine while the germans the axial compressor. Modern jet engines are all equipped with a axial compressor.
I see... To have a profitable high speed rail system, we need an authoritarian regime. I'm with you. It's the same argument that slavery helped build the pyramids. I mean, these days, if you wanted to build a pyramid, you'd have to jump over loads of hurdles, and that costs a lot of money,
High speed trains are definitely at a disadvantage against cheap oil that makes car and plane travel a no brainer. This is what appears at first sight. If we go a bit deeper into the problem, we see that this disadvantage is mostly due to some political and economic choices made some time ago. One key example is the exemption of tax for aviation gasoline, which date 1944 if I am not mistaken. Combined with cheap oil and heavy tax on railways in the US, this was the recipe for the railway industry collapse. in the 50s, the US government invested billions of public money in the interstate higway system. Otoh railroads were expected to pay for their infrastructure of their own pockets. Why would RR be expected to be profitable whereas roads could swallow public money without any question asked ? The issue with building no high speed rail (HSR) for XX years means that the US need to start from scratch. Starting from scratch costs hell a lot of money in comparison to countries which have experience in HSR for decades. That is about the same situation for the UK which only have one HS Line, and which initiated HS2 too late with no savoir faire developped. Brexit did not help either. This lack of vision is costing the country billions, and not only in costs overrun. Currently, most people don't realise how expensive emittin CO2 is going to be for mankind, but if this is not considered, it should be mentioned that an HSR is a way to reduce dependance to oil. Less oil means reducing oil wars or money sent to unfriendly / undemocratic countries. Fewer air emissions also decrease mortality, which savings can't be accounted. HSR have a lower energy content and a higher workforce content. It is much better than Air or road transport to keep jobs in the country. Any large developed country should have a working RR network and a HSR offer, at least to offer an alternative to cars. These infrastructures are not free, but they are built for centuries.
There are three key ingredients for high speed train, to be successful. 1) High wages in economy, because to get the speeds necessary, maintenance of infrastucture and trains them selves is enormous. 2) High population density. You want the train to lose as little time on accelerating and decelerating, while picking up maximum amount of people along the route. 3) Restrictive geography, denying the populace the ability to disperse them selves. Here comes, what I believe kills high speed rail anywhere outside of Japan and possibly Italy. If you look at Japan, you see islands of elongated shape. Most people live along the cost in huge cities that are not that far away from each other. Italy has similar shape but not the same density. This is why there is chance for profitability in these places, but not elsewhere, that is more "round" like, like Germany or Poland, where people have more space to disperse. Planes don't need so much infrastructure and don't need to share it with others, hence, why they are the better choice for long distance travel... unless you're traveling overnight at regular speeds that is, but let's not get ahead of ourselves... If you want to see long haul trains in general, you need to look to Russia, which is underdeveloped, needs to bring in raw resources from distant places in Siberia to their demographic center in their European part of the country, where majority of them live and passanger trains are an afterthought (as far as civilian use is concerned), or India, which has very low incomes, is somewhat underdeveloped areas interlaced with highly developed centers (for reference, watch Chirs Tarrant's Extreme railways episode about Konkan Railway, somewhat dated, but shows the concept)
Why are you including the emissions from train track construction against (high speed) trains? Cement, which includes metal rebar supports in it for bridges and such, causes emitions to produce and affects the climate when used in bulk in an area. I.E. cities and surrounding areas. Also, roads require more frequent maintainence than train tracks, electricity is more efficient in money and environment to make in a power plant, and other small effects you seem to have glossed over. Granted, high speed rails lose out on one of the best benefits of rails since freight trains cannot use them, but road freight increases the maintainence costs of the roads they use as well so...
yes, but here in Switzerland we don't have high speed rail. We don't need it. Our rail is still on average 3 times faster than the german rail network, which includes "High Speed' Rail. Having more stations, train lines and trains per hour significantly cuts down on travel time. A train that goes 50 or 150kph faster for a few minutes wouldn't make much of an impact.
Thanks for this interesting video, but i wish you made a comparison to other types of transportation - how much highways cost for a state? What about the airports? How much money do airlines get in subsidies? In other words, i would like to understand a more complete picture other than "trains are expensive", we all know that..
Airlines are not govt subsidized. A 2018 claimed this which quickly was refuted. "'Of the $155 billion in spending through 1988 outlined in the report, the vast majority, $140 billion, was spent by the aviation trust fund that supports Federal Aviation Administration spending. The report does not mention that since 1971, U.S. airlines and their passengers have contributed about $247 billion to the fund, according to Federal Aviation Administration historical data.""""". Its hilarious we re even considering trains which basically are SAME ticket price and time as a plane, but will require govt subsidy. Shows how dumb our debate it.. My grandparents generation effing hated the train and jumped to drive and fly, we've already run the experiment and people choose to leave trains in 50s, literally proving this, but still liars will claim people will love trains... Ha. It's scary how dumb we are..
Indeed, there's no reason to suggest that a single High-Speed Rail Line can't simply work up and down the East Coast that also happens to run on nuclear (the small modular reactor variety) with Renewables for auxiliary power.
ya know I take the train a lot here in USA. I'm ok with not having High Speed Rail, but what I'd like is Moderately Fast Rail. Train 48 from Cleveland to New York takes about 12-13 hours. You can drive that in maybe 8-10 hours. I still prefer taking the train, because I can take a couple bottles of wine and get a little bit plastered, which is inadvisable when driving. But the train ought to be comparable in time to driving.
failure for who? they're so convenient and relatively cheap and time/money saving compared to airport commute, flight delays or cancellations. last year i landed in Milan Malpensa at night, 125 euro taxi to downtown. hundred-twenty-five
Infrastructure is infrastructure, it is a long-term investment, and it is paid for by citizens paying taxes. "Time saving" is the profit of the citizens. Energy saving is the profit of the whole world. By the way, the money for hiring workers and purchasing of material is returned to the citizens then. China High-speed rails are not intent a substitution of the low-speed train transport. It is in fact a substitution of domestic air flights. How much China needs to paid for buying Europe / USA airplanes and fuel if they do not have High-speed rails? Think carefully and get back to us a correction study please!
The polls about what people would do if no high-speed rail was available is a bit misrepresented * 8% of people switching to cars is quite a lot - especially if the roads are already at capacity because at that point traffic slowdown becomes exponential * the people who would use slower trains would actually travel only *if such trains exist*. High-speed rail is extra capacity on a corridor, so the slow speed trains may just not fit all of the passengers. This actually is the reason behind HS2 in the UK - it is on a severely congested corridor, which is reflected by the ticket prices. Travel times between e.g. Glasgow and London are already competitive with air travel in terms of speed, but adding the extra capacity would make them compete in price too. * the poor people who would spend 8 hours on a bus, completely ignoring that you can’t in any way do something productive on that journey, would also be polluting the environment much more (and btw highway construction is in no way less polluting than a railway) Finally, government debt is a made up thing. We are one hyperinflation away from making it disappear at any point. However, a built railway is a railway even after hyperinflation. (I am in no way advocating for hyperinflation, but if it does happen it is unlikely to be caused by too much railway built and I would rather have the railway than not).
Mate, I've been to China, and I've been on their Bullet Train from Beijing to Shanghai. They are the most amazing transportation system I've been lucky to experience. We were travelling at 350kph and you could put your cup of water on a table, and it did not move the water level at all. I've also been on USA's AmTrack. It suppose to travel at 110kph, but with all the twists and turns, of the track, it averaged 80kph. Also, the AmTrak was clankerty-clank all the way from Boston to NYC. China has an amazing Bullet Train NATIONAL network connecting cities with every other city. Also, the Bullet Train Stations look like Chicago's International airport. It was amazing. Bullet trains are the most safety train network that exists. I wish we had a Bullet Train Network connecting all our cities in Australia.
Reason 4 on Social Benefit = people that is handicapped ... especially Epileptic hit people who can´t or is not allowed to drive a car .. such kinda people need public transportation :)
All the facts and arguments given in the video are technically correct. Yet, you could also see high speed rail as a service that is provided to the population - like water supply, health care or defence.
High-Speed Trains as a transportation company, is a failure because it is very costly to maintain the high speed trains system. However, High-Speed Trains as real estate rental company, can be very successful. Train stations can be huge shopping malls. Train companies can rent out the shop space in these train station shopping malls to get the money for operating the high speed trains. People can be "encourage" by the government to use high speed trains by increasing the road tax.
The use case is that in high speed rail you can actually work and earn money while travelling. On the airplane it's difficult due to space constraints (european business class is a joke) and lack of reliable broadband internet. In the car you have to drive.
High speed rail is much better than cars, but i think high speed rail should collaborate with planes and not compete. If Airlines would compete with high speed rail, you could travel from a little small european countryside town to New York with 1 ticket.
Your observations seem to be from a auto centric American view. Living in France I am able to hope a HS Rail and soon be in Amsterdam to view an exhibition or museum. There is no need to rent an auto, there is public transport, and bike lanes all over the place. No security, no waiting in line, no one looking through my belongings, no listening to passengers complain, I can get up walk around, get a drink when I want, no need to wait and wait for a flight attendant. Maybe some is before its time, you in the USA did that with your interstates. Sometimes nations need to invest in the future, instead of building more lanes like the 24 you have in Houston, yet it still a parking lot.
But VisualEconomik is just the English translation of a Spanish channel, researched and created by Spanish people in Spain. Why would it be America-centric?
The alternative to HSR is externalizing all the costs of transport, while permitting profit to be the only operative goal, which is what we've done for the last 70 years worldwide. Anyone with 2 braincells to rub together can see how well that works out. The superhighway networks in both Germany and the United States were built to benefit the state and specifically the military, not the public. That they also do these things was incidental to their creation. High-speed rail isn't a scam when there is the population density and distances to support it - see Japan, and France. However in MANY deployments worldwide so far, HSR has been far more a prestige or EGO project for the government of the time - see CHINA and Russia. While HSR is a benefit to the public, they are NOT profitable in the vast majority of places. Even in Japan and France, only a few lines fiscally support the rest. In China, the high speed rail network has cost enough money to bankrupt THE COUNTRY. And of course the intangible factors of graft, corruption and substandard construction endemic to China that has caused this network countless failures, accidents, deaths and will continue to plague it for decades. The 'social benefit' of HSR in China is of course ALSO reduced by the CCPs own restrictive policies and behavior. You cannot compare apples to oranges for HSR between really almost any country and China- because the Chinese orange will probably be a painted tennis ball. What the world REALLY needs is for high-speed rail to target CARGO TRANSPORTATION. THIS is where the technology can innovate and profit, and tangentially will also benefit public transportation.
Yes, building this infrastructure is VERY much worth it. Once it's there, it's easier to expand capacity and so on. There are those in politics who would love to start limiting or at least de-incentivizing driving. As soon as you do that, of course you're going to have many more people that are going to want to use those trains. As an American, I'm very jealous of what other countries have been able to accomplish with their high-speed networks. We need to allow planners/builders of high-speed networks to use eminent domain here or it will never happen.
Did anyone notice the size and room on that 1950s jet. I am interested, how much was a flight back then and would that be equivalent to a business class in today's world?
Back in 1972 a colleague and I decided to have a holiday on London. We had both just started work in an Irish retail bank in Dublin. The return fare from Dublin to London was almost our entire monthly salaries so needless to say we took the Ferry/train option which was less than half the airfare. Today I can go almost anywhere in Europe for a weeks state pension
Typical know-it-all from excessively silo-ed economics education. I suggest talking with people from other professions who are not so obsessed with traditional cost benefit analyses.
The key to having a profitable high speed train line is to build them between the biggest of cities. That’s why most high speed trains don’t make money
@@musqul8566 highways are the most convenient way of getting around right now because we’ve made out infrastructure for cars almost* everywhere in the country. Good luck driving in Paris, Tokyo, or Amsterdam though.
@@dennisestradda9746 newsflash I own a car and I hate it, so not everyone wants to drive literally everywhere they go. I wanna relax getting from city to city. Driving sucks.
High speed trains benefit slower speed trains immensely. Britains rail network is at capacity because you can only fit a certain number of 200km trains on a line at a time. That was the reasoning to build HS2. Building HS lines could also increase capacity for freight by diverting passengers to exclusively passenger only lines.
Where do you get your facts about China fast speed trains?? You do know that the BRI fast speed trains built in China and outside is losing money and loans are not being paid back by those BRI countries. Inside China, there is not enough ridership for a profit and tofu built and falling apart. The trains in Africa going nowhere. Go ahead, look it up! This channel constantly gets misinformation about policies and businesses in China.
the hi-speed rail network would certainly become more popular if the aviation industry paid a realistic level of tax on the fuel they use instead of the pittance that they do at the moment...
How much tax do rail operators pay in fuel tax? How much improvement in fuel efficiency have trains made over time compared to planes? How much tax do you propose planes should pay? Let's say they pay 20% tax, for example. Planes have become 20% Moore fuel efficient in the past 12 years. And from another perspective, fuel itself (oil price per barrel) sometimes doubles or triples in price for periods. But it doesn't stop plane services running, or people using them, does it. So to me, your assertion doesn't have the ring of truth.
How many highway operate at a profit? How about airports? Even most major airlines, after air subsidies are only profitable because of their rewards credit cards. Do an apples to apples comparison. There are no parts of our transportation system that operate at a profit.
There is an optimal top speed for High Speed Rail, of 200-250 kph. Under this top speed, you could use ordinary trains on legacy lines, and you can run all sort of different services. If you aim for a top speed of 300-350 kph, you need special trains and high speed lines. You also need compulsory reservation, which limits your possibility to make transfers: most of the times, the time you earn from higher speed is löst because you need longer times to make a connection.
It is true that between 200-250 KPH and 300-350 KPH, there is an exponential increase in cost for the build. So if the line is say 350 miles long, perhaps a 225 KPH would be more cost effective. On the Shanghai to Beijing journey of about 800 miles, the 325 KPH is the way to go. That said the Eurostar from London to Paris (305 miles) hits 300 KPH in France.
For all those who make the comparisons with the costs for roads, fail to realize that those roads still exist and will still exist. It is not rail lines versus roads. It is rail lines in addition to roads. To get goods to and from factories, warehouses, stores, and more, you need roads. While trains do carry cargo from one hub to another hub, they don't carry all of that cargo through the metro lines. Even before the invention of cars, there were roads. For all of the cities and countries that people like to showcase for their trains, they all still have roads. In certain contexts, trains are beneficial and worth it. But make no mistake about it. High speed trains are simply an additional infrastructure cost.
There are two major mistakes made in this video : 1- there is no transportation system that makes a profit : for example, air trafic is highly subsidised (air control, airports, etc.). It is the same for roads and inner cities public transportation systems. So why concentrate on highspeed trains? 2- all you say about highspeed trains can be said about all megaprojects : airports, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc. etc.
According to ChatGPT, the most profitable high-speed railway system in the world today is that of Japan. On the other hand, according to ChatGPT, the French and Chinese systems somewhat rely on the governments' subsidise to fill the losses.
Why on earth did the twain government take over a railway if its not going to make a profit for 38years bskyb and amazon didn't make a profit for 20 years most
No chance that 500 million people have used HSR. What you are referring to is passenger journeys. That is the same small group of people using the HSR many times. The overwhelming number of people never ever use it.@@rncmv
The social benefits and positive externalities are obviously much higher if you get more passengers and a profitable rail system. It seems pretty unlikely that a highly unprofitable system would have overall net benefits simply because the costs are borne by the public so you'd have to make up for the negative financial impact with benefits , which is difficult with few passengers. Not to mention the alternative investments and benefits you miss out on when spending money on unviable projects. Great video! You covered it nicely and factored everything in
![How Europe Is Ruining Agriculture [And How to Fix It]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KNuo8keQzGU/mqdefault.jpg)
Why do they have to make money? Do we expect every new road built to make money? No it's a public service and benefits everyone, even those who have to drive
Because you ended up draining the money that supposed to go to Food Subsidies, Universal Healthcare, Education and Public housing.
@@nntflow7058 Transport is as essential to a functioning modern society as the rest of those (to a basic extent of commuting, services etc)
There are many non-essential services that public money is spent on, my council puts up a Christmas tree each year, would that be better spent on the things you mentioned? Maybe, but there are lots of things that money needs to be spent on, and public transport is one of them.
@@Wozza365 Transporting goods and people could be done on normal train.
Roads is essentials because its used to connect residential, commercial and industrial areas. Roads for non electric vehicles also part of this. (bikelane, sidewalk, pedestrian walkway, etc.)
It's the cheapest form for short and long distance travel and it's flexible and multifunctional.
Comparing all roads and railway is insane.
@@nntflow7058 roads are not the cheapest form of transport lol. The costs of everything when added up far outweigh literally any other kind of transport. High speed rail removes trains from the regional tracks, creating more capacity for local trains and cargo
That is absolutely false. Roads take people (and goods) where they want to go, not to an arbitrarily determined station. The Last Mile is where around half of the cost of transport lies, and trains do not take you there. @@Wozza365
High speed rail is ideal for dense passenger flows between large cities between 50 and 400 miles apart. A train with 1000 people on running every couple of mins or so (see Japan or China) simply can't be matched by any other mode of transport in terms of capacity and travel time over these distances.
neccessary luxury and investment for the future. But I would say 200 miles. For a really rich state 400 miles. ok
@@Telencephelon400 miles is equivalent to Paris-Marseille. Pretty normal distance for HSR lines, although air companies (barely) start to compete for this kind of travel.
But thinking about HSR lines independantly and not as a network is a failure. From Marseille, you have access to the spanish network, and the italian through Lyon. With major stops all the way.
@@marcbuisson2463 Yeah. What I mean is if we had evidence-based politics then I doubt these would be built. Or at least I, as a citizen wouldn't want the money to go there - especially given how there is always an alternative technological path opening
@@Telencephelon oh nop, on the contrary, with evidence-based policies, they would be built far more than highways.
The alternative technological path opening is some kind of semi bullshit that has been promoted for decades by plenty of different people, and outside of the japanese maglev, little to no alternatives will emerge in the coming 40 years.
The US don't have massive seasonal internal migrations: your transit system is rarely paralysed by numbers. In France or in China, we have national vacations. Without good HSR, there would be regular collapse of our roads every year. Which, to be faire, already happens a bit.
The all highway alternative is just... Not an alternative for us, and the costs of adding lanes upon lanes on major highways is just a ginormous loss of money, that americans love to jump on. Nop, thanks. Furthermore, keeping good transit in the heart of our cities add to the services provided by city centers, and keep them valuable, instead of decaying like american ones.
If there is air transport of 100 to 500 miles distance, then HSR would compete. However, airlines are subsidized; airlines don't build airports; airlines don't run the federal weather service or the air traffic control. If more people took HSR, it would have more support. London to Edinburgh, is as quick by train as flying, cheaper, and without the hassle of flying, and it isn't even high speed! (look at the TH-cam videos on it.) If you ever went London to Paris by train, you would never bother flying. The problem that HSR has, is that it is considered "socialism" to build rail highways, but somehow not to build motor highways. Giving a subsidy to rail is "socialism" but somehow not to motor highways or airlines!
Well , if we take EU as example : airlines don't pay VAT on fuel and have other financial dispensations , all amount to heavy subsidies, whereas the same does not apply to trains. Take away those sweet handouts, and suddenly any train ( slow or highspeed) breaks even .
Air Passanger Duty would like to have a word.
Why does construction of railways have to make a profit, but construction of roads doesn't?
Because railyways doesn't connect any houses to any other places.
Where do you get that roads don’t create economic growth and the taxes and fees to fund the building of roads and rail. Rail has a history of not doing that.
I'm sorry to say, but this video focuses far too much on the negatives of high speed rail infrastructure projects and makes out like they are just an endless money pit for the taxpayers. Roadways never receive the same level of scrutiny as railways and are never expected to make a profit, and that is because we simply accept them as necessary transport infrastructure, yet when it comes to railways, they must make money or they are a wasteful subsidy. It's true, roads have their place in society and are ideal for small rural areas where public transport would be too expensive to even justify, and even then there should always be an evolution to buses before we think about skipping to trains since they are more ideal for larger numbers of people.
But one thing roads will never be able to claim victory over is the airlines. High-speed trains on journeys of up to 1,000km can carry far more people than airlines (which by the way, are notoriously hard to profit from as well but nobody seems to care as much) and at a greater efficiency with vastly lower impacts on the environment. Italy has proven that high speed trains can replace most of the domestic air travel since Alitalia simply couldn't compete with the efficiency of high speed trains travelling from city to city without the hassle of security and check-in along with being so much more comfortable. High speed rail is expensive, yes, but it has it's place and should be seen as infrastructure expansion, not a private investment scheme.
Now do a similar show on highways. Highways never pay for themselves. No form of transportation, without exception, exists without significant subsidies.
Even the subsidy costs are neglegible since the improved transport generates more income for the economy as a whole and that extra income means more tax revenue.
@@gooser__43 that's kind of a case by case issue with eminent domain. They pay you for the land but dictate the prices, in some cases they sell for less than the lands worth but sometimes more but it's supposed to be based off fair market value. Most of the land they tend to go through, especially on the west coast, is either government owned or owned by large companies. Like in Washington state they built a lot of rail lines through Weyerhauser land, basically just forests they logged once every 20-30 years. They usually try to build alongside roads too since they already own that land making it much easier.
There's a fair amount of fuckery that goes on with eminent domain though so they try to avoid it since it complicates projects. It can easily lead to lawsuits and end with actually _overpaying_ for the land, especially if someone sues and wins. There's also sometimes corruption that happens and wealthier people and big businesses can manipulate the government into overpaying for the land. Sometimes they do underpay, but that's typically because the land is worth more than the fair market value to the owner.
Except that roads and highways are, in large part, paid for by the gas tax, from people who actually drive on those same roads/highways. In other words, the users of that transportation system. Does the revenue equal the expense? No. But users of those roads PAY for them. For high speed rail, more people pay for it through taxes than actually use the service. Which is the issue. The train tickets just don’t cover a large part of the infrastructure expense.
@@Vektab you're right. There's also all the economic benefits, which more than make up for the "cost". That's common with a lot of things: Google search engine losses money on paper but the analytics it provides boosts ad revenue more than making up for the cost. All infrastructure costs money up front but the benefits outweighs the cost and they generate a profit in some other way.
@@Vektab Fuel taxes and road use fees pay for about 30% of the costs of interstate highways. For arterial roads that drops to 10-15%. For residential streets it's practically nothing. All of the remainder of those costs come from "other sources". The overwhelming majority of funding for roads is subsidy. Highways never pay for themselves. Never have, never will. Demanding that other forms of transportation pay for themselves entirely without making the same demands on highways is hypocrisy. If drivers had to pay all of the costs of driving then they would do it a whole lot less.
Shinkansen is absolutely reliable; it is always on time to the minute. There is no form of transport anywhere I have travelled that even comes close to the reliability of the JR high speed trains. Count the cost extra hours added to any trip just in case there is an accident on the road or bad weather or some other delay. You can arrive 1 minute before the train leaves verses 2 hours minimum at an airport. HSR done right has no competition worthy of comparison.
Japan is long narrow island.
ideal for HST.
not too many country has such geography.
Too bad the trains from Bellahoj to Viborg are not as fast or on time .
I live in Germany. I don't like flying to destinations which are not far. I pay a bit (tiny bit) more even if the flight tickets are cheaper to take a train. I end up saving time and stress if I take a train. Whether or not it is a financial burden, I don't know. It is money invested well. Maybe in future we will have profitable systems.
It's a financial burden because the federal government owns 100% of the company, and through "privatization" gutted the entire formula that was supposed to make trains profitable - the real-estate.
You can never make the money back in Ticket sales alone. Thats how the JR is able to operate 6 HSR lines, entirely from their own pocket (with 2 out of the 7 companies that comprise the group being the only ones in the red)
Italian HSR frecciarossa is profitable@@vod96
The system doesn't have to be profitable it needs to be sustainable to run my man
I have lived in Germany, I loved the ICE train! I have always hated the way Americans like to compare trains to streets. I've never understood why a street which sees very few passengers is considered a success, but a train with few passengers is a failure. I've never understood why a train which people pay to use, which generates some money, is considered a "money pit" but a public street which people use for free which generates no money is considered success. Unfortunately, this is typical American thinking. I hope to leave the US as soon as possible and get back to Germany!
In Germany, I always take the car. The "High Speed trains" are not faster, even if they are actually running and on time.
The car is most reliable.
you made several logical mistakes. A highway for example is also expensive, air polluting etc.
Both, a highway as well as rails arent meant to make money. still they are relevant to economy. list goes on.
“A highway for example is also expensive”
Highways are heavily used, making the cost per traveler very inexpensive.
Rail is extremely expensive (I have seen the public bond issuance for very short lines), labor rates for maintenance is very low (a friend of mine got into that business, but it was not really a decent wage), and therefore the cost per traveler is extremely high.
If one looks at pollution, pollution per traveler is also higher with rail. Rail is 1800’s technology with a definitive sweet spot in carrying heavy freight, carrying light people with this technology is dumb.
@@DavidHalko fun fact: the automobile is only 40 years younger than trains. That cars hasn’t had any filters or fuel efficiency back in the days. You might want to argue that cars has developed. Same goes for trains. You may put some coal in the oven so we can move on.
Germany again: German trains are powered by renewable energy. So travellers produce roundabout 6-7 grams of CO2 per kilometre which is ridiculously low. A car would need about 150 grams for that same kilometre.
You are right, this is only the pure engine consumption. Still 20x(!)
You argue highways are heavily used? Well not by night. Most railways are used 24/7. in the daytime its mostly people transportation. by night it’s goods such as cars and coal for example. (OK maybe we haven’t developed that much)
In fact the problem with trains here is that our railway system is heavily used, so the trains get stuck in a kind of traffic jam on daily basis.
@@monoblock. - use H2, CO2 concerns evaporate
Rail is a great technology for moving heavy cargo.
Trains get stuck in traffic jams because a single rail line is half duplex, while roads are built full duplex.
In the US, roads are used heavily at night for cargo, that comes from sea, air, and train ports. If roads are not heavily used in Europe at night, that is an inefficient use, causing congestion problems during the day for normal human travel.
It makes sense that heavy items travel by rail, goods travel by night, normal human transportation occurs during daylight hours when the average person is awake.
Honestly, automobiles by road should be disappearing in another 40 years, for better autonomous options where we can move through the air & not be so tied to roads. We need to look to the 2100’s and not the 1800’s for human travel options.
@@DavidHalko "If one looks at pollution, pollution per traveler is also higher with rail." Interesting. Can you provide a source for that?
@@petersill6908 He live in the US, they don't have electric trains
I wait for the "Are houses a political scam?" video. I mean, we could live in tents, couldn't we?
I get what you mean but houses are mostly paid by people themselves. In the West people are even overpaying for houses. While Highspeed rail is payed by taxes. If you don't want to buy a home: that's okay, you dont have to pay for one. If you'll never travel by Highspeed rail: that's okay, but you still are going to pay for it and the future stations in villages of 26 people. Your house is an investment that is going to be worth more in time, HSR doesn't do that. By the time it ears back it's investment you need new rail/ trains.
@xanderx2523 it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The only point I was making was that sometimes we pay more for things like some little extra comfort even though you can't justify them economically. Things like high speed trains are just things that we all buy together. I'm not saying that there aren't problems with most of these projects because of politicians, but the video went way beyond that. I was once in a train in Switzerland, out of necessity, and it was this beautiful track in the mountains. I've heard 2 guys talking about it and they said: they would never build it now. It would be a pretty boring ugly world if everything would need to be justified purely financially.
I had a similar idea: if the government were offered to receive the cost in hard cash, will they agree to remove a train line between Paris and Lyon? People clearly could make this trip in a car, we will just subsidize them.
@@xanderx2523that is not entirely true, since houses need infrastructure, in order for people to live in them. Schools, hospitals etc. And most of that is paid by the governments.
And you also pay for that infrastructure.
High speed train are incredible, but they indeed only make sense when you link multiple highly populated city in one go
Let’s not discount the freedom from automobile slavery us Americans live in
Please rest of the world, don’t be like us in the suburban hellscape
People don't want to live in cities.
High speed rail is public transportation. Not everything has to be profitable for public uses. High speed rail can help grow economies.
But of course hsr have to be between big cities and decent distance to make it worthwhile.
4:34 The station in Otero de Sanabria is not just a station, it's a PAET (Puesto de Adelantamiento y Estacionamiento de Trenes, or a "Site for Passing and Storing Trains"). To allow faster trains to pass slower trains and to store trains, you need PAETs.
It's procedure to build a PAET every couple hundred miles, to allow slower trains to use the high-speed lines without compromising the speed of high-speed trains. To minimize construction costs for the PAET, this location was selected, due to it's cheap land and relatively flat terrain.
The 4.2 million aren't only the costs of the station, it's the cost of the train storage and the multiple tracks that are needed for this kind of site. The station itself is only a fraction of the cost. They just decided to also build a station at the PAET, which is the norm in Spain.
Also, the station not only serves the town with 26 inhabitants, it serves ~6000 by providing service to the many towns in the Sanabria region of Spain.
HSR is the only mode of transport that can carry hundreds or even thousands of passengers over long distances in a relatively short amount of time while also being powered by electricity. The only downside, it's hella expensive for most countries.
Once you drive your car to the rail, park it, wait, get to the terminus, walk to the destination… it may be faster to drive - which is what I have found.
HSR requires building infrastructure around it, to guarantee ridership.
Europeans cities have such infrastructure. Train stations are often connected to metro and tram lines@@DavidHalko
@@jeanrovasbabo7148 - and the 1800’s infrastructure is a money losing proposition, every time
@@DavidHalkothat's absolutely not the case. Decent transit is not a money pit. It's just that the people that make the most money out of it (aka, land owners around train stations) are not those that keep the transit in a good shape most of the time.
In Paris, when a new station is added in a neighborhood, land prices tend to get higher by around 50% to 100%. And it's not cheap to begin with. A single metro stop can create multiple billion dollars in added value, as well as in taxable value. But yup, indeed, since transit companies are most of the time public and not real estate ones, they end up in the red.
But take away the transit network of Paris, and we will collapse entirely, and the wealth created there too.
@@marcbuisson2463 - “absolutely not the case. Decent transit is not a money pit”
Watch the video. Money pit.
“It’s just the people that make the most money out of it…”
Then raise the prices on the tickets, to accommodate the cost, so it is not a money pit. Proper costing encourages innovation. Proper costing also controls pricing of the land surrounding the metro (people do the cost-benefit analysis.)
“In Paris…”
It is already built. I understand standardization benefits. Many short stops where the trains remain in the densely populated area seem to be used well there! Keeping those lines purposefully built, with connections from elsewhere via other technologies was smart.
There is a cost to ripping & replacing railroad ties, rails, wheels, trains, etc. Extremely expensive. A hidden cost that subsidies hide.
We are in the 2000’s. Lighter & less expensive technology that builds 3D (to consume space in the air) can accomplish a lot. Newer technology may be able to add higher degrees of privacy, as well (to discourage pick pockets.)
Maybe other competing older technology can achieve similar goals.
I am a fan of Gondolas, used in places where retrofitting trains is unfeasible. Add more & remove some as needed on always running lines. Low infrastructure & power requirements, cars provide privacy. Redundant cables for safety, like elevators.
Above ground tunnels joining buildings in urban areas with walkways & moving walkways are nice. Used those before. Ticket usage on static & moving walkways for above ground tunnel maintenance.
I did a similar study of motorways. I found that of the billions of miles of motorways the number of that made profit was ..... zero! Of the number of miles of motorways that received a subsidy was....billions! The carbon foot print of building a maintaining motorways was enormous, far greater than any other type of transport. It is good to compare these things!
So you want to ignore a large part of this video? 10K's of people use the road to go to work every day, trucks shipping use it, emergency vehicles use it. Without the road, just about all of them would not be possible.
Before u say trains do the same, they don't. It is like 'would u use a canon to kill a fly'. Trains go from point A to point B. With 1000's an hour, they are not going from A to B. They are going everywhere. SO unless you want to spend a few 100K to build a RR track to run a train to your house, and you are not wiling to walk 15 blocks to a train station, the road grid is better than rail.
are you sure you made your calculations right?
The GDP, GDP per capita and tax revenue would be higher without motorways?
You also calculated the higher accident/death rate of non-motorway roads?
@@h.mandelene3279 i think the contex of the @guillermo comment is goverment investment vs profit not about the usage and he is get the point and depends on circumstances trains or even HSR can be away more usage and benefit from motorways for examples in ukraine and russia war how trains are use to transport logistic and heavy equipment faster and much more larger capacity than roads
80B of debt for HSR is nothing compared to some country spending trillions on useless war. Debts are in local currency. Local savings has to used one way or another, for war or for HSR. Might as well be for the latter.
If you build it, they will come. If you look at the early pictures of the construction of the New York subway system, many of the lines were built into very lightly populated areas, in many cases farmland. Once the system was in place, people moved into those areas and built them up.
In Vienna they build the tramlines first, then the neighbourhoods.
Why is there always the concern of infrastructure projects being profitable or not? If someone would now argue with the high maintenance costs, then I have another question: For what are the states collecting taxes then?
It comes down to what would have the highest return? My city recently celebrated the anniversary of the city bus system. They mentioned how many miles they drove and how many people rode the bus. With those numbers, the city would have paid for everyone's taxi rides and saved 1/2 of the money they spent vs doing the whole bus system. Being that is today's rate so in other words, many years back, they would have saved alot more than 1/2 to just pay for the taxi.
People driving are doing millions in commerce every day, easily paying for what it took to build the roads.
My first experience with a HSR train was from Odawara to Tokyo, then from Tokyo to Hakodate in Dec 2022. It was a far nicer experience than taking a domestic flight. It is slower, yes, even after factoring in passing thru the domestic terminal, but there are way fewer steps than boarding a flight and we got nice scenery, nice Ekibens and we're free to move around the cabin.
We'll be taking the HSR in Taiwan in a few days, looking forward to the delicious Bian Dang!
China too s building high-speed railways to nowhere, where not enough people need to go that could justify it.
They're bleeding money operating it, an can't pay the debt for their construction.
They are also building high-speed rails into territories they've conquered in order to demonstrate their sovereignty.
fake
I think you could make a similar video on airports. Here in Germany the infamous new airport of Berlin was probably not the cheapest and there are several local airports nobody really needs.
Airports seem cheap vs rail. 1 bad German airport is not representaive. At say $100m each you can build lot of airports for the $900,000m cost of European HSR. . .. Planes are faster and dont require huge tracks of land between every 2 destinations it's almost wacky how politicians claim trains are so great.... Shows how propoganda and media collusion can push any idea..
If the British invented the Jet engine, why did the Germany used jets long before the British?
If you look at the Amtrak lines that actually make money, you'll see that it is basically the Northeast Corridor, a mostly business line between major cites with developed public transit, and a unique line from Virginia to Florida that transports not only people, but their cars. Both cases solve the first and last mile problem that gets them from their starting point to a local transportation hub, and from a transportation hub to their destination. Rail is great on trips that would take more than three hours on the interstate, but if you are going to give it all back in time and aggravation trying to get from the station to your destination, it's just not worth it. High speed rail only benefits those who can not comprehend travel beyond the little islands of public transit on either end of the trip.
Having experienced both, I would much rather have a medium speed, high frequency, and timely Rail system like in Switzerland, than a high speed train that is always late.
High speed trains aren't always late dude
It's more about where and how you build HSR. In a small country like Switzerland, HSR is not necessary. But in a country like China, it does make sense because of its huge population. An HSR will cut down on time and ensure connectivity between major economic hubs and inland China. Hence, it makes sense.
Some countries simply build HSR because they see it as an achievement as they're emulating other countries that have such technologies. This copy and paste methodology doesn't work everywhere.
Are you by any chance using the german ICE?
If a 4h journey is reduced to 50 mins for two economic hubs, then it is worth the investment. The model is only effective if their users use it to do productive work.
You don't want to cut down travel time between two rural areas as their contribution to the economy can not compensate the cost of the investment.
Same goes for your roads, bridges, ports, hospitals, schools and universities. It's an investment done in favour to boost economic growth of geographical areas. That's how it works.
Ah, we've found the german.
But yeah, hsr at time and woth great frequency is absolutely normal and possible.
I remember the comment of a Chinese consumer: They offer to save us time, but we have lots of time. It's money we don't have.
You completely forgot about one country, Germany. Where there is a different approach. There are almost non high speed train only lines in the country, but tons of mixed traffic lines. Because we don´t want to spend tons of money for new lines only to run a few high speed trains. So there are fast 200 kph commuter trains on the high speed lines too, and especially at night, freight trains. And they can make the high speed lines profitable, since they benefit greatly from them too. At night freight trains can go 100-120 kph on the high speed lines for hours straight, and cross the whole country in one night, because on theese lines, there are absolutely no obstructions. No tight curves, no big stations where tracks need to be switched, no steep grades, no corssings, nothing.
The problem with high-speed rail is not the concept itself; it is that they can only make economic sense in very select cases. Namely, you need to have **extremely** high population densities along a roughly linear path, with distances between city pairs long enough to make it preferable to buses or slower trains, but not long enough to make airplanes competitive in spite of the hassle and discomfort. There are almost no places outside the Valeriepieris circle where this is the case.
To put this into perspective, contrast California's high-speed rail projections of 11.5 million riders per year with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which runs around 140 million passengers per year.
In addition to this, the costs run up further when you take into account that high-speed trains must run on dedicated and exclusive tracks -- slower passenger trains and freight trains cannot use the same tracks, limiting the tracks' usefulness. The tracks must also have much shallower grades and no sharp turns for obvious reasons, which add dramatically to the costs.
You are mistaken. High speed trains can handle steeper grades. The LGV Sud-Est goes up and down the Morvan without tunneling, saving money and 77 km in comparison with the original Paris-Lyon line along the Saone river. The Koln-Frankfurt NBS with its 4% slopes is 180 km shorter than the classical line along the Rhein.
It also doesn't work if that line required multiple stops in between to connect other cities.
That description perfectly matches the NEC
Saying that high-speed track's usefulness is limited because it can't be used by freight and commuter trains is like saying the outside lane of a motorway's usefulness is limited because lorries can't use it.
@@alphamikeomega5728 You do realize that outside lane is just one of the lane right?
There are other lane that could be use spontaneously without disrupting traffic by different types of road vehicles.
While a single rail track can't be occupied by 2 different trains going the same direction.
You just made false equivalence....
It's not surprising the cost is so prohibitive to construct a HSR in the US. Even back in the good old days of steam trains they had to get cheap Chinese labor to build them tracks.
You made a huge mistake. Sure, they are not profitable, but they are not for-profit operated.
Most of the HSR lines are there for public service, and they don't have to turn a profit.
Spain made a huge mistake, since most lines are useless, but most lines in Europe have a usage that make them resonable to operate.
For example, how many highways are profitable? And public hospitals? And subways? Exactly, they are public service, not for-profit!
Yeah whenever someone says that trains aren't profitable you should just point put how car infrastructure are just waaaaaaaaaaay more expensive but basically every nation doesn't even bother thinking about it when "investing" (wasting would be more appropriate) money in highways
I agree, visualeconomic should see trains as hospital, highways, ports, schools, airports are: public infrastructure that are not built for profit but to serve people and. Get them in a fast manner where they need to go, sure building stations for them in places with not enough demand or population is a mistake but if the japanese model is emulated correctly elsewhere then we will reduce traffic, pollution and better connect people
He literally talks about social profitability including all the externalities not only financial profit from ticket sale. It includes financial as well as economic, social and environmental costs and benefits. The two examples they give Madrid - Barcelona line while being financially profitable (ticket sale covers the cost of running) the social profit is negative it only returns 80c of economic and social benefits on each euro invested into it. While the Madrid - North line not only returning meagre 20c on each Euro, it also financially unprofitable meaning it is losing money every day it operates.
@@upwizard at least that line is reducing traffic while providing a good fast service plus why doesnt he do such a consideration for american freeways and highways that are banckrupting the cities of USA and some politicians want to add more lanes to them
Also one main difference between China and devloped countries is its low car ownship and low airline access. China only has 200 cars per 1000 people bs US's 900 per 1000. China hs 200 some airports vs US with more than 5000. So rail is the main inter-city transport method in China, with traveling by cars and flying not really practical for most of the 1.4 billion people.
I think your stats are a bit wrong. Maybe you need to stop using google or youtube for them !
TL/DW: All the nations that have built High-Speed trains have become a hell on earth, no human or animal can live there.
If China's high speed railway network is largely unprofitable now, while the infrastructure is fairly new, will they be able to continue to operate at all when the system ages and requires massive increases in the cost of maintenance and repair?
I think that the key feature is how far apart a countries biggest cities are. In England and most of Europe, a mere couple of hundred km of line will connect a countries two or three biggest cities. In the US the two biggest cities are four thousand km apart. Even by HSR, the trip would take at least twelve hours, which is twice the time flying would take. And the airport infrastructure that enables a flight to LA would also be necessary to go the comparable distance from New York to London.
Sleeper trains my friend.
They're godsent.
I live and work in Japan and need to carry tools and chemicals on person for my job into many of the cities, which can't legally go through security or check-in at airports. Given how unpredictably stuffed with people many airports can be, how expensive flying is, and how much time it takes to get on-and-off the planes, I regularly use shinkansen and most of the time it is faster cheaper more convenient and comfortable than airplanes. I can load up with whatever number of days' supplies and tools and nobody cares. Plus JR the operator company had been privatized so they know why they keep running these trains.
Looks like a perfect fit for your needs. However, in the overall picture I cannot see how that could justify High Speed Rail.
@@cestmoi1262 Perfect for JAPAN's needs as it's both profitable and very beneficial for them (not sure if we can say the same for Maglev though). If that doesn't apply to your country then sure, but don't apply it to HSR in general.
@@zeroyuki92 HSR makes sense when your rail network is already at capacity and you need a new line anyway.
Same reason why tohoku shinkansen is being built, the main trunk osaka-tokyo shinkansen is at peak capacity
My taxes every year have been paying for the county airport bonds for the past 25 years. No end is in sight.
1. Construction of track pollution is less than construction of roads
2. HSR is for intercity transportation, Subway is for intracity transportation
3. HSR is very suitable for travel between 1 ~ 5 hours, compare to taking plane, where most of the time wasted in the check in and security. And much more comfortable, cost effective and environmental friendly compare to flying.
4. China HSR debt is a tiny fraction of US debt and they are all internal debt.
5. The so call slow line, because it stops at more stations, so can pickup more passengers
I read in other source, would be interested to confirm: China's high-speed trains where expected to help people from remote underdeveloped areas to commute to work in the more prosperous regions. That did not work, the number of commuters is insufficient for the trains to be profitable and does not grow. In case of traditional "slow" trains at least those rails can be used for cargo trains and would help the economy in the other way but high-speed rails cannot be used for commercial cargo transportation so those rails become a waste. Anyone heard something about it?
I loved Rory Sutherland's (He is a marketing executive in the UK) suggestion that instead of building high speed for billions of pounds just make the trip on regular trains more enjoyable. That could be done for a fraction of the price. I encourage you to watch his TH-cam video on it.
Years ago I rode a train along the Rhine River in Germany and the scenery was fantastic. I enjoyed that trip much more on the normal train then I would have on high speed rail.
The problem at the moment is capacity - we need more lines.
the main purpose of HSR is reduce travel time and thats why country like china prioritize HSR, as indonesian for us the 350 km/h jakarta bandung HSR reduced travel time from about 4 hours to about 40 minutes is a game changer,. we also have other kind of trains including panoramic,sleeper and luxury train but the HSR is the best.,
TRUE, a 200km/h train would still be awesome and fast.
Better travel on horse wagon if you want to enjoy the scenery 😂😂
Mr. Sutherland is absolutely right. Here in the US we really focus too much on “high speed”. What we don’t realize is that the vast majority of passenger rail services in the world are NOT high speed. Rail services can MORE than make up for ho-hum speeds with frequent service, high reliability, and good connectivity - these are the things that we really lack in the US, not speed.
Are they? I live in south florida and we have a high speed train between Miami and Orlando. It's sold out almost every trip. Driving is 3.5 to 4 hours. Train is less than 2 hours. LA to San Francisco is being built... It will be a huge success. The LA to Las Vegas high speed is being built.
I heard on other channels the Chinese high speed rail network being used as a prime example where most routes can never be profitable and run at very low seat occupancy.
fake
That is not true. In weekend the frequency of high speed trains is very high, and if you do not book the ticket at least 2~3 days before departing , you may not travel on the time you want.
3:56 A lot of infrastructure is not "profitable" in a narrow sense. E.g. highways without tolls.
Alan Fisher response video in 3… 2… 1… 😂
Facts 💯
As far as I can tell the high speed train network here going from Amsterdam-Brussels to either Paris or London has made a nice profit pre pandemic. And is returning to profit post pandemic, with ever rising passenger numbers.
And I feel we need to also look at the FACT air traffic is heavily sponsored mainly due to lack of tax on fuel. I agree that many lines do not make sense, and probably should not have been build. HOWEVER the trains connecting large metro ereas like London, Paris and the Randstad (which includes Rotterdam, The Hague and Amsterdam) do make sense.
Currently most countries want to, or already have abolished short haul flights between these cities. And airlines are starting to offer combined tickets with high speed trains. As soon as Co2 and plane fuel is taxed properly, I feel the profitability of these high speed lines will increase. The Dutch part of the high speed service of Thalys already runs on wind energy, while the rest of the netwerk especially in France runs on nuclear energy.
While I agree we need to be careful to implement high speed where it doesn’t make sense, I don’t feel it is a failure everywhere. I am happy that I can take a train here in Amsterdam (as I have done many times) and be in London, Brussels or Paris within just a few hours. Without having to be in the airport at least 2 hours ahead of time for all the security checks.
Just look at that disaster in Commifornistan. After years of delays and massive cost overruns, the only section that's open is from Merced to Bakersfield. Basically a fast train from no place to no where. Not to mention that CA can't keep the lights on now, let alone the electricity demands of a high-speed rail line.
So in other words the trains aren’t a “scam”. The people who are stupid, corrupt and wasteful are also stupid, corrupt and wasteful with high speed trains.
‘are trains profitable? No!’
better question- are roads profitable?
Just because infrastructure isnt profitable doesnt mean they shouldnt be built and operated
Roads aren't supposed to be profitable
@@ankundamwebembezi6358 so why should trains?
I like trains 🚅
It failed in uk doesn't mean it failed elsewhere.
The analysis does not account for how the alternative modes of transport are worse.
A fairer comparison between high-speed rail and the alternatives would account for the extra costs of short-haul air travel subsidies, and the fact that fuel and road taxes and vehicle registration fees almost never cover the running maintenance costs of road and highway networks.
Much of the Chinese high speed rail network is part of the military infrastructure to make it impossible for independence movements to succeed in Western provinces. Still, it seems like many of the lines will end up abandoned as the continued expansion of network collides with demographic collapse. It seems like in 20 years there will be a lot of talk about the Chinese "Rust Belt".
Whittle invented the centrifugal compressor jet engine while the germans the axial compressor. Modern jet engines are all equipped with a axial compressor.
I see... To have a profitable high speed rail system, we need an authoritarian regime. I'm with you. It's the same argument that slavery helped build the pyramids. I mean, these days, if you wanted to build a pyramid, you'd have to jump over loads of hurdles, and that costs a lot of money,
A bankers view, do not spend money on infrastructure, let us instead invest in never ending wars...
High speed trains are definitely at a disadvantage against cheap oil that makes car and plane travel a no brainer. This is what appears at first sight.
If we go a bit deeper into the problem, we see that this disadvantage is mostly due to some political and economic choices made some time ago.
One key example is the exemption of tax for aviation gasoline, which date 1944 if I am not mistaken. Combined with cheap oil and heavy tax on railways in the US, this was the recipe for the railway industry collapse. in the 50s, the US government invested billions of public money in the interstate higway system. Otoh railroads were expected to pay for their infrastructure of their own pockets.
Why would RR be expected to be profitable whereas roads could swallow public money without any question asked ?
The issue with building no high speed rail (HSR) for XX years means that the US need to start from scratch. Starting from scratch costs hell a lot of money in comparison to countries which have experience in HSR for decades.
That is about the same situation for the UK which only have one HS Line, and which initiated HS2 too late with no savoir faire developped. Brexit did not help either. This lack of vision is costing the country billions, and not only in costs overrun.
Currently, most people don't realise how expensive emittin CO2 is going to be for mankind, but if this is not considered, it should be mentioned that an HSR is a way to reduce dependance to oil. Less oil means reducing oil wars or money sent to unfriendly / undemocratic countries.
Fewer air emissions also decrease mortality, which savings can't be accounted. HSR have a lower energy content and a higher workforce content. It is much better than Air or road transport to keep jobs in the country.
Any large developed country should have a working RR network and a HSR offer, at least to offer an alternative to cars. These infrastructures are not free, but they are built for centuries.
There are three key ingredients for high speed train, to be successful.
1) High wages in economy, because to get the speeds necessary, maintenance of infrastucture and trains them selves is enormous.
2) High population density. You want the train to lose as little time on accelerating and decelerating, while picking up maximum amount of people along the route.
3) Restrictive geography, denying the populace the ability to disperse them selves.
Here comes, what I believe kills high speed rail anywhere outside of Japan and possibly Italy. If you look at Japan, you see islands of elongated shape. Most people live along the cost in huge cities that are not that far away from each other. Italy has similar shape but not the same density. This is why there is chance for profitability in these places, but not elsewhere, that is more "round" like, like Germany or Poland, where people have more space to disperse. Planes don't need so much infrastructure and don't need to share it with others, hence, why they are the better choice for long distance travel... unless you're traveling overnight at regular speeds that is, but let's not get ahead of ourselves...
If you want to see long haul trains in general, you need to look to Russia, which is underdeveloped, needs to bring in raw resources from distant places in Siberia to their demographic center in their European part of the country, where majority of them live and passanger trains are an afterthought (as far as civilian use is concerned), or India, which has very low incomes, is somewhat underdeveloped areas interlaced with highly developed centers (for reference, watch Chirs Tarrant's Extreme railways episode about Konkan Railway, somewhat dated, but shows the concept)
Why are you including the emissions from train track construction against (high speed) trains? Cement, which includes metal rebar supports in it for bridges and such, causes emitions to produce and affects the climate when used in bulk in an area. I.E. cities and surrounding areas. Also, roads require more frequent maintainence than train tracks, electricity is more efficient in money and environment to make in a power plant, and other small effects you seem to have glossed over.
Granted, high speed rails lose out on one of the best benefits of rails since freight trains cannot use them, but road freight increases the maintainence costs of the roads they use as well so...
Of course,everything apart from army and police should be private 😂
The Swiss or Japanese economies would not function without their rail network
yes, but here in Switzerland we don't have high speed rail.
We don't need it.
Our rail is still on average 3 times faster than the german rail network, which includes "High Speed' Rail.
Having more stations, train lines and trains per hour significantly cuts down on travel time. A train that goes 50 or 150kph faster for a few minutes wouldn't make much of an impact.
It could never work in the United States. Because the environmental studies would delay the project to the point that we would be using teleportation.
What are the environmental impacts of teleportation? How much energy does it require?
Thanks for this interesting video, but i wish you made a comparison to other types of transportation - how much highways cost for a state? What about the airports? How much money do airlines get in subsidies?
In other words, i would like to understand a more complete picture other than "trains are expensive", we all know that..
Airlines are not govt subsidized. A 2018 claimed this which quickly was refuted. "'Of the $155 billion in spending through 1988 outlined in the report, the vast majority, $140 billion, was spent by the aviation trust fund that supports Federal Aviation Administration spending.
The report does not mention that since 1971, U.S. airlines and their passengers have contributed about $247 billion to the fund, according to Federal Aviation Administration historical data.""""". Its hilarious we re even considering trains which basically are SAME ticket price and time as a plane, but will require govt subsidy. Shows how dumb our debate it.. My grandparents generation effing hated the train and jumped to drive and fly, we've already run the experiment and people choose to leave trains in 50s, literally proving this, but still liars will claim people will love trains... Ha. It's scary how dumb we are..
Indeed, there's no reason to suggest that a single High-Speed Rail Line can't simply work up and down the East Coast that also happens to run on nuclear (the small modular reactor variety) with Renewables for auxiliary power.
ya know I take the train a lot here in USA. I'm ok with not having High Speed Rail, but what I'd like is Moderately Fast Rail. Train 48 from Cleveland to New York takes about 12-13 hours. You can drive that in maybe 8-10 hours. I still prefer taking the train, because I can take a couple bottles of wine and get a little bit plastered, which is inadvisable when driving. But the train ought to be comparable in time to driving.
failure for who? they're so convenient and relatively cheap and time/money saving compared to airport commute, flight delays or cancellations. last year i landed in Milan Malpensa at night, 125 euro taxi to downtown. hundred-twenty-five
Infrastructure is infrastructure, it is a long-term investment, and it is paid for by citizens paying taxes. "Time saving" is the profit of the citizens. Energy saving is the profit of the whole world. By the way, the money for hiring workers and purchasing of material is returned to the citizens then. China High-speed rails are not intent a substitution of the low-speed train transport. It is in fact a substitution of domestic air flights. How much China needs to paid for buying Europe / USA airplanes and fuel if they do not have High-speed rails? Think carefully and get back to us a correction study please!
The polls about what people would do if no high-speed rail was available is a bit misrepresented
* 8% of people switching to cars is quite a lot - especially if the roads are already at capacity because at that point traffic slowdown becomes exponential
* the people who would use slower trains would actually travel only *if such trains exist*. High-speed rail is extra capacity on a corridor, so the slow speed trains may just not fit all of the passengers. This actually is the reason behind HS2 in the UK - it is on a severely congested corridor, which is reflected by the ticket prices. Travel times between e.g. Glasgow and London are already competitive with air travel in terms of speed, but adding the extra capacity would make them compete in price too.
* the poor people who would spend 8 hours on a bus, completely ignoring that you can’t in any way do something productive on that journey, would also be polluting the environment much more (and btw highway construction is in no way less polluting than a railway)
Finally, government debt is a made up thing. We are one hyperinflation away from making it disappear at any point. However, a built railway is a railway even after hyperinflation. (I am in no way advocating for hyperinflation, but if it does happen it is unlikely to be caused by too much railway built and I would rather have the railway than not).
"because there are so many Chinese people in China" 😂
Mate, I've been to China, and I've been on their Bullet Train from Beijing to Shanghai. They are the most amazing transportation system I've been lucky to experience. We were travelling at 350kph and you could put your cup of water on a table, and it did not move the water level at all.
I've also been on USA's AmTrack. It suppose to travel at 110kph, but with all the twists and turns, of the track, it averaged 80kph. Also, the AmTrak was clankerty-clank all the way from Boston to NYC.
China has an amazing Bullet Train NATIONAL network connecting cities with every other city.
Also, the Bullet Train Stations look like Chicago's International airport. It was amazing. Bullet trains are the most safety train network that exists.
I wish we had a Bullet Train Network connecting all our cities in Australia.
Reason 4 on Social Benefit = people that is handicapped ... especially Epileptic hit people who can´t or is not allowed to drive a car .. such kinda people need public transportation :)
All the facts and arguments given in the video are technically correct. Yet, you could also see high speed rail as a service that is provided to the population - like water supply, health care or defence.
High-Speed Trains as a transportation company, is a failure because it is very costly to maintain the high speed trains system. However, High-Speed Trains as real estate rental company, can be very successful. Train stations can be huge shopping malls. Train companies can rent out the shop space in these train station shopping malls to get the money for operating the high speed trains. People can be "encourage" by the government to use high speed trains by increasing the road tax.
in europe high-speed rail needs to compete with airlines e.g. Paris to Madrid or Milan. Rome, etc.
The use case is that in high speed rail you can actually work and earn money while travelling.
On the airplane it's difficult due to space constraints (european business class is a joke) and lack of reliable broadband internet.
In the car you have to drive.
High speed rail is much better than cars, but i think high speed rail should collaborate with planes and not compete. If Airlines would compete with high speed rail, you could travel from a little small european countryside town to New York with 1 ticket.
You should make a vid on the Italian line between Turin and Naples, one of the only things that really work
Your observations seem to be from a auto centric American view. Living in France I am able to hope a HS Rail and soon be in Amsterdam to view an exhibition or museum. There is no need to rent an auto, there is public transport, and bike lanes all over the place. No security, no waiting in line, no one looking through my belongings, no listening to passengers complain, I can get up walk around, get a drink when I want, no need to wait and wait for a flight attendant. Maybe some is before its time, you in the USA did that with your interstates. Sometimes nations need to invest in the future, instead of building more lanes like the 24 you have in Houston, yet it still a parking lot.
Americans aren't forced to use public transit like you people are.
But VisualEconomik is just the English translation of a Spanish channel, researched and created by Spanish people in Spain. Why would it be America-centric?
@@CheapSquierBassPlayerno, they are forced to use cars, that’s the point. In Europe you have the choice: take the car or the train (or even fly)
@@edipires15 Oh wait, nevermind, we're talking about europeans. I was wrong. 🤣
The alternative to HSR is externalizing all the costs of transport, while permitting profit to be the only operative goal, which is what we've done for the last 70 years worldwide. Anyone with 2 braincells to rub together can see how well that works out. The superhighway networks in both Germany and the United States were built to benefit the state and specifically the military, not the public. That they also do these things was incidental to their creation.
High-speed rail isn't a scam when there is the population density and distances to support it - see Japan, and France. However in MANY deployments worldwide so far, HSR has been far more a prestige or EGO project for the government of the time - see CHINA and Russia. While HSR is a benefit to the public, they are NOT profitable in the vast majority of places. Even in Japan and France, only a few lines fiscally support the rest. In China, the high speed rail network has cost enough money to bankrupt THE COUNTRY. And of course the intangible factors of graft, corruption and substandard construction endemic to China that has caused this network countless failures, accidents, deaths and will continue to plague it for decades. The 'social benefit' of HSR in China is of course ALSO reduced by the CCPs own restrictive policies and behavior. You cannot compare apples to oranges for HSR between really almost any country and China- because the Chinese orange will probably be a painted tennis ball.
What the world REALLY needs is for high-speed rail to target CARGO TRANSPORTATION. THIS is where the technology can innovate and profit, and tangentially will also benefit public transportation.
Yes, building this infrastructure is VERY much worth it. Once it's there, it's easier to expand capacity and so on. There are those in politics who would love to start limiting or at least de-incentivizing driving. As soon as you do that, of course you're going to have many more people that are going to want to use those trains. As an American, I'm very jealous of what other countries have been able to accomplish with their high-speed networks. We need to allow planners/builders of high-speed networks to use eminent domain here or it will never happen.
Hold your horses on the Chinese high speed. They are actually operating at a loss.
Did anyone notice the size and room on that 1950s jet. I am interested, how much was a flight back then and would that be equivalent to a business class in today's world?
Back in 1972 a colleague and I decided to have a holiday on London. We had both just started work in an Irish retail bank in Dublin. The return fare from Dublin to London was almost our entire monthly salaries so needless to say we took the Ferry/train option which was less than half the airfare. Today I can go almost anywhere in Europe for a weeks state pension
Typical know-it-all from excessively silo-ed economics education. I suggest talking with people from other professions who are not so obsessed with traditional cost benefit analyses.
The key to having a profitable high speed train line is to build them between the biggest of cities. That’s why most high speed trains don’t make money
how much money do highways make?
@@mohdodat2people prefer highways because they provide flexible. A road can take me exactly to my house can a train do that.
@@musqul8566 highways are the most convenient way of getting around right now because we’ve made out infrastructure for cars almost* everywhere in the country. Good luck driving in Paris, Tokyo, or Amsterdam though.
@@mohdodat2literally we all use it if you own a car, taxes when paying for gas, registration and federal and local taxes
@@dennisestradda9746 newsflash I own a car and I hate it, so not everyone wants to drive literally everywhere they go. I wanna relax getting from city to city. Driving sucks.
Long term with population decline I think a lot of these are going to see reduced profitability, especially in China.
High speed trains benefit slower speed trains immensely. Britains rail network is at capacity because you can only fit a certain number of 200km trains on a line at a time. That was the reasoning to build HS2. Building HS lines could also increase capacity for freight by diverting passengers to exclusively passenger only lines.
Where do you get your facts about China fast speed trains?? You do know that the BRI fast speed trains built in China and outside is losing money and loans are not being paid back by those BRI countries. Inside China, there is not enough ridership for a profit and tofu built and falling apart. The trains in Africa going nowhere. Go ahead, look it up! This channel constantly gets misinformation about policies and businesses in China.
the hi-speed rail network would certainly become more popular if the aviation industry paid a realistic level of tax on the fuel they use instead of the pittance that they do at the moment...
How much tax do rail operators pay in fuel tax? How much improvement in fuel efficiency have trains made over time compared to planes? How much tax do you propose planes should pay? Let's say they pay 20% tax, for example. Planes have become 20% Moore fuel efficient in the past 12 years. And from another perspective, fuel itself (oil price per barrel) sometimes doubles or triples in price for periods. But it doesn't stop plane services running, or people using them, does it. So to me, your assertion doesn't have the ring of truth.
How many highway operate at a profit? How about airports? Even most major airlines, after air subsidies are only profitable because of their rewards credit cards. Do an apples to apples comparison. There are no parts of our transportation system that operate at a profit.
Roads are not profitable. Why should high speed rail?
They're meant to save time if it wasn't constructed mud and potholes would slow down access of social services
Interesting video, Can you provide links to sources?
There is an optimal top speed for High Speed Rail, of 200-250 kph. Under this top speed, you could use ordinary trains on legacy lines, and you can run all sort of different services. If you aim for a top speed of 300-350 kph, you need special trains and high speed lines. You also need compulsory reservation, which limits your possibility to make transfers: most of the times, the time you earn from higher speed is löst because you need longer times to make a connection.
It is true that between 200-250 KPH and 300-350 KPH, there is an exponential increase in cost for the build. So if the line is say 350 miles long, perhaps a 225 KPH would be more cost effective. On the Shanghai to Beijing journey of about 800 miles, the 325 KPH is the way to go. That said the Eurostar from London to Paris (305 miles) hits 300 KPH in France.
So far I've seen only one country that could make High Speed Rail work: Japan
It has to do with work ethics and service.
For all those who make the comparisons with the costs for roads, fail to realize that those roads still exist and will still exist. It is not rail lines versus roads. It is rail lines in addition to roads. To get goods to and from factories, warehouses, stores, and more, you need roads. While trains do carry cargo from one hub to another hub, they don't carry all of that cargo through the metro lines. Even before the invention of cars, there were roads. For all of the cities and countries that people like to showcase for their trains, they all still have roads. In certain contexts, trains are beneficial and worth it. But make no mistake about it. High speed trains are simply an additional infrastructure cost.
Freight train with last mile trucks still the king for freight transport though, long haul will always favor train and waterways
US: High-speed train is not needed.
China: Hold my 65,000 km high-speed train.
That has nothing to do with the fact that high speed trains aren't needed in the US.
There are two major mistakes made in this video :
1- there is no transportation system that makes a profit : for example, air trafic is highly subsidised (air control, airports, etc.). It is the same for roads and inner cities public transportation systems. So why concentrate on highspeed trains?
2- all you say about highspeed trains can be said about all megaprojects : airports, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc. etc.
According to ChatGPT, the most profitable high-speed railway system in the world today is that of Japan. On the other hand, according to ChatGPT, the French and Chinese systems somewhat rely on the governments' subsidise to fill the losses.
Take national security into consideration, high-speed railroad can deliver large amount of troops from one place to another place quickly.
Why on earth did the twain government take over a railway if its not going to make a profit for 38years bskyb and amazon didn't make a profit for 20 years most
Visual economics is misinformed. The TGV network in France runs well, attracts customers and pays its costs.
it's a very, very bumpy ride with limited internet.
And it only runs to/from Paris.
I have travelled on a Chinese 'high speed train'. I describe it as the world's slowest bullet train...
Hi speed rail has a lot of positive externalities. It make life much easier and convenient for a lot of people and decreases traffic.
No it doesn't do that. It makes life easier for a few people. It has no noticeable effect on traffic.
@@christianlibertarian5488 are 500 million people "few"?
No chance that 500 million people have used HSR. What you are referring to is passenger journeys. That is the same small group of people using the HSR many times. The overwhelming number of people never ever use it.@@rncmv
In Germany I would be glad to get more fast and reliable trains.
Doesn't fit with German culture.
Either Swiss or Japan has to run it, with foreign work contracts and profitable funding.
The social benefits and positive externalities are obviously much higher if you get more passengers and a profitable rail system.
It seems pretty unlikely that a highly unprofitable system would have overall net benefits simply because the costs are borne by the public so you'd have to make up for the negative financial impact with benefits , which is difficult with few passengers.
Not to mention the alternative investments and benefits you miss out on when spending money on unviable projects.
Great video! You covered it nicely and factored everything in