Curious how I make these videos? I have a course explaining my process on Skillshare, today's sponsor. You can even finish the whole course in the 1-month free trial: skl.sh/polymatter01221
To add: The most profitable high-speed rail is in Japan. This is because they have a high GDP per capita, and are one of the most densely populated places in the world. So much so that it is often faster to walk 6 miles than to drive. The perfect place for a HSR.
Nope, it's because their high-speed system has its own rail track system with out inference from other longdistance rail traffic and not just the normal rail. Slower trains don't delay or interfer with the high-speed trains. Also the route is straight north-south without many deviations
I don't think that the profitability is because of the GDP (there's a not of non rich people and poor people also in Japan), it's more because of the private system they have at work. The rail companies own everything, not just the lines, they own the land around the lines. Than they can use that land to rent or other activities. This helps a lot to make money.
@Hayden Moore If it is cheaper and more benefitial than running and paying for other modes of transport then sure. Japan shows that good routes works, US could easily have something like that in certain parts, LA-SF, Dallas-Houston, NE corridor and something around chicago. Federal gov in the us pays and hides the true cost of running the road network
Yeah, but after spending so much on high speed rail, there simply wasn't any money left to buy a sub for the grand leader. Sad, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Every time I hear about a public infrastructure project, it's always the same story; the project went 2x to 3x over budget. Let's be honest here at this point. We're all getting scammed by these construction companies who are underbidding and expecting us to pay the bills later. At this point, a construction company should be forced to fork over the remaining lacking funds if it made an improper bid or be banned from making public bids in the future if it underbids to get the project. There were probably some honest construction companies out there that were considered 'too expensive' because they tried to calculate the ACTUAL cost and didn't get the bid because some schmuck underbid but doesn't need to pay a dime. This is ridiculous. This needs to be held accountable. [EDIT] After reading some of the comments I realize this is as much of a government problem itself as it is a construction company related issue. The government is ignorantly lowballing to get public support and the construction agencies in charge of this are just as willing to play ball in this ridiculous game of scam the tax payer into paying for infrastructure programs that we all know are going to be 2 or 3 times as expensive as advertised. When it happens occasionally, we can all excuse it, when it has become a consistent pattern, it is fraudulent in my opinion. The government officials who signed off on this equally deserve to be held accountable and threatened with corruption and malicious intent.
Yea having worked with government departments in the past I've got to agree with Tyneras. They CONSTANTLY change the scope and requirements of projects midway. Every project we did with them always ended up being twice as much work as the original estimate just because of them changing their minds a bunch. It's the nature of bureaucracy.
Let me tell you a weird anectode my man, Im from Odisha (state in India), where in the capital city; they were planning to build metro. Classic shenanigenary ensued, underbidding, delays but ultimately bankruptcy! As in when the state gov didn't cough up more funds, the company subsidiary declared bankruptcy and left it as is! I think there must be a moe elegant solution than just one party taking all the blame, maybe an independent commission? Estimatng certain costs before -hand, making sure the costs are tied to inflation etc. ?
Here in British Columbia the government is often obligated to go with the lowest bidder. So what happened most recently is a Spanish engineering firm simply up and left a humungous wastewater project in North Vancouver. No idea how much that's going to cost to finish.
They must have known HSR going to Tibet, Xinjiang, and other remote parts of the country were fundamentally unprofitable. I think the idea is to better integrate these regions into the wealthier Chinese eastern seaboard to promote social stability and potentially have these places serve as future launchpads for the Belt and Road Initiative.
If we do only things which are profitable then we will end up with a system which will not care about vast majority of people living there.... I think we already have a system like that perfected.
People that look at construction cost vs ticket income and conclude there miss the entire point. China is a big country with many different cultures held together with unity. This guy always talks out of his ass regarding China.
As an Engineer and high speed rail proponent here in Australia I find myself both agreeing with this video in parts, but also annoyed at some of its generalisations. The World Bank report you cite shows construction costs a fraction of what you would expect in Europe or here in Australia, given that we are talking about lines that are primarily on viaduct or in tunnel. The reason for this cost efficiency is economy of scale, automation and simple, repeatable design elements. So, contrary to the video, lines on viaducts aren't necessarily more expensive. The video also dismisses wider social and economic benefit. That's hard to measure of course, but its the measure by which long life transport infrastructure should be judged. It makes no sense for a private company to borrow money and then expect to recoup capital costs from fares. It makes a lot of sense for a government to invest in something that will pay for itself in terms of wider social and economic benefits over decades. It is in fact the same story as roads. Except that for a similar sized bucket of cash, high speed rail will move more people, faster than a road of the same length. You've also incorrectly characterised journeys of under 100 miles as suitable only for cars. This is in fact wrong, and you can find good examples of far shorter trips in for instance the Shinkansen network. A lot of high speed rail stations are "parkway" stations or otherwise not well connected to the wider public transport network. This is a mistake. But it is misleading to suggest that high speed rail stations in general must be inconveniently located. Take a look at HS1 and now HS2 in England for an example of getting it right. You're also drawing a long bow blaming neglect of conventional rail lines in China on money spent on high speed rail. This is certainly not the case in the US where the freight network is quite profitable and in most cases is well kept. In Australia the conventional rail network (which is essentially a freight network outside of cities) is marginal (and in places, poor). This cannot be blamed on high speed rail because we don't have it. Another thing you're missing (and it shows in your incorrect assessment of at what distance high speed rail can compete with cars) is the extent to which high speed rail can take passenger vehicles off major intercity roads. In Australia there are several major intercity corridors (notably Newcastle to Sydney) in which we've spent tens of billions of dollars (todays dollars) on modern, motorway standard roads. Which are now congested. The price of not building high speed rail in these corridors is that we will spend further tens of billions on augmenting these roads. Just like with conventional commuter rail, the thing you have to ask is not what the rail network cost, but rather what would it cost (and how dysfunctional and unworkable a city would be) if we didn't have that infrastructure. Oh and one other thing. The paradigm in which all you're concerned with is internal rate of return (a private company borrows money and therefore has to pay for it in fares) quickly leads to a death spiral - you're charging too much for fares and therefore people choose the alternative. This happens over and over and you've correctly pointed it out happening in China. It occurs because of the belief that high speed rail must pay for its capital out of fares. No, it should not. Instead we should be investing in it as basic infrastructure in order to seek the return of wider social and economic benefit for the nation as a whole. You know, Australia invested beyond $100 billion (in todays dollars) in its interstate highway network. There was no business case (as we know it today). There was no expectation of a "profit". We did it because we wouldn't be a modern, functional nation without a transport network. We need to stop being so schizophrenic in our attitude to high speed rail. Oh and btw, your discussion of energy cost is right, and wrong. Yes, energy use does go up non linearly with speed. But under most reasonable passenger load scenarios, the electricity cost is a small fraction of the fare revenue and a small fraction of the overall operational cost - that cost is mostly dominated by maintenance, staff and back office costs. Of course, if there's hardly anyone on the train then you've got a point. Btw I'm not defending China's decisions to build lines into increasingly silly places. A lot of this isn't about economics. its more about geopolitics and internal control. However, when you have nearly ten million people along a corridor that's 200 kilometres long (as we do here in Australia between Newcastle and Wollongong) then you do have a situation where the wider social and economic benefit is worth it and you will save tens of billions on future road costs.
But only if there is growth. China, as well as the Soviet Union, grows well from a low base, then all the miscalculations, every fraction of a percent of spending begin to take away the growth potential. Sooner or later, a crisis will happen, whether it be a sharp aging of the population within the country or some external factors in the global economy, and fixed costs will not go anywhere. A simple example, a subway was laid in our country. But there was a crisis and the second station was frozen. Over the next 10 years, the cost of maintaining the depot ate the budget for building several stations and the government decided to close it, inheriting only debt.
Are you seriously arguing that the lower cost to build HSR in China isn’t much to do with the super cheap labor there? Also, Australia is such a sparsely populated country spread out that HSR only makes sense in one tiny part-Melbourne to Sydney with a stop in Canberra. And that’s a maybe. Those two big cities are very far away (850km) while HSR works best when you have many cities that closer..
There isn’t a wider economic benefit. It’s a luxury travel for the richer people of China. It does have some economic benefits but it doesn’t mean all HSR routes are smart decisions which is why HSR has $1 trillion debt and growing rapidly in China despite having many lines that are profitable. The reason they over built HSR is because China wants to fake it to the world about how great they are. They also built some routes as a way to help oppress people in some parts like Xinjiang where they are committing genocide and Tibet where people have been oppressed for a long time.
Instead of building a few too many HSR routes that are bleeding so much money ($1 trillion debt and rising rapidly despite some profitable lines), they could have build more traditional rail and or improved it. If you don’t think China needs more non HSR rail then why do they have plans for 70,000 km more of rail?
I did 25 hour long journey between Shanghai and Guangzhou as the fast train was sold out. There were no empty seats at the train so I had to stand for most of the trip. The first thing I did when I came to Guangzhou, I bought ticked for the fast train back to Shanghai. I would pay not 100$ more for the fast train, but 500$ more at that moment. 😄
I have a little folding stool that fits in a backpack. Suggest you get one for your next crowded train trip. If you manage to score a seat you could lend the stool to someone else :-)
This just goes to show you that transportation isn't a one-size-fits-all sorts of affair. Each method has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and HSR is no exception.
The country is too large. Countries like many Europeans or indo-china peninsula countries' size is okay but like the U.S, Canada, Russia are have no sense. Unless we can have hyperloop or something.
@@muadhnate I'm more interested in HSR for more densely populated areas of the US, light rail and buses for within city streets, conventional rail for less densely populated areas, still reserving planes for coast to coast travel, and personal cars for out in the boonies.
@@muadhnate That's the point, the airline industry has so well developed and dominated cross-state transportation so deeply in the U.S. already, thus it makes your statement right. But ask a question: for the trip that the distance is within 1500 kilometers, will the trains bring better efficiency on the energy, capacity, and the cost？ will the places that along the railway get benefit from this transportation method? Lastly, when the whole world is caring about global warming and facing more and more extreme weather with extreme damages, will the airline industry always be the best choice?
I live in Hong Kong, I’m 192cm so I struggle to fit in economy seats on Chinese airlines. Given the choice I would always take the high speed train if it was viable. They have a LOT more legroom in even the second class seats, are fast, quiet and comfortable. Even took the 2,000km ride from Beijing to Shenzhen once. It took around 9 hours but it was one of the most relaxing journeys I’ve ever experienced
Raising the price of a ticket doesn't help them, either. That simply reduces ride numbers. So most rails will raise the cost of freight to the point it is often cheaper to move by truck than by train. This contributed to their fuel shortages a few months ago, as the ability to move coal across country was limited.
Exactly if a plane ticket on swa is 60 bucks and 100 on Legacy carrier and 200 bucks on the train, most won’t pay more for something that will take longer. Like Amtrak it will only be a rich man’s novelty
@@dadikkedude Nah, some of the HSR in China has been delivering high value-added commodities since 2014. Commodities like coal and ore still need freight trains. (Too heavy)
Even though I agree and think most in China would agree that there might be some negative impacts from high speed rail in the future. At least where I live (Yangze River Delta) it has been a blessing for many. Lots of people here live in smaller cheaper cities while taking the bullet trains off to Shanghai every day commuting (for the higher wages while paying a fraction of living costs). During weekends I often travel between cities many times a day to play and have fun. It's blurred the boundaries between cities to the point where I feel the entire greater region of the Yangze river delta is just one single megacity. And even though it may be a bad economic gamble, it's one of the things in life that I wouldn't ever want to see disappear.
The video didn't say all chinese HSR was bad just that there are a lot of routes that are losing money. It's probable that the routes where you live are worth the cost
Overall, it is still a financial disaster, where only a handful of lines are sustainable in economic terms. Enjoy the feeling of prosperity while you still can. I can’t see any possibility of the majority of HSR lines in China can go on like that in the long term. .
It's definitely nice to have the connection, but many countries wouldn't be able to operate something that loses the government tens of billions each year just operate & maintain. It's not that it should disappear, only that it should be thoughtfully considered where it's implemented. A great point is the impact it has on conventional rail. When you dismantle & limit regular rail, freight/shipping becomes more costly & less efficient, where now they're opting to use roads & trucks to move far less cargo. Ultimately it can lead to more road congestion, more air pollution & higher expenses (but cheaper than HSR) to where everyone suffers in a different way.
PolyMatter, as a person living in a Western country outside of China but regularly visits, there are some things that I agree with in this video, but I have a vastly different view from what was presented. I would like to counterargue that the Chinese government, while not entirely clear or definitive, have some sort of vague grand plan for the next 10 years of the future development of the country. HSR is just one of them. DISCLAIMER: I am not a subject matter expert so please do take my opinion with a grain of salt. First and foremost, the construction of the highspeed rail was birthed due to two significant issues that affected China at the time. The first was the 2008 financial crisis which saw many economic sectors take a huge hit and its general economy, which was entwined with that of the US, saw its own market spiral into an almost uncontrollable situation. To salvage this, the Chinese government took a page out of the US and decided to invest in infrastructure. Similar to the infrastructure boom during the great depression in the US, the economy was able to keep its head above the proverbial water and function as normal (of course with some visible slowing down but overall, it was alright). As for what infrastructure to build that was yet to be decided. The second problem which developed HSR was the economic disparity between cities. As shown in the video, the eastern coastal cities had the most economic prosperity while inland cities barely had any significant economic activities. Furthermore, due to the economic disparity, salary and wages between the two cities will differ widely (think Silicon Valley wage and some random Midwest city wage). This had the adverse effect of attracting people to move into major coastal cities. Originally it was not a bad thing as it can create mini-Silicon Valleys like ShenZhen HOWEVER this also caused a brain drain of the inland cities. The talents will leave their inland city to pursue a better career at a coastal city and the inland city will not see any benefit or return as their talented people all left. This also caused the inland cities to have slowed economic prosperity and output as well as innovation. HENCE the problems combined caused the Chinese government to construct HSR (there are still other factors which would be discussed later). I should mention at this point that I agree with the fact that the Chinese government does pursue many constructions out of vanity to use as propaganda, but HSR is not one of them in my opinion. Allow me to explain. The video mentioned that the HSR infrastructure lacks wealthy passengers to make it profitable, which is while true, is not the main aim of the HSR in my opinion. The HSR connects poorer rural minor cities in-between major cities to a proper infrastructure line which allows for those towns to prosper as well. This is due to the creating of maintenance and operational jobs within the area which ripples throughout the community and slowly become more prosperous (this point can be disputed as not all minor cities has seen growth). The next point I would like to tackle is the stimulus in transport and power infrastructure. The video says that it was a gamble that did not pay off. I would argue the opposite. The demand does materialise but materialises slowly. One thing the Chinese government has to leverage is its ability to create economic growth. This has been true especially looking at the GPD of China itself. The citizens are all happy to know that they will earn more over time and their children even more so. Hence, it is more of a generational thing, and it is an early investment. Like most early infrastructural investments, it will be at a loss until decades later (e.g. Hoover Dam). You cannot place profitability so early into its investment lifespan yet (will be discussed again). Also considering the huge population difference between China and the rest of the world excluding India, China is more than 4x the population of the US. Imagine transporting that many people per year, its infrastructure cost would be insanely expensive in the short term but will be beneficial in the long run. The next point the video raises is the ticket pricing and overall cost/efficiency. As mentioned above, the HSR connects minor cities to major ones. It allows investors to invest and develop minor cities over time. The current cost is not too expensive, because once again, people who use HSR are more likely to come from a major city and travelling to a minor city OR another major city (rather than minor to major city). This means that the minor cities will develop overtime and will become major cities one day, justifying the cost of the HSR. Efficiency wise I cannot say because I am not knowledgeable enough in that field, however from what I do know is that the comparison of efficiency as input versus output is a bad misrepresentation of the HSR. While many lines do not carry many passengers at all, it serves as a connection first. E.g. Connecting the Central station with some suburb 30km or further away. While it is not "efficient" or easy to justify the cost for the low profitability, it is still a great benefit for the people living there as they have a quick access to the CBD when needed. Think of the HSR as a more national scale version of this. Yes, it is not very profitable however, it is a godsend when needed. Slow trains are argued to be the main contender of HSR which I would say to be both true and false at the same time. Leisure travelling is one of the biggest uses of HSR and slow train but each has their own advantage. Slow trains offer a cheaper alternative BUT the price shown in the video refers to economy class (or the crap seats). Sometimes can become uncomfortable for middle class people over long distance. Slow trains also come in a variety of models, some with air cons some without, some with open windows, some without. Cramped seats etc, you can imagine. Imagine sitting in a subway line for an entire day to reach that destination (not wonderfully comfortable I can tell you that). The price difference also includes comfort as well as time compared to slow trains. This is because even the cheapest seats on the HSR are much more comfortable and arrives much quicker (a win-win if you ask me). Slow trains have a different purpose compared to HSR. HSR connects major cities and the ones in between HOWEVER slow trains serve as a rural connection overall. HSR would be more like a highway between two big cities and exits to smaller town that lies in between, but the slow trains are the streets that connects the more distant suburbs and towns to the highway in the first place. Yes, the Slow Trains serve a lot of passengers but once you factor in the economic line, the majority of people who ride the slow train are low-income earners and even now, slow trains are being phased out over time as nearby cities experience growth (not to discredit the need for slow trains). I do agree with that HSR has overshadowed the cargo trains but interestingly enough, cargo trains have not experienced a reduction in demand. It has maintained the same levels as before and overall, still functioning as before (to my knowledge at least). Last but not least, HSR would seem pretty useless if all the above is not considered or has taken a hit. HOWEVER it also has incredible strategic use. It can send supplies extremely fast to disaster stricken areas and quickly replenish compared to airplanes. HSR only needs a station to accommodate the train and a huge airfield and control tower is not needed. Furthermore, it is very reliable. HSR can run in almost any weather whereas airplanes cannot fly if there are any bad weather (stormy, blizzard, etc). Trains will get the job done. Also, to be on the dystopian side a bit, consider that an uprising or protest (cough HK cough* please don't arrest me xi) happens, planes + HSR can quickly deploy personnel to "control" the situation. Just sayin'. TLDR; The video does not go into depth as to why it is inefficient or NOT part of a future vision plan and jumps into conclusion that HSR is a failed gamble based on vanity. HSR is not a failure and is a long-term investment for the infrastructure of the country. While it does have some downsides, its overall benefits vastly outweigh the slight downsides. Cost wise and efficiency wise, it is more than reasonable. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. EDIT: The first comment bring up some good points and I answered it in the replies somewhere
Most of what you said at the beginning is irrelevant since the same could be accomplished with normal rail, or as a compromise 250kmph rail which is still considered HSR and as polymatter said is almost half as cheap (10mn vs 19mn). So I'll only address what you say about normal rail 1) i don't know whether the prices were for economy class or what else but no matter what it was, does it not unequivocally stand that at the end of the day factoring everything in, people would've preferred cheaper, slower rail, from the results of the poll in the video? 2) this 'purpose' of normal rail isn't anyhow inherent to them or God given, it is obviously wholly set by us. So ofcourse that is the purpose they _currently_ serve, since that's literally how the entire system they live in has been constructed 3) even if demand for cargo trains is same, it could've have increased. And from what polymatter claimed, that is exactly what would've happened since he says cargo was forced to use road transport 4) you don't need a public transportation system to deal with natural disasters... There are separate, vastly more efficient ways to specifically create fast systems for disaster management (which most countries use since practically no country has such extensive HSR coverage) 5) Again, the exact same thing about reliability can be said for normal rail so null point 6) (for riot control) same as 4
@KJJ i don't understand who you're addressing. Who exactly is taking what polymatter says as the Bible? He presents logical arguments, and referenced facts. His conclusions aren't being taken on face value
Why do we still judge public works by profitability? It's moronic thinking that has CRIPPLED our ability to have large scale infrastructure projects happen around the world. Roads aren't profitable. Hydroelectric dams aren't profitable. Airports aren't profitable. And if any of those are, they're doing so as a secondary benefit. The primary purpose is to provide economic impact mixed with improved general welfare. The world would be in a much, much better place if they got out of the horrible mentality of assuming that public works projects need to generate returns on investment in dollars. They generate returns in terms of access to work, reduced traffic, economic development around the train lines, and a bunch of other intangibles.
IDK, I think the fare box revenue is not totally worthless, just overblown in the US. Yes, every town over 40K having HSR to each would be a huge boon, but if 90% of operations relies on the state, then funding it is mostly politicial issue, usually just as a throw away charity that never gets much money, leading to long term decay. Restoration projects just become election promises that never measure favorably to opening capabilites. Its own reveune eithier by fares or station services can help keep it running regardless of politics, then again, most preverse incentives towards highways over communter rail probably comes because the developement oportunities make highways and suburbian homes more profitable and easier to manage than higher density rails. Doubly so since the dividison of road maintainace payments means the highways are not their problem, the overpass road is likely state reponsiblity, etc.
There is a missing point. The reason many local governments building more than necessary high speed rails is that the land price near those stations sky rocketed. They can more than cover the cost by selling inflated land (this is another problem by itself). Freight rails does not promote land price, therefore slow/freight rails were under-invested compared to previous 5 year plan by central government, while high speed rails were over built. I live in Shanghai and prefer high speed train much better than air travling beacuse they almost never delay, and the stations are usually near city center.
Isupport studied English with this I restarted English after 10 years I am a beginner studying English with asmr. Please come and take a look and Thank you
I just seen a video on why china sucks at air travel planes delay over 50% because 80 percent of airspace reserved for the military so planes take ass backwards airway routes... unlike da numba wuan country in the world where 90 of airspace is public heres the youtube video th-cam.com/video/sJPxjVASlBc/w-d-xo.html
I'm surprised that this video highlights the neglect on conventional rail. HSR has always been the talk of ideal rail where I am and while it seems all talk at the moment (and I'm for the building of HSR), it's true too that conventional rail seems to be neglected a lot and not being improved on as much as it should be.
HSR in your context means dedicated two way corridor and dedicated terminals. Otherwise it is just conventional rail going a bit faster and offers marginal benefits.
@@gearloose703 oh yeah definitely, I think the Shinkansen is still one of the best models out there but the emphasis is not to neglect the existing regular rail at the same time
Build HSR now in preparation of retiring convectional railroad in the future. As GDP goes up, more will be willing to pay a small extra fee for HSR. Why wasting resources to maintain old conventional railroad and never progress further. We must have long term vision; think about the country 10-20 years, not months, from now. This is public infrastructure for the entire country. So not everything has to have positive pay back now. This is something America lacks, always think short term profit, no vision.
@@kinghills5993 As the video said, you still need freight rail to run on conventional rail. Also HSR will skip nearby stations so conventional rail will still run for local services to serve suburban areas. Look at the model in Japan for example, they have Shinkansen and conventional rail running side by side.
infrastructure is one of the few things actually worth going in debt for and the idea that people can work in cities and live in much cheaper areas, and not spend half their free time commuting is a huge boon to humanity
@@Lucas-qk8lc Not sure how to respond to this, though ... For starters to "live" in the metaverse you need a good internet connection and that is concentrated in the cities, which tend to be more expensive
@@alanshteyman1071 u dont have to live in the metaverse u can work there for some hours and live on. As for internet connection it will depend on starlink or other advanced satellite systems
There's infrastructures that are useful and built to last and there's tofu dreg constructions that are unused. Just lumping them all as "infrastructure" and saying they're worth going in debt for doesn't make any sense.
@@indianatarzan8001 Here’s how they turned out: GDP will expand by 10%. Wrong (it grew 8%). Most Fortune 500 companies will be Chinese. Right. China will create five new billionaires each week. Right. (It’s now the world’s richest country) Extreme poverty and homelessness will disappear. Right China will narrow its Gini gap. Unknown. Average Chinese will outlive Americans. Right. (US life expectancy fell 3 years). Chinese vaccines will protect 60% of the world . Wrong. (It was 50%) China will revolutionize urban life. Wrong. The new city will open in 2022 . China will unveil the first exascale computer . Right. Three, and the Gordon Bell Prize) China will announce another quantum surprise. Right. (A quantum computer 10,000 times faster than Google’s Sycamore). In fact, 2021 was the best year in Chinese history. Here’s what they did: Eliminated extreme poverty. Achieved 98% home ownership. Mastered Covid, with a death rate 0.6% of America’s. Grew the economy faster than ever, by $2 trillion PPP, four times America’s rate. Became the richest country on earth. Built three exascale computers. One runs AI problems 88,000 times faster. Brought two gas-cooled Pebble Bed nuclear power plants online. Fired up two thorium-fueled reactors, eliminating uranium from power generation. Certified a Covid treatment that reduces hospitalizations and deaths 78%. Became the world’s largest movie market. Successfully tested the world’s most powerful solid rocket engine. Flew three hypersonic missiles around the planet. Released a fractional orbital bombardment missile, at 17,000 mph. Commissioned three warships at a time to become the biggest navy. Issued the most patents of any country and dominated scientific research. Sold $140 billion retail online in 24 hours. Amazon’s record is $5 billion. Made 55% of global energy savings. Generated 1 terawatt of renewable energy. Produced a new billionaire and 300 millionaires every work day. Completed new train lines in seven countries, including Laos’ first. Ran 12,000 cargo trains to and from Europe, up 30% on last year. Joined RCEP, the world’s biggest trade pact. Launched the world’s first central bank digital currency. Built a programmable quantum computer 10,000x faster than Google’s. Operated the first integrated, 3,000-mile, commercial quantum communications network. Installed one-million 5G base stations, giving Tibet better 5G service than New York. Communicated between satellites via lasers, 1,000x faster than radio waves.
Fun fact about the BRT or the elevated express bus system coming from someone who used to live in Xiamen. The reason why Xiamen didn’t have a metro is because despite its economic status, there weren’t enough people on the island city to justify the CCP into putting resources into the metro project. But now Xiamen has teamed up with several other cities and finally got its own metro project the XRT, I think, mostly up and running.
Few things to add from smeone living in China for a decade (already!!). Some HSR routes are simply not "efficient" because of too many stops. Think about the Shanghai - Nanjing line: there are some routes that stop in Kunshan, Wuxi, Suzhou which makes stops every more or less 10 to 30 min trip. If you know that the High Speed Train uses the most power during accelerations and brakings, then the power consumption will grow a lot. Another point to notice is that the highest speed was reduced. It was supposed to be 350 kph but reduced to 300 kph due to several issues with the quality of the rail material and to safety concerns. Last point: because of some quality issues, the lifespan of the tracks was reduced. So this means that the initial assumptions at the start of the construction are no longer valid. This will cause issues in the near future when there will necesseraily much more and thus most expensive maintenance on the tracks + the whole ecosystem. I really love polymatter, your content is top notch !!
I think polymatter was correct. China doesnt have any less bureacracy than the US or Europe, but rather it just has a different flavour it has to deal with.
IMO, i think its okay to have a large number of station to served as long as they can create types of service (non-stop or all stop). For notable example, the Shinkansen linking Tokyo and Osaka alone (which has 15 intermediate stations in between) has 3 types of services ranging from the fastest to the slowest one.
Wrong! There are two lines connecting SH to Nanjing. The regional line that stops a lot in jiangsu province (first built in early days, meaning 2011 time frame), or the SH BJ trunk line which covers SH NJ section in as fast as 57 minutes at top speed 350kph. Look it up go to baidu and type G18… china is changing every day. Improvement made to people’s live are being made daily. What’s wrong if HSR made stops? Are you supposed to concentrate your development in big cities like SH and Nanjing and forget the people in Wuxi or Suzhou? Any sense?
You missed out the part where China uses the HSR at night and off peak hours as courier trains transporting cargo or a hybrid approach half passenger and half cargo, if you need to send produce 1000km away most companies would use HSR over planes since its cheaper and just fast as less security checks for trains than an airport and train stations are closer to the city center as compared to airports /gVS4eWqXLOc
@@LucarioBoricua there are standard containers for a reason, how much space per train car is available, do all train cars have the same space? how is cargo secured? What is the cost of converting passenger trains every night? Rhese are all factors that need to be considered that add up to the cost
Great video! But I would argue, there are just more real-world concerns than simple numbers. I'm no expert in this realm but I will list a few of the concerns I can think of as an average Chinese: 1. Economic concerns. Investment is good for business. From 2008 to 2015, the government needed to invest huge to support the economy. HSR is simply the most logical option back then. Where did all those money go? To contractors, workers, and people who lived next to the lines (and a few corrupted officials, ofc). So the money is no wasted. 2. Public service concerns. The train is almost never designed to be profitable, as you said in the video. It's a public service, which means you can't look just at the balance sheet and say "hey, It's not making money. This is a bad idea.". Take Beijing's subway as an example. Those trains transport millions of people every single day, and it is also losing money every single day. As long as the benefit it brings to the entire society is greater than the cost, then its existence is justified. 3. Equality concerns. One of the major reasons why so many non-profitable lines were built is that these lines are connecting relatively poor cities. As you may know, China has huge income inequality. The rich cities are super rich, and the poor cities are super poor. The plan is to interconnect all these cities so that economic development can be transferred and shared by the whole country, instead of by a few leading cities. This plan will take decades to manifest, so it's too early to say "oh man this isn't working". 4. Political concerns. The line to Xinjiang you mentioned is the most obvious example. Nobody ever expects it to be profitable. The whole purpose of that line is to bring that distant and rebellious province closer to the rest of the country. If everything goes well, the connections will bring trust and prosperity. If everything goes sour, the line can still be a way to insert dominance.
Exactly, no-one expects defense spending or foreign wars to pay for themselves, yet that standard is applied to transport infrastructure and healthcare.
@@LowestofheDead military spending is crazy high. china spends 200b a year and america spends 800b. That amount is enough to pay off all of the debts china owes
Inflation. Everybody forgets inflation. Inflation is pretty damn high in China. Inflation means that if China waits too long, land prices would have doubled, salaries would have tripled (and Chinese will no longer want to do the hard work) and legal headaches would have quadrupled (see U.S). On the other hand, inflation means they can one day triple the ticket prices. Don't believe me? I've lived to see public transport ticket prices in Beijing go from 0.1 RMB to 2 RMB. I thought the x20 increase was highway robbery at first until I realized it's still really damn cheap. A hundred years from now the ticket prices can increase by x10 and nobody would bat an eyelash, and the initial investment would look like pocket change. Since you're not on the ground, you also don't see how the transportation infrastructure in China has completely changed some industries. China's domestic tourism is now around half a trillion dollars, and the government has started pushing rural tourism, which for now is still in its infancy in China but is set to really take off (judging from the popularity of rural social media celebrities like Li Ziqi for example). Also, I have No idea what's going on with logistics in China, but my mom in Beijing can order fresh fruit from Xinjiang or fresh oysters from Southern China and it arrives the next day at the latest. There's an app called Pinduoduo which has changed the way commerce is conducted in China, cutting out intermediaries and enabling people in villages to directly buy/sell to each other and to cities. Unlike most e-commerce sites, Pinduoduo has a focus on groceries and daily necessities. It can't work without China's ultra-fast logistics because everything would otherwise spoil on the way.
underrated comment. Most people conveniently overlooked the economic spill over effect from building public transport. They just looked at profitability aspect and paying off the loan. The economic growth from the public transport far outweigh the loss of operation cost. The government could simply subsidise the operating cost using money generated from extra tax revenue due to economic growth.
@@mjabb02 "The economic growth from the public transport far outweigh the loss of operation cost" Hi there! It looks like you're trying to make a giant assumption without any valid evidence or data! Would you like to cite that?!
@@mjabb02 If something is unsustainable eventually it will drag down everything around it with debt. Look at some US suburbs that have failed or nearly abandoned that were built during the 50s and 60s. Too little population density to support the maintanance of roads and water and sewage and electrical. Now they just let these towns wallow in sewage overflow and flooding and the roads crumble. There is a price that will come due anytime sustainability isn't fully factored in.
And in California we insisted on upgrading miles of existing rail to connect a bunch of cities instead of building a new right of way avoiding thses cities for a fraction of the cost. This includes running over Tehachapi Pass which is out of the way. Not to mention the consultants ate all the money and California refusing to override local government when it comes to literally anything. And it can do this. It could just end Caltrain's existence with one act in the legislature.
how it works where pepole don't want to live in "passover" areas that don't benefit from a statewide project. Should probably of created a route between San Diego and LA as proof of concept though
@@itsjonny1744 that would have been way more mountainous and costs would have inflated due to that. If they wanted to do mountainous, high cost and useful if canceled, they would have gone for Tejon Pass. That would have at least allowed conventional trains to run between Northern and Southern California. Which they can't do now. Also, the cities in the valley don't really want the high speed trains anyways. So skipping them to save money and upgrading the San Joaquin would have been more expedient than wasting money connecting legislative districts that don't want it.
One of the huge advantages of rail is that it can stop at cities along the way. Bakersfield and Fresno are huge destinations. They're not fancy, famous cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco, but they're still important hubs in California. Rail works on a network effect, like the phone system or the internet. A phone system that only connects two phones is far less useful than a phone system where every phone can call any other phone. And, conveniently, the population centers of the Central Valley are in a line, so it makes sense to build along that line. That way you can serve Fresno to San Jose, or Modesto to Anaheim. When it's complete, the majority of the passengers will NOT be going from SF to LA. Most of the trips will be between one of the larger cities and all the other cities along the way. Or to put it another way, imagine how much less use I-5 would get if it had NO EXITS between LA and 580 to the bay area. Most of the people driving on I-5 north from LA are not going to SF. What makes it useful is that you can get off along the way.
@@thetrainhopper8992 Except for the fact that California got a federal grant that spesifically was for useful sections + had to go in the valley.. Hard to say no to a billion when funding is unclear even now. California high speed rail is being fought on so many fronts + a federal/state gov that don't want to use their ability to force land away since consequenses are harsh
@@thetrainhopper8992 Conventional trains do run from north to south along Tehachapi pass already. It's just that passenger trains are almost never allowed to use it because SP/Union Pacific only single-tracked it and doesn't want to allow anything on it but their freight traffic.
I think the main reason chinese continue building their rail is because they want to boost the economy on their inland province. As you know, their most prosperous province located relatively to the sea. It's a gamble but they might see these maintenance cost is worth it in the long run by betting on their inland province growth. Beside from what i read, some empty HSR is converted to freight for cargo especially e-commerce, the "arrive next day" kind of delivery. Am no Chinese tho, I don't know the field situation there, just my opinion
There's I detail that wasn't clear and I wanted confirmation. These mega projects are all from the Central Government? I think it's probably and makes sense that the Central Government is forcing the big cities to be connected. That rail on the desert "surely" must be the Central Government idea, right? But the Local Governments have a lot of autonomy, isn't they that should construct the slower and more local trains? Maybe the fail of the Central Government is not forcing a stronger policy that disincentives car focused projects. "Beside from what i read, some empty HSR is converted to freight for cargo" I just saw a little video today showing this. A multi-lane rail system with some lines dedicated to conventional trains doing freight work.
How did HSR boos the economy inland?! Traditional rail would allow more people to use rail AND it would function as freight rail which would help inland much more. See 12:40. Lol, all I see is so many comments trying to defend China. China built excessive HSR because they want to show off to the world. HSR cannot be used for freight. Nice lie though.
“What I read is some empty HSR is converted to freight for cargo”. Lol, nice shilling for China. Regular rail can move much more freight than HSR. Freight is basically non existent on HSR because it’s too expensive and would require modifications. China should have built traditional rail in half of these routes instead of going a trillion in debt just to try to make China look so much wealthier with all the extra HSR.
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson same reason why people would take plane than sleeper train. If you have more to spend, you use the faster option. If a business want to say open a new factory say on a neighboring town 500km away. The best option for business trip survey there would be HSR. Cargo may be also transported by normal speed train, but there's no harm having faster train to transport stuff, especially time sensitive goods.
It is not true that China hasn’t found a way to do it cheaper and faster. It isn’t just lower cost of labor, it’s that standardization allows for that automated thing they use to lay the next section of rail.
Yes, and the video mentioned that China took advantage of economies of scale while building it's routes. However, those economies of scale are false, because the size of the HSR is far greater than demand. There's a similar situation in US grocery stores with sales on perishable goods, like meat or milk. They'll hook you with a BOGO deal to buy more than you can use because it's at a discount. But, it only works in your favor if the amount you can use is greater than the percentage of normal price that you spend. For example, consider a sale of "buy one milk at full price, get the second one 40% off (BOGO 40%)." If you typically can only use one unit of milk before it goes bad, then buying two doesn't make financial sense. Yes, you'll pay 80% of the full price of the two units. But, the cost is 60% higher than the cost of one unit. So, in order to break even, you have to make use of at least 60% of the second unit. If you can only use one unit before they both go bad, then you'll throw away a whole package of milk, and lose that 60%. Make sense? Also, changing your normal usage _just to use up the milk_ doesn't make it less wasteful. You aren't benefiting more by overusing it. China got a bulk discount on it's HSR network, but it can't possibly take full advantage of the whole network. So, most of the price tag is wasted, even though the product was discounted.
@@jpaugh64 you make to much sense. 6 months later after this video, chinas economy is having problems. Gdp growth was just 0.4% this past quarter, Henan baking crisis is possibly the tip of the iceberg for banking, large numbers of people are withholding payments on loans because housing projects aren’t being built, housing market is shaky and on Verge of a collapse, China lent out massive amounts on projects and many of those countries are now struggling to pay as some are hitting financial crisis already unable to pay China, etc. China is having all these issues and the debt crisis is problem. So spending on all that HSR where it wasn’t remotely profitable is now looking very bad.
@@jpaugh64 I follow you, but I do not understand how it relates to what I said. How can economies of scale be false? Why do they have to build to meet present demand? Can't they build based on what they believe will be future demand? And why are you looking at this as if it's something the market should dictate anyway? I think giving everyone access to high speed rail is a good enough goal, whether or not it would make sense for a private company to do it. And, even with all that ignored, how would that make the economy of scale false? How would that defeat my point that they have innovated a way to build cheaper and faster? In relation to the milk analogy, milk is a perishable good, rail lines are not. Rail lines are a thing people can use to multiply their productive capacity by bringing in people, capital, and goods at high speed and low cost.
Being a middle-income country is an advantage. It's actually the strategy Chinese government use: Build as much infrastructure as possible while workforce is still cheap. So in the future you would only require to spend for maintenance.
Maintenance cost is still insanely high. Look at the US. In our highway boom, some places are failing to pay off even its highway debt. Its not a massive issue, and is definitely managable, but imagine how it would be like for HSR. For the US to even begin having those problems, they had to let certain highways age for like 70ish years. China built theirs in like 20 years, and already face financial trouble
@@honkhonk8009 that's what tax money is for: building massive infrastructure as public utility not as money making scheme. Apparently you feel better that your tax money is spent on tomahawk bombing afghan school bus several thousand miles away?
but problems comes up as tofu drege constructions... just that other day a whole damn viaduct fliped on the side like that famous photo of the Kobe (Osaka) earthquake 1995
I don’t like how the takeaways in the end is about “showing off” and overlooking the enormous social benefits came from such infrastructure. You have to understand how much the general public benefited from the super efficient infrastructure otherwise would have no way to afford had the system been owned by profit maximizing private entities. They simply would not build a link between two unprofitable cities, but the existence of such unprofitable link fueled growths of many impoverished cities and lifted millions out of poverty. I live in Tokyo, two things I love and also annoyed: the Shinkansen bullet train is absolutely amazing to ride on, yet very expensive. About 5-7 times more expensive compare to bullet trains traveling similar speed and distance in China (labor costs etc, I get it, but still too expensive). Second, the multiple subway companies system created their own stations and subway tracks that you have to transfer between different company’s platforms in order to transfer trains let alone confusion and headache, fares, payment method etc. Back in the US, I used to ride the “high speed train” between Boston and NYC that’s nowhere near “high speed”, very expensive (similar to airfare), breaks down so often, so unreliable I ended up driving most of the time. China’s high speed railway network isn’t all what you see, it’s both efficiency and impracticality combined, but from an average citizen’s point of view, it’s godsend. Oh, you are right, nothing gets done in the US with all the political games and companies battling for money rather than focusing on the people.
You missed the point completely. Did you even watch the full video? He is not argueing against HSR. He is saying that certain tracks withing certain distance perameters are both a social good and a economic good. What he is pointing out, is that alot of the HSR in china doesnt really serve either function. Goes to areas where a plane is both quicker and more efficent, and connect places that dont have a high degree of commuting. Japans use of the technology is pretty great for its use. Its one HSR that connects all the urban centres of japan, its exacly by the book. Like what the fuck is the point with having a high speed rail through the fucking gobi dessert. It would be like japan making a bullet train that goes to Tosa or Hokkaido.
@@MegaRide123 "Goes to areas where a plane is both quicker and more efficent" planes polute a lot and their air space is congested. "and connect places that dont have a high degree of commuting." at the time of the making of the video using outdated data, not in the future "Like what the fuck is the point with having a high speed rail through the fucking gobi dessert" to connect China to Xingjiang (uyghur) and the Silk Road? Use your brain please
@@samalheid6630 You can connect china to those regions, by both more cheaper means, quicker means and more effiecent means. Theres literally no reason to have HSR over conventional rail at that point. "use your brain please". or have those 10 people who commute to bejing from the west on a plane instead. It isnt alot of congestion, and building HSR thru the entire gobi dessert, for a miniscule amount of passengers, is hardly more envoirmently friendly, or less wastefull....
I think a lot of people are missing a key point that he spent practically half of the video talking about. Rail connections to the areas they connected is an incredibly benefit for the country. BUT it could've been done at a fraction of the cost because most of those railways have little to no benefit from being HSR over slow-rail. In fact the extreme increase in price may very well oppress the poorest of those areas by making them unable to afford the transit on these new connections whereas their richest neighbors will benefit immensely. The ironic problem this self-proclaimed communist country just created is "The rich get richer". (Yes I'm aware that China is almost entirely capitalistic by nature these days, but that isn't what they call themselves)
People are pointing out that the benefits of high-speed rail are more than just their consumer fares, and that it's unfair to call them "unprofitable." However, I think the numbers provided were a great gage of how well different lines are used. Further, specific debt was issued for each line and so it's a very real issue to each one. It's very refreshing to hear about these matters so pragmatically. A serious and direct discussion of how much a government project costs is something politicians and the public routinely avoid. I'm personally impressed that any such project could directly pay for itself. And, counterintuitively, I actually saw a lot of things presented here as indications of efficiency.
Completely agree. Ironically, the fact that all of these implications and conclusions could even be drawn in the first place indicates efficiency - something that cannot be said for many government initiatives in the US.
@@iamalexhu In what sense do you mean that? Certainly the lines that make a profit are a great indicator of profitability, but given the insane amount of debt this project burdened the state with I would say taking this as a roadmap for HSR development in any other country at all is a horrible idea. And that's not because every line should definetly always turn a profit, if there's some lines that are so extraordinarily profitable that they can cover others you can build these others, but what pisses me off is that people in the comments here bring up the "doesn't need to be profitable" argument and just choose to ignore that that amount of debt is crippling to any sort of state. Like, you can't just cherrypick yk...
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 I agree with your point but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m saying that unlike many of the government initiatives in the US, China’s initiatives comparatively never run over budget, are delayed, or any other bureaucratic nonsense, which makes collecting this type of profitability data even possible. On the other hand, an initiative on a similar scale in the US would constantly be lobbied, and their statistics would be inaccurate at best, and purposefully misleading at worst
@@iamalexhu i think you mean something like "analysis paralysis", "conflicts of interest", or too many chefs in the kitchen. on one hand, China's singular "hivemind" is a very simple, efficient answer: yes or no. Do or do not. on the other hand, Western bureaucracies are full of many opposing factions, conflicts of interests, overanalysis, red tape. hence many projects can lead into indefinite procrastination and delays. QED inefficiency.
Yep. As usual for "economics 101" types, they can't understand efficiency or utility beyond their purely monetary values. It would be funny if it wasn't so damaging because these people have huge influence and their views certainly seem to dominate all political debate. Whenever someone wants to improve society all they have to do is, "that will cost 100 bajillion dollars!" And the debate ends there. It's farcical.
I think one point that you miss in your calculations is the huge positive spillover effects that high speed rail brings with it. Imagine for instance what an enormous economic boost it is for smaller cities to get connected to a mega city like Shanghai. By only considering ticket prices as the "profit" from the rail network, you forget the resulting economic growth. When the state owns the rail companies, this growth is profit! In addition, while many of the lines may be empty today, ridership is likely to increase as more of china urbanises and more of the population gets lifted up into the middle class. With all modes of transportation it's often said that "if you build it, they will come". This is because the infrastructure induces its own demand, e.g since people are more likely to move to a city if it has a fast HSR connection to a city like Shanghai. Now I can neither predict the future, nor do I know any exact numbers here, but I still think it is too crude to simply regard the project as a failure because the ticket prices don't cover the costs on all lines today.
the issues raised by you are in facted touched upon in the video. your argument to explain how a loss of 900 billion USD is somehow justified is ridiculous. that is more than evergrande a year.
@@murderofcrows2179 And how much is the public debt of the united states? 29.6 trillion? and Japan? 12.2 trillion? How this countrys keep working? This is called investments, when the time to pay this 900 billion come there will be money for it, and then they will borrow more and build more and earn more and pay for the debt and it goes on and on and on. It's not so importan how much is your debt, as long as you have the money to pay for it.
"infrastructure induces it's own demand" I feel like this is probably really true of public transportation in cities. E.g., if I lived in a city with public transportation, I wouldn't need to own a car to work or go to school. I would only need a car to leave the city, and then I'd just arrange for my parents or somebody else to drive me. That would save me a lot of money and give me more freedom enter the workforce faster. (This is a very American perspective, not a Chinese one, of course.) This is what I thought about when I heard that Jakarta created it's first metro-line recently, but no one used it immediately, even though it was temporarily free, and so it hasn't reduced Jakarta's road-congestion problem yet. I was thinking, "right now, everyone has a plan to get to work, school, etc., without using the metro system. Only once the system is already there can people plan for it". Trips between cities in different parts of a country are not so common though, so they're probably each planned separately, which means that this "momentum" probably doesn't affect them as much.
@@mfgJoseph The difference is that he hasn't reached a conclusion, except that the video's logic is flawed. Once growth in the wider economy attributable to the rail system is considered, then it can be seen how successful or unsuccessful the project was.
@@rejvaik00 The USA could use it in cerain places. One of the big issues is the lack of public transportation in cities which means people are more likely to drive so their car is with them.
@@guppy719 no the US doesn't need a country spanning high-speed rail network because unlike China the US doesn't have over a dozen cities in a straight-ish line each with over 8 million people China's population density is massive by comparison some cities like Shanghai and Beijing have a whopping 20+ million population!! US Pop density by comparison is low on a nation wide scale we have 1 single city with 8.8 million, New York City which is the largest concentration of population in the entire US Second is Los Angeles, with a population of 3.8 million which a difference of 5 million is a significant reduction! After that comes Chicago with 2.7 million Then houston with 2.3mil, Phoenix with 1.6 mil, Philadelphia with 1.6mil as well Look at that, top 6 largest cities in the US and they scattered all over the country! How in the heck you think you can create a rail line linking California, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York and expect passengers to ride on it? And the business operating it to turn a profit as well? It can't be done Speaking of price China had to pay a hefty price for such a system 900 billion in debt to get this project through no local, state level or federal level government wants to fork over anything even close to that for something unnecessary Any improvements to public transportation are going to have to start with proper city planning and city expansion, and possibly founding brand new cities closer to existing ones
@@rejvaik00 It's not always about population, people don't always choose HSR, even though it might be twice as fast as trains. I personally only take HSR if it is more affordable than short distance flights (If I am not time-sensitive with my trip). If you are thinking population matters because the demand is always at 100%, you're wrong, ticket's do not always get sold out, but trains and light rails are different, they are much more popular and people actually take them as they are more economical. But in terms of public transit, China have always been the pioneer, have built and always will build them regardless of costs, because it does greater good for the general public and that's all it matters, they believe these public transit bring more value and opportunity to China's economy as a whole. Hence they are now the #1 economy in the world. India is projected to overtake US by 2040 as per Wikipedia sources. If US cared about the general public, they would have started by improving the old transit systems like the NYC subway/metro decades ago and providing universal health care, but nah politics > public wellbeing.
@@guppy719 cascadia is a great candidate. A route connecting Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland would be very popular. Lots of wealthy people in those cities
China - people have always missed - has part of that old Soviet productionist bias that has helped drive incredible growth but also means that to keep production, profits, employment, and revenue turning over to make a lot of bad debts on the books make sense more and more government money goes into driving reinvestment, production, soft budgets for producers and so on. It is also why even though the Chinese state has incredible state capacity much of its state is bureaucratically and in level of services so bare as much of the existing money goes into wiping away bad debts and driving still more production. Equally in fairness to Xi Jinping he is no fool and part of the reason he wants more equitable growth or even some redistribution in favour of poorer Chinese is that he recognises broader based purchasing power is necessary to drive further growth and also it is popular with people and reduces ill feelings toward a Party that is often seen as focused on the wealth of its own members as its primary goal.
the pump-priming is another reason that they started building the high-speed railroad in 2008. You see, in order to slow down currency devaluation building infrastructures is the best option. Since it creates thousands of jobs, increases national happiness. However, building these things is easy compared to maintaining them, and as you mentioned, only a tiny fraction of the railroads are actually making a profit. So, you need to the economy running which means you need to rise the tax. Things you might not know are that most of the local governments in China are actually in debt and the money they got is mostly coming from selling their land to developers.
Here in France HSR is also inefficient if we analyse it from a purely capitalistic lens. But we know is absolutely essential. Its like having a universal healthcare system, we just know how it's necessary. Going to the us from that perspective is often asking to yourself, what's the point of having one of the highest GDP per capita ? And also, China only has 1/6th of it lets not forget about it ...
@@moneysittintall3611 Yeah hard to take Europeans preaching the gospel of the welfare state seriously when they essentially traded their children's future for comforts in the now. There's a reason USA's share of global GDP stayed consistent over the past century while Europe's tanked and its not just because of WW2. The EU's influence only shrinks and shrinks... You can't just look at the post-WW2 period and think "Ah yes the welfare state seems to be working perfectly." Gonna have to wait till the next depression, the next Great War, etc before we can say for sure that its worth it. Conventional wisdom however would say delayed gratitude results in greater rewards down the road - if nothing else, the wealthier a country is then the greater potential welfare state they'll be able to support in the future.
@@daroaminggnome USA's global GDP has always been tanked by big corporates. As wealth gap is getting wider and wider, it's meaningless to have such a high GDP because it's the big corporates who made the money and not average Joes.
@@moneysittintall3611 funny to see how America is managing to have one of the largest debt per capita while being at the same time the most polluting nation per capita, having no real plan that at the very least would try to solve car dependency , while having indebt students, while being one of the first world nations doing the worst during this COVID crisis both on the healthcare and on social safety nets... Yeah good luck with that. Citizens of Europe definitely don't want the American way despite what our corrupt leaders are currently doing... What's the point of having high GDP already ?
Dear PolyMatter, I love your documentaries and always find them very educational. Having been to China a few times, using their HSR train system really opened my eyes on the value of the train as a means of transportation, especially being someone who hardly takes trains in the west and almost always flies or drives. For example, I could buy a ticket from Shenzhen to Xiamen at the train station and get the next train that ran every 1-2 hours. I recall the price about 50 USD for a 3-4 hour ride at an average speed of 250 km/hr. I found the ride very affordable, comfortable, convenient and very efficient in terms of time. If you take account all the hassle of going through airport security, check in, and runway jams, I realized taking the train for many routes took about the same time or better than flying. After my experience, I wasn't surprised to learn that the train is the main form of transportation (city to city) for China, which makes sense for the reason I stated above.
Because you are a foreigner/tourist. Most Chinese wage earners don't have 50 USD to spare for transport, which is a day's wage for most people. It's for the top 20% of society.
@@tianko5609 Yes, I agree. Though I am not an expert on all the migratory travelling patterns in China, I would suspect that most of the population are not using the HSR trains every day, and so hence it would still seem like the more cost effective way of travel than taking a plane.
@@nickchua3901 don't believe in that troll, if a person works in Xiamen or Shenzhen, it is ridiculous to assume 50 dollar ticket would be overpriced. Even people from remote regions are willing to pay for HSR in return for time. Time is money for the majority unless you are not in a hurry anyway. Even for a 200km/h slow train it only cost you barely 20 dollar which is in no world considered expensive even in the poorest region in China.
@@tianko5609 I think the old thinking of majority of Chinese are poor and cannot afford USD50 is myth now. While I cannot say they are very rich, but most Chinese can afford this. I found this out during my trip to China in 2019, it was an eye opener.
I think the extensiveness of the HSR network in China is due to a lot of speculation about the future. Richer citizens who travel more often and whose time is more valuable are not going to be content with slow trains or buses (high quality sleeper services tend to cost more per passenger than the equivalent HSR journey + hotel, so the advantage is mostly lost there). So what would happen without HSR would be a massive increase in domestic air travel. China would be a lot like the US in this regard, the default option for most journeys over 4-6 hours would be a plane, with multi-day road or rail journeys mostly only for the poor (who likely won't travel as much anyway). But you can imagine with all the extra people, the sky would be filled with aircraft. This isn't without costs, the US government subsidizes many small regional airports and even the flights that go to them, in order to prevent whole swaths of the US becoming economically isolated. But, it is certainly a lot cheaper than building 1000's of km of HSR to all medium and large cities and then having to subsidise most of the network... for now. If environmental taxes or supply chain issues make aviation fuel much more expensive, then the nation who built all the HSR is going to be in much better shape than the one who is now facing a larger and larger proportion of their population who now cannot afford regular fast, convenient long distance travel. So it's a bet on if air travel will become more cost prohibitive in future. It might not, electric short haul and more fuel efficiency combined with bio or synthetic fuels might keep domestic air travel accessible to the masses. But if that doesn't happen, countries like China will have a major advantage.
It's inevitable that fossil fuels will become more and more expensive, because the cheap to extract hydro-carbons are extracted first. What remains will be more and more expensive to extract.
If we factor in other benefits into the equation from HSR built out, including a fully supply chain for HSR/job creation, connect lower income region to wealthier region/social stability & development, new advanced material & processing & manufacturing capability, sciences and technology development, environment impact, to name a few, it is net positive cash flow even though rail department collected high debt. Put the politics aside, in a democratic society, to build sth similar, too many stakeholders and interest groups are involved. Near impossible.
I personally doubt that officials were thinking this far ahead, not to mention how the oncoming demographic collapse, along with a myriad of other factors, may well be set to severely limit China's economic growth. But, even beyond that, many of the routes in China would remain unprofitable even with increased standards of living, because the increase in demand won't exceed the overbuilt infrastructure.
@@bobbob-kc9wd I think it depends on the alternatives. Currently HSR cannot compete with air travel except on the most popular routes with a reasonably well-off population. If we make air travel much less competitive, then things change.
Well I think China didn't do it to flex but good infrastructure is crucial for economy. All across Europe governments are losing money on public transport. The are not trying to impress anyone but the know they boost economy enough to make it worth it.
@@david50665 No it's just American political leadership is weak and more interested in giving away free money to buy votes instead of investing in infrastructure. You can see that up til around 1970, the US had mega infrastructure projects across the nation. Now these projects tend to be local and regional and not meant to impress and make headlines.
If you ask most Chinese, they would actually rather save faces no matter the cost, doing everything even tho it's failing. One such example is the big hospital that they built in a record time, the infrastructure built literally collapsed one month later
@@NoovGuyMC Brother this is not unique to China. Here in the US hundreds of bridges are long overdue in maintenance. Our apartment buildings collapse or catch on fire due to poor safety conditions or bribery.
@@hegaliandialectics4289 that's also corruption, but what I'm talking about is that the CCP brags about their achievements a lot, even tho the quality is none. As in trying to save faces because of some event that shades bad light to them
I want to share one real-life example I experienced as a person who grew up in China and moved to the states during my high school years. Our family condo was on the edge of the city in the southern part of China. there are literally miles and miles of fields not far from where we lived. and the one-time government decided to build a high-speed rail station and a subway station not far from where l lived in the early 2010s. I talked to myself, nobody will ever take high-speed rail there to visit the fields or the nature sceneries, that was just the dumbest idea, AND subway ?? total waste of money. I went back to China in June 2019 ( 6 months before the COVID pandemic), the place where I lived has become a major hub of modernization in my city, highrises, businesses, and economic activities came to my area after the infrastructures. looking back, they all made sense. I bet my city government does not make any money when they first built the rail and subway to my area, it is not difficult to find out, because there were literally fields and some run-down roads. The Chinese government at both local and central level plan very far into the future and they also have the capability to follow through with their plans. those infrastructures are like arteries and veins that carry nutrients to parts of the body to facilitate growth, give it a little time, when you look back, they will make sense. ( Hint: google "the greater bay district" in south China).
The US also invests money subsidizing almost empty flights. Basically every country in the world subsidizes transport in some form. The way that debt is going is pretty clear. It's going to be paid off with tax money. The problem is the scale to which they did it, and corruption from construction companies as they racked up money has probably a lot to do with it. But you are completely disregarding the secondary benefits here. The GDP grew and poverty shrunk immensely in that time, they specialized a work force, they created millions of jobs that even if they weren't permanent, there are untangible psychological benefits. Finally, the idea that someone's decision to spend 22 hours on a crowded-as-fuck train instead of 6 in a nice train is based purely on financial strategy is exactly why economics sucked so hard at predicting consumer behavior. In fact, even in economics this reasoning is out of date. In psychology, it's outright absurd.
Great point. The rail system has greatly benefitted the poorer class of people who could now afford to travel to find more economic opportunities. A good comparison is the extremely low pricing of high speed train tickets in China compared to that of Japan, where train is 3x more expensive than flight! In the US, everyone is so blind to the fact that they absolutely need a car to access the most basic forms of sustenance, supplies and jobs. (especially in California) That would be impossible for many in China.
First I want to write that I have seen many of you videos, most of your videos are amazing. This video I am not sure that I am agreeing. One big problem that US has is its infrastructure. I know several Americans, who says that one of the best parts, when they come to Europe is that we have working public transports. I think it is like free delivery. It is something that you don't want to pay for and if it is free, it is a really good benefit. I think also that the high speed network is very imortant for the unification of China, it is hard to set a price tag on that. This has always been important for China Third and last point is that infrastructure is something you are doing for the future, I don't think that every highspeed track will be profitable. But it is still important to have for a region to start developing. It is like the chicken and the egg, the region is undevelop so we don't build infrastructure. Then it cant develop cause it has no infrastructure. I have been to places with really bad infrastructure and it gets me so frustrated. To put some extra money on it, is usually not a bad idea.
couple points on top of my head 1. economic benefit along the rail way such as short term travelling, increase bsusiness activies in short to medium distance range. 2. increase local government income along railway line from land appriciation. 3 courier business volumne incrase a lot by high speed rail hence again increase national economics. 4. human capital is more mobile , large population can commute in longer range without driving. 5. reduce a significate amount of oil consumption. the last point is that before 2015, only one line is profitable, now there are 5 lines. so when the ridership increase , there will be more lines are profitable.
Great if all you care about is counting beans and how many more beans you can collect. There are other moral imperatives not considered at all in this video
@@PravinDahal you're provably, verifiably, factually wrong. China uses forced labor more than any first world country (if you can even call 90% of China "first world"). Obviously you A| are a propagandist and/or B| has been fooled by propaganda. You are being lied to and/or you are lying. People know the dark truth of the CCP and no matter what you liars say, the truth will prevail.
@@PravinDahal The difference is that the US allow independent reporting to be made about these prisons while the CCP refuse to allow anyone to go there.
Three Gorges Dam, HK-ZH-MO Bridge, and the water transfer project are not vanity projects. It is a gross oversimplification to label them as such. The Shanghai tower can be considered a vanity project, which is why China banned the further construction of these skyscrapers.
@@datajunkie3427 The bridge is fundamentally there to further integrate the Greater Bay Area. Profitability and even traffic volume are ancillary. Moreover, considering it only opened Q4 2018 and under strict regulations, we would need several more years of *normal* operations for cost-benefit analyses to be of any worth. As I said, it is a gross oversimplification to label the HK-ZH-MO Bridge as a vanity project.
@@unifieddynasty It also stands to reason to assume that the bridge was built under the assumption that the SARs would be abolished or further integrated with the rest of the country at some point. At that point, going between HK, ZH and MO wouldn't require passport controls or anything of the sort and the bridge would become much more utilised.
Like you said only very few lines create the majority of the revenue. That is also mostly true in all other countries. Trains and reachability are a major factor for the success of many holiday destinations, so while these lines are usually highly unprofitable on their own they tremendously benefit the region that is now accessible. Regarding China it remains the question what lines were just part of a political agenda and which were a necessity. But you also said that. I just wanted to point it out again. Great video.
Most of the less busy stations and railways are in the less developed region of china, but as the video already said, China plan things on a much longer time scale, so it's actually nice to have the infrastructure ready, the development will come
I am a chinese. Actually I think china gov build railway system not from the point of making money. It is basically from their principal serve the people. Make everywhere has the train service for the people. Like a poorest area of china, even one house in mountain, china gov will build road to there. It is not simply about money or profits.
Why do you worry about how Chinese government run its country? Are you trying to teach Chinese people how to live their lives? The superiority complex is strong in this one. China has left the West esp. the US in the dust in terms of public infrastructure. That is not even funny.
@@junguo3088 The US highway (called interstate highway system) is losing money each year, coming out of tax dollars. But its overall social benefit as a profit is expected to be 600% of the nominal loss. OP did not do any analysis nor he ever understand the system. The video is just pure China bashing propaganda. He is trying to fool the simple minded people on the internet. Not a serious discussion. Look at OP's track record, all of his videos on China has the smell of propaganda. He has been intentionally misleading people.
@@rockwatercrafts9835 Toatly agree the OP misses the point, if you look at Interstate highway system when it opened, even after a few years , like this anaylisis of HSR it would be similuar or worse, these things are built for decades of use. now do this vid in what it will be in 40 years, i say it will be return on investment and them some.
I took the high speed train from Beijing to Anhui. Was really cool to go so fast and great to not deal with weather or Beijing related flight delays. Would do it again, though 5 hours is still a long time
It really isnt' though. To fly from Beijing to Anhui would take about 3 hours as well, and you need 1 hour+ just to check in and 30 minutes just to get out of arrival and this is all considering the fact that your plane awsn't delayed ( which it often is in China as you well know).
Sure! It's a good time for the distance but 5 hours is still 5 hours. Gotta prepare yourself some entertainment, like a book or at least your phone charger
Another reason that people would want to take high speed train instead of planes in China is that the flight lanes in China airspace is so congested. Before Covid, even flying boeing 787 between Guangzhou and Shanghai(only around 1200km) during busy times couldn't even fill the demand... Delays, especially in the coastal cities are way more often than in US, and it is only getting more and more frequent cause the military operations(training and exercises) against Taiwan, and an increase of high-level diplomatic flights from other countries (to Beijing). From personal travel experience, I would say most of the lines in the eastern coastal part of China would make sense cause air travel is just so bad and people's wages are generally increasing. And the high-speed lines in the western part are probably built for political reasons.
Hehe, I was thinking what this video was advocating for, the pollutionless and efficient air travel or good ol' car travel or anti-travel that leaving your house is a stretch let alone leaving your county
I have found that flights in China have become way less prone to delay than before. 10 years ago it seemed every domestic flight was delayed due to “air traffic” and now (past 3-4 years) my flights are almost always on time.
The problem is not thinking far ahead enough. China does not need the rail itself to be profitable, it needs the time saved by the passengers to be profitable. Time not spent sitting on a train can be spent working or buying things.
@@Origami84 This. Should have been obvious one would think. The converse can only be true if riders of Concord Class productivity utilize the system on non-profitible lines, but that doesn't seem likely as those people fly.
The only reason to have high speed rail is to reduce the CO2 footprint of the alternatives which are air or road. I'm not convinced there is any other economic benefit to it except in very special circumstances.
@@Origami84 Youre kinda wrong, even if 10% of the population rode on these trains, that is already 120k people. Remember, their population is 3-4x larger than the US, therefore it doesn't need all one billion people to be riding trains (heck, it cant even support that much people right now).
You actually say that this kind of construction is inefficient. How do you calculate the benefits it brings? Including public interest and economic benefits. This simply cannot be calculated. My personal experience is that this railway system is immeasurable for the changes in people's lives, and it is valuable! If there is such a railway system in the UK, it would only take 20 minutes to get from London to Edinburgh, can you imagine this? How life-changing is this? This closeness of distance is significant to people.
London to Edinburgh, Shanghai to Beijing, Tokyo to Osaka, Shenzhen to Guangzhou. All makes sense, but from Beijing to nowhere? Why? Who signed the proposal? How even the proposal is being made? How's the profit projection for 10/20 years? How's the maintenance? This should be a pit for corruption withing local government, I couldn't understand why.
London - Edinburgh would take 2.5 hours. The British rail network is far more advanced than China's. which [only] has high speed rail and local metros. There are huge holes in China's network that Britain and Western Europe take for granted. No two cities in the UK are more than 360 miles apart. In England it's no more than 247 miles. Given the geography, that 247 miles is done in the same time as the Tokyo to Osaka Shinkansen. Given we are competing with air, you have to look at how fats you get from A-B and apply the public finds accordingly. Britain is exceptionally well connected (but used to be even better connected in the 1960's before the closure of half of the rail network!). Britain is also a small island with a highly wealthy population on aggregate. The railways are amongst the most used anywhere on Earth. Different services serve different distances and suburban and town areas - China doesn't have such a network. Then again, neither does most of the world. Being in awe of the new is understandable but new is not necessary in the UK - just modernisation and upgrading with [some] new line intervention as in HS2, East West Rail, Crossrail, Hoo Peninsula metro extension, that sort of thing. The first second and third largest cities in England and wider UK can be reached in 2 hours flat. HS2 will make this 1 hour. Urban geography and land ownership and protections make anything faster than 225mph alignments for any other form of transport impossible and pointless from a cost point of view even if it were possible. There would be no benefit until you got to Newcastle from London. Britain has what it needs. The only argument would be for Edinburgh, but it only has a population of 1.3 million at its widest definition and Glasgow 2.5 million to London's 24.5 million. Is it worth all the expense for that from London? No. People just fly instead and planes have most of this market.
All well and good, won't even bother with the 'is it a public good or not' argument (alot of valid points there) but just one thing: The Chinese trains are running and you could get on to one to even talk about its debts and running costs. The LA trains have spent quite a bit of money, will cost even more, AND its going to take another 10+ years, before we even know if it's going to go the way of Chinese trains or worse... So, not so efficient train systems or zero efficiency from it not running at all having spent money and time on it?
@@laddiebuck12 That's because you think of it in profitability terms and not in the common good. If recycling isn't profitable, you do it anyway because it's in the good of society and you pay for it with your taxes to keep it going. Otherwise the garbage will ultimately overrun the world. I mean are you some company shareholder or societal shareholder? And how is it necessarily cheaper having already poured billions in an unrealized project? Is this some kind of American mental gymnastics of defining "winning?" If there was ever a myth, it's American exceptionalism. Talk about self congratulating oneself for not moving forward and making sure to Tonya Harding everyone else behind you in the process so you can claim some shallow victory of "first place."
@@questworldmatrix "But is it profitable?" is the question that cripples any initiative to serve the public. That's what capitalism does to the average Joe.
Just because Chinese HSR is better than yours, it doesn't mean they should be used as an example. There are better examples, like Japan. We build HSR lines at 260kph at first, but instead of upgrading it to higher speeds, we prioritize building other lines to give people more access to HSR. I know it doesn't sound fair because Japan is so crowded, but when looking at a map of the US I can draw like 8 lines in a few seconds that would be profitable
@@hamanakohamaneko7028 Comparing with Japan just doesn't evoke the same level of repulsion the way China does, because it's regarded as a democracy (and anti-Japan propaganda has fallen out of fashion in the early 90s). By using Japan as an example, there is the risk of Americans actually demanding HSR to be built within their country.
I think what this video fails to consider is it social cost or worthiness to the people and the government. The government is there to make its peoples live better,and by building this HSRs,it did it. The populace and the country as a whole is united by rail and connectivity is greatly improved and the people are given choices as to what transport medium would suit them. They may have spent 900 billion dollars a for all of it,but considering the US is spending 700-800 billion dollars a year for its military industrial complex,you could definitely say this is a much worthwhile investment than a military one. And afaik this raillines are stateowned,so they could take the beating of no profit as many of their other lines are profitable wjich could then subsidize the unprofitable ones. The only question in my mind really is whether if it is profitable as a whole?, though this is something the chinese government doesnt seem to care so long as greater social impact is achieved.
I like the argument for knock-off effects, the rail might make negative money but the effect it has might make up that money elsewhere for the state. What I would like to know is how is freight handled with high speed rail.
i completely agree and thought this was extremely lacking in this video, it feels super capitalist to me to only care about the monetary benefits when social benefits are just as valuable
@@peachydais I don't think its so much caring about the monetary benefits of the project, but the overall long term viability of the project. Governments can't infinitely prop up something that's unprofitable
@@chuckdeuces911 im not sure about this, but one thing im sure of,is that in just a generation, China was able to create a middle class population more than tne combined population of US and Japan. Yes,there are still hundreds of millions to go,but thats already a huge achivement,and witha greater focus for domestic development, this would only increase in the coming years as China continous to integrate its economy in the world esp with its belt and road initiative.
One crucial thing you missed: the political consideration. China is a big country and some parts of it are far away enough from the "rest of the country" that political dissent and seperationism is a real threat. A high speed rail to even the most rural unpopulated areas metaphorically brings the country closer together and more within the grasp of the central government.
One crucial thing you missed: China is a socialism country that is not always profit driven but social welfare driven, so there is good 5G coverage on subways and in under populated remote areas etc. Are you trying to argue that is to have control of dissidents on subways?
I think one point completely missed in the video is that high speed train allow the cities to expand much larger than before. With access to high speed train, you can live 100km away from where you work. (combination of high speed train + city metro) This was simply impossible in the past, and it has huge benefits.
I don't think Chinese workers commute daily on high speed rail 100km as you suggest. Its for special trips. Its just not workable to rely on a train daily for work, they can be delayed, and need taxis daily or similar at both ends, unless you live within 1km of stations which is small fraction. People will prefer to live closer, or drive car which car is probably cheaper gas would be just $10 a day and you could stay late. Nope. Trains replace airplanes basically on under 500km routes for under 100km or over 500km no one uses even high speed trains.
This only makes sense if the cost of that commute is low enough that becomes attractive. If you're paying at least $50 a day just to commute both ways you would be high income and could probably afford a place much nearer to the city.
@@raptormesh ... Commuting is NOT likely on California HighSpeed Rail. Most Euro routes are usually 4 times a day. Paris- Amsterdam 300 miles is 10 times so every 2 and half hours, so maybe 6, 830, 11, in mornings just not enough for probably all people, but maybe it's close... But costs are over $100 each way. An article said ""single ticket Paris-Amsterdam over the (old slow train) would now cost 66 euro, regardless of whether you buy it two months in advance. The fare for high speed (new Thalys train) If you order well in advance and if your departure time is not fixed, you might get a single ticket for as less as €44 -- two thirds of the kilometre rate. These heavily advertised prices, however, are the exception rather than the rule.... Most tickets, even if ordered two or three weeks in advance, cost €119 or €129""". High speed honestly is like an airplane, in cost, no one commutes daily via airplane I think. . . Sigh. A train is a slower version of airplane, why the F do people dream of trains to go 500 miles on 2 hours not a plane at 1? Europeans, half don't have cars so need trains, 90% of Americans do and that's not changing US cities are spread out... I myself take the Greyhound bus, $82 to go from Minneapolis to Houston in haha 24 hours, I listen to audiobook and have a relaxing time, it's weird other people are so rushed demanding to cross continent in 3 hours, like it's a human right, to me... I admit Greyhound use to be faster like 20 hours but they added more stops. By car it's 15 hours, which I've done, then I drove to Mexico and got drunk man was I tired.. Cara are awesome.
I don't know if measuring and comparing the overall length of railways from China with small European countries or Japan and South Korea is fair. Most of them are at least 30 times smaller than China (South Korea even about 100x). If we add this factor to our equation, then China is equal to other countries, if not "worse". The comparison between China and US on the other hand fits because their size of about 10 million square kilometers are almost identical.
The thing is the total length of HSR in China is twice the total of the rest of the world. So If you compare China with the rest of the world combined, even though it is not fair to China, obviously China is still doing much better comparing to the rest of world in the sense of building HSR.
Also remember the income per capita of each citizen. Yes cost of living is less but does it off set the lower income. Still point taken China is a large and populated country still if they did slow rail they would be better off.
To add a counterpoint: even if China's high speed rail is not all strictly "profitable", would it not also have huge economic benefit by providing fast, efficient, and accessible transportation? When a central government makes these considerations, the math for the success of the project is not purely "ticket sales vs. operating costs". Consider the USA's highway network. They almost universally aren't toll roads, so the billions spent on maintaining those roads each year would be considered a huge economic loss by this logic. But the US still invests in these roads, not because they are a "public good" like parks or museums, because there is a huge economic benefit to having them, entirely seperate from whatever fee revenue they generate. Surely there is a similar (if not identical) argument to be made for high speed rail.
Agreed, you have to look at infrastrcture as a whole. Its like you can't say the doormat of your factory is not efficient, you have to do a cost/benefit analysis of the entire factory.
It is hard to compare high speed trains with standard. For me the main failure with high speed rail is - you can only transport ppl not goods and for economy transporting of goods is most important and in same time it is not important how fast but how cheap and much you can transport from A to B this is why the US have to invest in the rail and have huge economic benefits in meantime China have shiny new luxury car without engine cuz the US is still more advanced in rail transport of goods using much older technology.
You are missing the point here.Roads are multipurpose..can be used by everyone. The rich the poor ..ones with a fancy car.. ones with a cargo truck..Roads provide an omnipotent sense of autonomy ...whereas high speed railway are niche sophisticated machinery which need to be maintained in addition with the Roads..If china is in trillion dollar debt in regards to its railways it doesn' t mean they dont have to maintain any roads.. Roads are non negotiable.
But the roads are making municipalities go bankrupt. Watch some video's of NotJustBikes on this issue. The local US (and Canadian) governments face the same issues that China does here. Urban sprawl generates just enough income to build new roads, but after 50 years there is no money to renovate older infrastructure. Another point is that you should compare the highway network to the low speed freight trains. This is extremely profitable for the country, but like polymatter said, it is neglected due to investments going to high speed rail. So the highway network (or the low speed rail) generates and enables a lot more economic leverage than the high speed rail ever would. Then the final point is that, yes it can be an investment, but then there needs to be a payoff. If there is a single bridge over a river, the economic payoff is enormous because it links two regions. But if I were to build a second bridge right next to the other, and I keep expecting the exact same return of economic payoff. Then im in for quite the dissapointment. The second bridge adds no additional value. The same with the newest high speed rails being built. The first 5-10 lines can be considered in the category of being profitable or generating economic payoff. The bottom 30 lines losing money are just dead weight. And then think of the quality of building in China and probable renovations or maintenance of the network. Within 30 years all lines will need another investment just to maintain the structural integrity.
10:55 I'm pretty sure that the Lanzhou track was primarily designed for political interests of "uniting the country" or possibly encouraging ethnical migration, rather than economic interests. China really wants to tie it's western part to its east as to not risk that parts of it become "too independent".
"uniting the country" yeah yeah! of course exluding uyghur muslims, political prisoners, people of low social credit, and all other people in work internment camps or slave farms
@@saumyacow4435 you mean the CCP has built some of these lines as part of a genocide of Xinjiang Muslims? Send the Muslims to concentration camps and use HSR to bring in as many Han to drown out the voices of the Uighurs?
Pretty similar to how during the 19th century railroad construction was an integral part of the US's colonization of the west and the genocide of the indigenous population. Of course that's horrible but if you wanna go be a completely morally detached businessman you can't ignore that this makes sense for a country to do.
As a California resident who have lived in China for a few years, this video is absolutely right. I was blown away by the high speed rail system in China and how well and quickly they were built. In California I don't know what happened, seems like a lot of bureaucracy and corruption, billions of dollars and nothing got built.
@@dvlarry China is brutal dictatorahip. For chinese government is very easy to steal money. (like Russia) And also that high speed rail system is good for us. (americans and europeans) But not for many chinese people. China will have problems operating these trains in the future.
Eventhough the trains are losing money, I think the Chinese government is rely on societal productivity. If you are able to move people to areas where they can work, then the taxes will cover the cost of the inexpensive travel. This is better than people sitting at home complaining there's no work.
13:29 you just answered your own question, politically it is VERY efficient. Managing a country isnt as simple as breaking even on projects. In this regard, who is to say that it is a bad investment?
U can say it’s efficient politically but that’s definitely not the whole story. From a more older traditional Chinese culture thinking. In the old days, Building roads and bridges or any infrastructure for the “people” is a very noble thing. Even if it’s not serving a lot of people. It has other values. Stories about how some build roads deep in the mountains only for the access of the few also has meanings. Same idea can be applied to helping people save time, cheaper cost, or providing more options for its citizens in the modern day.
@@ii121 what’s up wumao. How’s it hanging? How’s Xi doing? So you also don’t believe the concentration camps are a thing in China? Those Uyghurs, right?
i dont think that any of the train infra is ever built for profit, they are mostly to boost connectivity, indian railway only recovers 47% of cost from train ticket but it boosts connectivity, stimulating economy. btw us delaying a project for 10yrs to come on height of doors or something is just comical, lol
True. Texas is making an HSR, and it would be even funnier if the one state that loves cars and hates public transit, actually makd a state-wide HSR before California did. cali in general is just known in the US to be a shithole, and have incompetent government.
13:53 You also shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country has a flawed system that there isn't anything you can learn from them. China's HSR network may be overbuilt, but it demonstrates the relative savings on capital investment from an economy of scale and central planning. If there's anything that the U.S. should take away from this, it's that if we want to build our own high speed rail lines we should approach it similar to how we built the interstate highway system: commit to it financially and build them in bulk rather than one line at a time.
You could easily make that point, but the one he's making is that the HSR was built for politics and we shouldn't confuse it for "their system works better because they already have it up running" That said, good luck getting a +$10 trillion HSR from scaratch bill through congress though. Even with a hub and spokes to regional cities beyond the main backbones across the country it would still be huge bill and the land disptues would be fiercely fought out from coast to coast. No one is going to see the future diviends on capital hill and they won't do it without the need clearly demonstrated. Even the NE lines would take > 1-2 trillion to get NYC to Boston, let alone Boston to Atlanta
Build them in bulk? That's a curious conclusion. On his video on Japan's Shinkansen, RMTransit concludes that rail upgrades and extensions should be built gradually rather than big projects all at once. I suspect the reason China is good at building HSR is the same, they keep building them, rather than building a lot and then letting the expertise decay after a long time.
@@nomobobbythe fact it is up and running and provides an objective societal and environmental good is proof in of itself their system works better. and as you said, such beneficial projects could never happen in the US due to special interest groups and partisan bickering.
Due to the long time cost of check in, security check, boarding,waiting for take off promotion, taxing, and delay & extra. Most of middle income classes in China just prefer to swiping the id card and jump in to the HSR. The hidden goal of HSR is to improved the satisfaction of urban ppl and it really did. Me and my wife wouldn't been married without the HSR, the fight simpley double the time cost, and i wouldn't be abtle to date her every weedend in a city 1000km away.
As an Ameirican, sounds nice, but who going to fund the gaps in revenue? The US could plow HSR through, but without its own revenue scources its just going to break down over use like the city buses and NYC subway. Where will this system be in another 30 years?
@@nomobobby maybe a suspension of funding to support coup detat or regime change in other countries for 5 years would be enough to build hsrs all over US?
Some 800-900 years ago, a builder would lay out the foundation for a magnificent cathedral. He would do this knowing and accepting, that he would never see the completion of his creation. It would be left to his great great grandson 100 years later, to put down the final piece. Why can we not do this today? Why are we limited by a 4-5 year term that one person serves?
The answer is very easy, use the profit line to cover the non-profitable line, and railway is not just for travel, but also can be served to logistic. which is the reason why shipping cost in China is much cheaper, and this will additionally provide more business to individual small business, which you can get it back by taxing them later.
The video is unfortunately mistaken why the rails are constructed as a mode of high speed passenger transport. China has to import oil as fuel for airplanes, and purchase airplanes from Boeing and Airbus, as they cannot produce them. High speed trains can match speed of air travel in terms of total travel time. The trains are 100% designed and made in China. The HSR projects created lots of jobs. Also the trains do not need any imported oil as fuel. So, instead of wait for future demand for high speed passenger transport to raise and have to purchase more passenger jets, China built HSR, even at a loss to operate for now.
He contradicted himself, he started by saying China plans long term but then focused on the short term gain or/and loss of the high speed rail, the point is on the long term, it is way more beneficial to the country's economy and people's life. Maybe someone from a capitalist country could never understand.
@@Faye_Liu so china could never understand. The long term gains are debatable, the economic growth these trains bring can be brought in with cheaper and more practical infrastructure from regular rails to cars to planes. These are either faster or more comfortable and practical and convenient. So why should the goverment spend money on things people aren't gonna use and isn't bring isn't bring in a profit or being highly used. I'll answer for you, they shouldn't.
@@kordellswoffer1520 Are you a Chinese who live in China, who benefit from the convenience and modernity now and would potentially benefit from the wider economical gain in the 20, 50, 100 years to come? NO. The potential economical benefit is not even easily measurable, and plus most importantly it is a public resource, not a private profit machine, again as someone from a capitalist country you would never understand. I also suggest you talking to a Chinese person, preferably someone who live next to a high speed connection, see how their lives have improved and benefited then come here to debate, it would be much more convincing than making judgement out of thin air.
@@kordellswoffer1520 And I just read your other posts, it seems you dislike China as a country, I guess you aren't here to debate why China should or should not have HSR, but rather to vent your hate wherever that comes from. Again, only the Chinese themselves could judge if the HSR benefit them and their country, your opinion, hardly matters.
I don't know about other cities, but Shenzhen to GuzngZhou is always full. No matter when I went, or cam back. ShenZhen to HK also (at least 90%), when it was working that is. Haven't used other relations so far - You are right about using plane over high speed.
And they forget most of China is relatively dense. As dense as western Europe, not hinterland US (that would be western China such as Qinghai). So there's plenty of cities with millions at each 100km you travel. And clusters with 20+ millions that will grow as urbanization goes up and cities become one. So the situation in China isn't comparable with the US but with Japan where there's not many places devoid of people and cities, and close clusters of cities.
I love trains. They are so much more comfortable than airplanes, cars or any other means of transportation. I love the idea of widespread high speed trains, and giving up on the majority of low distance commercial flights. I hope one day we'll reach a point where cars are completely obsolete as you can reach any place on Earth through public transportation.
As much as I love cars and driving my own this can be happening with the rise of autonomous driving. People will see the ability to drive your own car less and less important up to the point it will become obsolete as autonomous cars can get people there safer and easier. Maybe up to a point where private owned vehicles will be banned and there will only be public owned or government owned vehicle that people can use to go anywhere using existing network of roads. Stuffs straight from my nightmare
@@pureintroverted9304 autonomous cars are not safer than you think, even like tesla company won't do anything about your broken car caused by auto drive because his policy written any people who drive it autonomously still need to handle it by manual. to your question, thats why autonomous cars are expensive user while the mid-low income also help the environment with good public transport, can you buy that car? btw i saw slovekia or slovenia idr made a flying car which suits you best fly or autonomous?
@@pureintroverted9304 I hope so much that there will be viable self driving cars soon i hate driving around in my car behind all the snails occupying the road driving a car is the worst waste of time in my life (for me, i am happy that you enjoy it)
I live in China from last 20 years and have taken fast train several times and most of the times it’s always full Only since the pandemic I have found empty seats more then usual. But still most of the routes I travel have enough passengers. So I think Chinese fast train are successfully running and expanding…
Yeah, but doesn't makes sense why they built hsr from nowhere to nowhere... Why? Who's the decision maker? I'm sure that Xi Jinping is smart enough to realize that this is just a money pit for corruptors.
@@gold9994 I mean it's pretty simple really... China has a shit ton of excess industrial capacity. It's the same reason they give discounted investments around the world. Their economy would collapse if they decided "hey we built what makes sense to build so let's stop"
Yes China will rule the World very soon. Trains are the most efficient way of transport. They are 200 times more efficient then EV car transport and 600 times more efficient then ICE cars. USA is going down really fast and collapse in next few years because China has HUGE advantage.
I think talking about increased electricity costs for HSR is an important talking point, and I do think that HSR has a reputation of being a fix all for public transit when that’s clearly not true and HSR is not applicable in all situations. However, I think ignoring the issues inherent with car dependent cities and the alarming amounts of carbon produced by air travel lampshades your point. There is no panacea to public transit, it’s a mesh of systems and modes of transit that work for the given community they serve.
The video is misleading. Yes, electricity consumption does go up non-linearly with speed. However under most circumstances (where you've got more than a few passengers) the electricity cost amounts to a small fraction of the ticket price and also a small fraction of the overall cost of operation (maintenance, labour etc).
That's not a question worth asking when discussing public transportation, since there's no need for it to break even. The benefit comes from cities expanding and having more people traveling to work.
China's high speed rail is a service provided by the government to its people at a subsidized price. the US is treating it as an investment which ultimately should make money. That's the difference.
So basically the tax-payers are paying for your tickets and the interests on the loans to pay off the loans :) that's what subsidized means. You don't have to make money on everything that being said if your project puts excessive burdens on your tax-paying population then it really doesn't matter if you had good intentions or not. And yes this would not be viable in the US as a lot of Americans don't trust their governments to make the correct choice in spending their tax-dollars. In China the population doesn't have a say in the matter they can only hope it was a fiscally correct move, even if it isn't they cannot hold their leaders accountable for bad economic decisions anyway.
Basically, the money is mostly made back by the economic growth high speed rail provides to every region it reaches. Can't only look at passenger ticket sales alone.
@@trolllovindaddy all welfare programs run on a loss. I assume you think government should just let people starve to death as well because running on a loss means cons outweigh the pros
@@trolllovindaddy reallly?? he literally say that gdp of China when they started to build high speed rail are just only $3000, right now gdp percapita of China is $12.000, quadriple the number!!!
I'm pretty sure that these inneficiencies are why even the grandest plans for a US high speed rail network will still feature single lines running between major networks of urban rail connections, or maybe a single line circuit that connects the national park system along that "optimal road trip" loop with branched off lines connecting urban nexuses that that route passes through if the route decides it wants to abandon all the pretext and raise a complete middle finger to rural roadside communities that depend on passers through to not become completely unable to keep the bills payed.
I think this video is slightly mis-titled, though fits the TH-cam algorithm well. The point of the video isn't so much about chinese efficiency but rather highlighting that sometimes the one-size-fits-all solutions common in China doesn't always work well (like HSR). Actually, these template solutions - just build a high speed rail everywhere we need/want to connect, achieve the desired outcomes efficiently. The goal for them isn't to make money. If you look at efficiency from that narrow perspective, it is marginally acceptable at the best of times. They are incredibly efficient in the sense that a connection between two random spots can be whipped up at a moments notice, so the time inputted vs the connection that is ultimately produced is very minimal. That is efficient in one aspect. Much like the rest of China's efficiency feats, it is all down to standardisation - a inherited trait from its low cost manufacturing days. Whilst they are slowly moving away from it, there is really no question that this is the most efficient way to make a lot of somethings, very quickly. So, in a very charateristically chinese manufacturing way, they produced the solution of High speed rail to tackle all sorts of transport and connectivity problems in the country. This results in a comparatively very cheap HSR solution compared to everyone else, but because HSR isn't the be all and end all, this doesn't work well in all cases.
What exactly was the program to build the Interestate highway syste again? And how "efficient" in terms of profitability was it again? In the US it seems everything needs to make money, except for defense where money is almost no issue at all and road projects (at least at one point in history).
Mrs. A says to Mr. A, look at Mr. C's fancy car, why are we still driving this beat-up 40-year old jalopy? Mr. A says well Mr. C didn't actually planned to build fancy cars right from the beginning, see we had a financial crisis, so the bank called them and give them a huge loan, anyway they paid 40% too much for the fuel injectors. Mr. C's effiency isn't what it seems. Now push harder! The car isn't gonna start itself!
2 ปีที่แล้ว
If the project should not be making money, where does the budget for employees come from?
@ a lot of things don’t make money and this applies to a lot of public transit systems in the world. Usually governments fund them with tax revenue and in the case of China, debt!!
This video was made on the pure calculations of profitability of HSR, but that's not the intention of the Chinese government. HSR is transforming into a public utility, just like the running water in every town and city. Furthermore, it becomes a national business card where the Chinese government promotes on the International stage. HSR not only capable of creating higher economic growth, it also ease people density issues in major city and allow people to live further away from work place. Like the 5G network, it's an enabler for endless other possibilities.
@@tachin2.07 It does. The data given in this video was a decade old. In 2020 the HSR is responsible for 25% of all city to city travel according to the NRA. In the mean time the wealth gap between the first tier cities and the second tier cities had shrunk massively. The HSR is considered to be a major contributor to the growth of the lesser developed inland cities.
Beyond that, it just feel like a "gotchya" in the sense that when people look at this rail system and say China is "efficient", what the average person actually means is expedient in comparison to projects elsewhere which take an absurdly long time to get off the ground. The narrator even *recognizes* that because that's how they describe inefficiency at the start of the video, and then they spend the rest of it countering an argument nobody made.
@@tachin2.07 He gave you facts with figures and even a source. And as the guy under you said, by "efficiency" people meant that the Chinese are building them way faster while other countries always have delay and have to increase the budget by a lot while it costs at least 40% less to build them in China according to the video.
Great video as always! One small mistake - at 9:00 you refer to deciles, when you should say quintiles. From your graph, you are splitting the population into 5 brackets, not 10.
@@invisi. I don't think so, because he says "$93 is at least half the weekly income for 60% of the population" pointing to the 3rd bracket. The third bracket is only 60% if it is quintiles (each quintile representing 20% of the population).
@@vkmtahgi just had another look and actually yeah i see what you mean you’re totally correct it’s a really bad graph i’m ngl there’s no indication of 50% on the graph and there’s also a random dotted line indicating 100% that goes unmentioned in the script my thought process was that the 100% line was the 50% line and so the 5th - 10th deciles would be included (giving 60%)
I enjoyed the first half of the video but have a major disagreement with a couple comments in the latter half. 1) Many middle-income Chinese and large amount of business employees can afford HSR travel, which is already a huge population. Neither air or road travel would be a sustainable option in this case (how interesting this video failed to mention about the CO2 emission reduction due to HSR vs. air/road, which can be a vital deciding factor beyond just pure profitability). 2) I agree that whether some lesser-used routes should have been built in the first place is debatable, but extending that argument to "China's megaprojects are just to impress" is unfair. To say the least, being the most populous country and highest GDP by PPP means that many things in China are enormous in scale. Indeed, the Three-Gorges Dam and the South-North Water Transfer Project do raise arguments even within China to this day, but it's also true that they do try to resolve world class problem on a megascale (i.e. the former for providing clean electric power to millions, and the latter for addressing the water shortage issues in northern China). Making that statement without first discussing about the problems that these megaprojects try to tackle is, at least, unprofessional. 3) Like many have pointed out, HSR profitability has a lot to do with GDP per capita, and China still has a long way to go, so for many lines that are currently unprofitable, we need to have our eyes on the future. I recall that in the 1970s when Taiwan started to build the highway connecting Taipei and Kaohsiung, the highway was initially rarely used and was jokingly called a parking lot or mosquito-raising field, but as the GDP per capita started to increase the highway was quickly filled and became congested and the government had to add more parallel lines. As Chinese economy continues to grow and standard of living continues to improve, many of the now-unprofitable HSR lines will make more sense. As the video also pointed out, as labor and land costs increase, it'd be much more expensive to build HSR. So to me it makes sense to plan ahead with lines that connect major cities in different regions, which greatly help with the potential and opportunities of poorer and the traditionally less connected areas. 4) The comment that the Chinese government should invest more on traditional rails and freight trains is on point. In fact, the guidelines from the Chinese government have already shifted since a couple of years ago, putting more focus and budget to important slow trains (especially intra-metropolitan routes) and freight lines. Although HSR network will continue to grow/improve, the future plan shows that it won't be nearly as fast as the past decade.
Yes it is a bit of show off when you go from noting to the largest. There is a reason every other country developed their HSR over a period of time as they had to be accountable to the electorate. Nobody can question the CPC of why they spent $900 bil. If they do they will disappear.
This was a good point about the nature of megaprojects in China. It's still about blingbling but less-so than say UAE megaprojects. China does put some decent amount of forethought into most of its projects I would make a point that is that the reason why some megaprojects are seemingly hastily built and perhaps without much calculation into future utility and return on investment might have to do with the fact that many people who start these projects end up getting promoted when they reach various targets or metrics and then other people are brought up to finish these jobs and often there is a lack of accountability going backwards, like the people that created the messes are already way high upper in the food chain and they are not made to pay consequences retroactively, it's more like the current bagholder gets the brunt of the responsibility for the negative consequences. So they will just borrow money and try to hide the problem til they get promoted and can leave the problem in another fellas' hands. And I think the problem in China is not a lack of efficiency per say but it's a lack of accountability as everyone is so concerned with their "mianzi" and not admitting to any wrongdoing and having any egg on their face.
@@marcelm6983 Comments like this was exactly why I said all the above. For people like you, arguments and logic don't matter at all; if it's not entirely anti-China then it's approval of CCP or an endorsement of authoritarianism. Things are not black or white, and one doesn't agree with or disagree with everything. And no, I disagree and hate many things the CCP did, many things that my parents had to live through. But yet, it doesn't change the fact that one should only judge by knowledge, fact and logic.
Honestly, public transport doesn't need to be profitable. If it helps developing the country, it's worth subsidising. We've seen here in Germany what happened after the railway network got privatised. The companies had to cut of rural areas to stay profitable, even though there had been laws set in place to prevent that.
1:34 One of the things that I have to give to my country, in high speed trains we're amazing(and somehow every line evades Extremadura xd). One seat in AVE from one side of Spain (Orense )to its capital (Madrid) is 65€, compared to the third place a ticket for a trip about the same distance (Tokyo-Osaka) is around 30€ more. (I know that Japan has a lot of mountains, makes money off public transportation and the trains are better and always™ on time.) But it's pretty nice nonetheless, if only there were a line from my home to the city my Uni is...
If im not wrong, China, Germany, most of Russian HSR and Spain also drive almost the same train. It's a German Siemens velaro 1train with different interior
I personally would disagree with PolyMatter on this. Although the high speed train itself is indeed not profiting, it is simply too hard to calculate how much economic power it brings. For example, by moving cities to cities easier, it may help people when they do business, studying, and so on. The cultural and economic exchange between cities is a something that definitely beneficial but unable to be calculated.
@@robierahg17 Isn't it good since it increases productivity and reduces cost on the middle class which makes them spend more thus driving up the economy?
@@pain5835 Giving them the means to travel more efficiently helps stimulate economic growth between isolated regions. Imagine the US today without the intercontinental highway.
I think it’s worth mentioning that a lot of the Belt and Road Initiative projects include rail construction, and China’s self-experimentation in perfecting quick construction may pay off in that sphere alone
@@darrishawks6033 you lauded china's supposed perfection of quick construction so i pointed out a fact that directly disputes said mastery. Look up tofu dreg construction
@@low_vibration I didn’t say a god damn thing about perfection or mastery lol You just saw a positive mention of China so you wanted to smear China instead of engaging honestly. Chinese railway construction is fine. There are examples where it wasn’t fine, but the sample size in China is many orders of magnitude larger than any other country on the topic. So again, list me those countries you think don’t have any inkling of this issue.
Good video which adds a lot of flavour from a capital returns angle. However, I, and I am sure many others would agree, think that public infrastructure such as Water, Power, and Transport should be a public good with investment aimed at creating economic ripples (which I appreciate are hard to quantify) rather than being assessed on a project-by-project basis. Project Finance mentality causes disastrous consequences for public infrastructure - one only have to look at UK Water, UK National Grid, and UK Rail to see why.
I might remind you that the UK has clean water from a tap - something few countries [still] seem not to have achieved. The National Grid is the THE most advanced power network anywhere in the world. What you refer to is the power available. That is a political decision but nothing to do with the engineering genius of the National Grid. They simply have to deal with the results of government policy which make them incredibly efficient. Regards UK rail - the British (rather than UK) rail system is one of the best anywhere in the world. Name me another country in the world outside Northwestern Europe and Japan that has metro (and a combination of three rings of service types to serve all suburbs), Regional, Intercity, and soon to be high speed (to solve a capacity specific problem) connecting together all of its cities within 4 hours, but most in 2-3 hours? Frequency is the highest of anywhere in the world for Intercity and regional as well as metro in London in particular. Britain is fully developed. It has no need to build - it did it 150 years ago! The money today goes into modernisation, management and maintaining the network, as well as upgrading and building [some] new strategic pieces of line. Britain is incredibly easy to get around.
@@richardwills-woodward sorry to break it to you but no, the UK doesn't have the highest frequencies. Japan wins. Every single category of public transport. In peak hours they have 5 minute Shinkansen frequencies. Pretty sure that's not a thing in the UK. Also yeah, fair game comparing Northwestern Europe with Sub-Saharan Africa, I'm pretty sure the difference in institutional strength and general wealth will not impact the construction of infrastructure at all. Oh and uh, I actually have 2 examples outside northwestern Europe with better HSR than the UK: Spain and Italy.
@@richardwills-woodward Regarding the projects tho, specifically HS2 I believe it's good that they did it as they did it, it's just that as always with such projects there will be things that aren't prefect, like the station terminus in London not connecting on to HS1 or the like. The biggest issue is of course the cost, but that's mostly because of the 0 risk policy, and that's really just a result of how government contracts work in general. The UK gov didn't want to overpay for companies that underbid the actual price, but since now the construction companies carry 100% of the risk they charge exorbitant prices in order to cover their asses. Maybe a 75% risk policy could've lowered the price by 15 odd billion pounds, if that's a difference worth making for you that is...
@@richardwills-woodward But overall I agree if you don't at least put some effort into project finance you'll end up with ridiculously stupid outcomes, and I'd define the Chinese HSR network as such. There's 0 justification for many of the lines, not because they should've never been built and not because China can't wealthy ever, but because the government literally didn't want to built the later more unprofitable lines. It's just that the ministry kept building on own inertia, partly through corruption even. They've sucked resources from other, more essential parts of the rail grid which given current income of the Chinese and the huge need for freight rail is a terrible idea and they burden the CCP at a time when they could least afford it. Due to the way that China structures it's tax system, and due to the fact that only an estimated 2% of the Chinese population actually pays taxes (no joke btw) some municipalities are starting to go bankrupt due to the pandemic and the CCP local government bond market is one of the largest asset markets world wide. Throwing in another liability, especially one that is tied to such a vitally important infrastructure project really is no good.
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 You misunderstand the Japanese system. They have 5 minute frequencies because they only have two large central centurions from where everything goes from. London has many termini. If you combined the London termini of the main lines, you would also have a 5 minute frequency. No more and no less. Spain and Italy's networks are much worse than the UK's. Spain has nowhere near the frequencies of the UK. Italy too. Their regional services are nowhere near as advanced nor their local services. Italy has a very good network however - Spain does not. HS rail is irrelevant. Intercity whether normal or high speed is what we are talking about. In England, the furthest distance between 2 cities is 247 miles. This is achieved in 2hrs 39 minutes because the geography allows. The same distance in Italy and Japan is achieved in the same time even with water trains due to the route taken. What matters is capacity, yes, but if you purely look at speed then your geometry matters. Pound for pound, the UK rail network has achieved the same with a lot less money. The only reason high speed rail is going to the UK is due to capacity, which after Covid is not really required. This will be future-proofing. Other routes already offer good times - London - York 188 miles in 1hr 39 mins. With 125mph trains, the UK STILL beats most networks in the world, many with high speed. But this is a different conversation. In terms of frequency and network reach, the UK is way ahead of all countries except Japan and Germany. Germany wins on urban rail outside its top few cities. In England, there is a lot of work to do to use the existing railways and turn them into a proper branded metro network as in Germany. London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle (in that order) have the best urban rail networks in the UK. Germany still doe better however.
$900 billions in China means 40000 km of high speed train system, but in the US, it is just one-year US budget on military expenses. The $120 billions given to Ukraine would have been enough to complete the California HST and probably some left over for the homeless.
We all missed the point here: China didn't create the high-speed rails for profit motives. They build it anyways whether or not it's profitable. Their motive is power and stability.
@@nickkangtaylorb His conclusion is pretty much agreeing that public goods doesn't have to be profitable, but then follow up with profit concern anyway.
Bruh, I've agreed with a lot of what you've said in the China's reckoning series, and I'm certainly not defending China, but this is such a reach. Rail connections are incredibly valuable beyond their financial means, not just as a "public good", but for defence, state cohesion, and governance. The least profitable and longest lines you mentioned here, the ones to Guangzhou and to the far west of the country, are the most important for these factors, particularly defence.
HSR isn't used for freight because it's not engineered to sustain heavy weights. HSR is not useful for defence as it cannot move machinery or cargo. At this point in time HSR is terrible for China, this video was good but perhaps didn't emphasise how much financial strain is occuring. Were talking about hundreds of billions of debt, high interest loans to pay existing interest which are been defaulted on... and China's solution is to shift the debt to state governments by forcibly selling non profitable routes because nobody in the private sector wants to buy unprofitable routes. Essentially the debt is compounding and when combined with the real estate collapse and aging population, China's economy is in real danger of collapsing. China's super economy has been built on weak foundations. HSR (is awesome) but only luxury for society not a foundation because it cannot be used industriously (for freight).
I think you may be confusing high-speed rail for just rail. All of what you said IS related to rail connections...but this video isn't ABOUT rail connections (Except in that it points out how China is neglecting it's normal rail in favor of HSR) it's about high-speed rail.
@Tomas Lau Yes because this video is about HSR and that has been their near trillion dollar investment/debt which is crippling and has none of the industrial benefits of standard rail. The video is talking about the crippling economic effect of HSR only made possible by a dictatorship government as opposed to a democratic gov entwined with capitalism that frankly isnt capable of such a large project (red tape). Saying that there are strategic benefits is to not understand that they do not apply to this debt because this debt has nothing to do with standard rail, this debt is purely from HSR.
Oh sure opening areas is good, having potential economic growth in more areas is good... But the line has to be paid back! Okay how about Highways? Those are slower. They will help move goods around so will allow certain areas to rise in economy. That is a given. Buuut they should not be made of Tofu Dreg! So China isn't clear there either.
@@MrSnakekaplan Yup, all great projects created on debt. But by moving debt around it just "disappears" ...except it doesn't. It is still there and will cause huge problems later much like Chemical Waste is nowadays.
The three Gorges project is not a vanity project. It will produce massive amounts of electricity during the annual flood season to supply prosperous eastern China and reduce flooding downstream.
I really like the psychology you talked about near the end. We all like to think other countries have things sorted compared to our own. But your video is a great example of how things under the surface reveal a different truth.
This video reminds me of a famous TED Talk video, "A tale of Two Political System". China model is unique and only fits China. Every country should seek the best way to govern themselves based on their own situation and conditions. China model does not provide the alternative but prove alternative exists.
I do agree with this sentiment. A country of people should be governed with rules that befit humans. A country of meat batteries should also be governed accordingly.
In Canada we have rail lines used by both freight and passengers trains . However it's what I call one lane tracks. Imagine instead of multi lane highways 5 westbound lane and 5 eastbound lanes you only have just ONE LANE for both eastbound and westbound traffic and the ONLY thing that prevents crash is schedule timing. Also freight trains get priority over passenger trains . We'll be talking and talking about this until the next century . I really like to know where all our taxes go to .
There are only 80km of high-speed rail in all of North America and all of it is in the US. It's really sad especially acknowledging how the US literally paved the way for travel by train... But that was... 200+ years ago?
I find this situation incredibly reminiscent of the Stalinist gigantism of the 1930s - 50s. Creating vast projects with no consideration for demand was a staple of the command economy, like the Volga-Don canal which was hailed as a triumph of engineering but was empty for most of the year.
If you dig a litter deeper into the reason why China decide to build these unprofitable rails, especially the one discussed here 11:00 , you will find there are 2 more purposes than postulated in the video. 1. Cultural need: In Chinese culture it is crucial for workers in cities to go back to home town near new year. Every year there is a lot of complain of not enough rail capacity. Therefore, even though it may lose money, it's still important for the government to provide solution to this ChunYun problem; 2. Military strategy: China is suffering from extremists and separatism in its west side. Military troops are said to be transported to the west boarder at the millions in 10 days using those railways. I used to enjoy your videos but this particular one really leave much to be improved on.
Wouldn't conventional rail be more effective for both then? As the average worker from those regions are usually poorer conventional rail would be more affordable - and for the military conventional rail would also allow them to bring heavy equipment and cargo to support the grunts.
Idk what's going on in California, but here in New Jersey we've had mixed use doors on our "commuter" rail trains for as long as I can remember. Decades at least. They really are not that complicated.
@@kaleb5926 NJTRANSIT has a lot of problems. But I am always surprised at how good it always looks when compared to Rail elsewhere in North America. I think part of the reason for that is that all but one of its passenger rail lines are connected to NYC. The geography of the region means that no matter how you travel, you must cross the Hudson through a limited number chokepoints to get into the city. So with traffic as bad as it already is, and with ferries being useful but not nearly as efficient, the idea of not having some kind of rail in the region is unthinkable.
@@bobbob-kc9wd it’s not what it was during the turn of the last century. Like everywhere else in the country, there were plenty of lines and stations that ended up being shut down and are currently in various states of repair. My own city has an old station from that era that’s just sitting derelict. Other stations are still still standing as historic buildings, but have either been supplemented with a new station/infrastructure (a lot of these towns have a much bigger population than they used to) or repurposed entirely. Ticketing is 99% automated, but you might see an open ticket office depending on what station you go to and when. One time my friends and I were taking the train into NYC for Halloween, and the main building at the station we were at was closed because a private party was going on inside.
@@bobbob-kc9wd if you’re talking about the current routes, it depends on when you go. I’ve been on trains where there was only standing room available, but that hasn’t happened in a long time. If you’re ever in the NJTransit section of NYC Penn Station, you can watch the hustle and bustle that erupts when they announce what track a train is on.
Curious how I make these videos? I have a course explaining my process on Skillshare, today's sponsor. You can even finish the whole course in the 1-month free trial: skl.sh/polymatter01221
Train go brrrrr
Not interested thanks
I'm not surprised government projects fail in China too. Their government is just as immune to price sensitivity as ours is.
Exactly in here in the US it’s a waste of time, lol and it will turn like NY subways ewww
Not interested in knowing how to make propaganda paid for by the World Economic Forum.
To add: The most profitable high-speed rail is in Japan. This is because they have a high GDP per capita, and are one of the most densely populated places in the world. So much so that it is often faster to walk 6 miles than to drive. The perfect place for a HSR.
Nope, it's because their high-speed system has its own rail track system with out inference from other longdistance rail traffic and not just the normal rail. Slower trains don't delay or interfer with the high-speed trains. Also the route is straight north-south without many deviations
@@Fishmans ofcourse but it shouldn't have debt of almost trillion dollars too
What does gdp per capita have to do with efficiency?
I don't think that the profitability is because of the GDP (there's a not of non rich people and poor people also in Japan), it's more because of the private system they have at work. The rail companies own everything, not just the lines, they own the land around the lines. Than they can use that land to rent or other activities. This helps a lot to make money.
@Hayden Moore If it is cheaper and more benefitial than running and paying for other modes of transport then sure. Japan shows that good routes works, US could easily have something like that in certain parts, LA-SF, Dallas-Houston, NE corridor and something around chicago. Federal gov in the us pays and hides the true cost of running the road network
It always cracks me up to hear that this could've all been avoided if only the country's leader had subscribed to Skillshare
Agree, not sure if it's intentional to draw attention, but feels cheap either way.
lol funny as
Yeah, but after spending so much on high speed rail, there simply wasn't any money left to buy a sub for the grand leader.
Sad, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It's still better than no transition at all.
IT got me, definitely laughed out loud
Every time I hear about a public infrastructure project, it's always the same story; the project went 2x to 3x over budget. Let's be honest here at this point. We're all getting scammed by these construction companies who are underbidding and expecting us to pay the bills later. At this point, a construction company should be forced to fork over the remaining lacking funds if it made an improper bid or be banned from making public bids in the future if it underbids to get the project. There were probably some honest construction companies out there that were considered 'too expensive' because they tried to calculate the ACTUAL cost and didn't get the bid because some schmuck underbid but doesn't need to pay a dime. This is ridiculous. This needs to be held accountable.
[EDIT] After reading some of the comments I realize this is as much of a government problem itself as it is a construction company related issue. The government is ignorantly lowballing to get public support and the construction agencies in charge of this are just as willing to play ball in this ridiculous game of scam the tax payer into paying for infrastructure programs that we all know are going to be 2 or 3 times as expensive as advertised. When it happens occasionally, we can all excuse it, when it has become a consistent pattern, it is fraudulent in my opinion. The government officials who signed off on this equally deserve to be held accountable and threatened with corruption and malicious intent.
yep, always construction companies. people keep blaming the wrong things. some companies should be banned
Yea having worked with government departments in the past I've got to agree with Tyneras. They CONSTANTLY change the scope and requirements of projects midway. Every project we did with them always ended up being twice as much work as the original estimate just because of them changing their minds a bunch. It's the nature of bureaucracy.
Agreed
Let me tell you a weird anectode my man, Im from Odisha (state in India), where in the capital city; they were planning to build metro. Classic shenanigenary ensued, underbidding, delays but ultimately bankruptcy! As in when the state gov didn't cough up more funds, the company subsidiary declared bankruptcy and left it as is!
I think there must be a moe elegant solution than just one party taking all the blame, maybe an independent commission? Estimatng certain costs before -hand, making sure the costs are tied to inflation etc. ?
Here in British Columbia the government is often obligated to go with the lowest bidder. So what happened most recently is a Spanish engineering firm simply up and left a humungous wastewater project in North Vancouver. No idea how much that's going to cost to finish.
They must have known HSR going to Tibet, Xinjiang, and other remote parts of the country were fundamentally unprofitable. I think the idea is to better integrate these regions into the wealthier Chinese eastern seaboard to promote social stability and potentially have these places serve as future launchpads for the Belt and Road Initiative.
The BRI will connect China with Central Asia through Xinjiang, so it hasn't met its full use yet
If we do only things which are profitable then we will end up with a system which will not care about vast majority of people living there.... I think we already have a system like that perfected.
High speed trains are for military transport. They did it in HK during the pro-democracy protest.
@@Jeremyho439 incorrect. Show me the high speed trains going into HK to move military.
People that look at construction cost vs ticket income and conclude there miss the entire point. China is a big country with many different cultures held together with unity. This guy always talks out of his ass regarding China.
As an Engineer and high speed rail proponent here in Australia I find myself both agreeing with this video in parts, but also annoyed at some of its generalisations. The World Bank report you cite shows construction costs a fraction of what you would expect in Europe or here in Australia, given that we are talking about lines that are primarily on viaduct or in tunnel. The reason for this cost efficiency is economy of scale, automation and simple, repeatable design elements. So, contrary to the video, lines on viaducts aren't necessarily more expensive.
The video also dismisses wider social and economic benefit. That's hard to measure of course, but its the measure by which long life transport infrastructure should be judged. It makes no sense for a private company to borrow money and then expect to recoup capital costs from fares. It makes a lot of sense for a government to invest in something that will pay for itself in terms of wider social and economic benefits over decades. It is in fact the same story as roads. Except that for a similar sized bucket of cash, high speed rail will move more people, faster than a road of the same length.
You've also incorrectly characterised journeys of under 100 miles as suitable only for cars. This is in fact wrong, and you can find good examples of far shorter trips in for instance the Shinkansen network. A lot of high speed rail stations are "parkway" stations or otherwise not well connected to the wider public transport network. This is a mistake. But it is misleading to suggest that high speed rail stations in general must be inconveniently located. Take a look at HS1 and now HS2 in England for an example of getting it right.
You're also drawing a long bow blaming neglect of conventional rail lines in China on money spent on high speed rail. This is certainly not the case in the US where the freight network is quite profitable and in most cases is well kept. In Australia the conventional rail network (which is essentially a freight network outside of cities) is marginal (and in places, poor). This cannot be blamed on high speed rail because we don't have it.
Another thing you're missing (and it shows in your incorrect assessment of at what distance high speed rail can compete with cars) is the extent to which high speed rail can take passenger vehicles off major intercity roads. In Australia there are several major intercity corridors (notably Newcastle to Sydney) in which we've spent tens of billions of dollars (todays dollars) on modern, motorway standard roads. Which are now congested. The price of not building high speed rail in these corridors is that we will spend further tens of billions on augmenting these roads.
Just like with conventional commuter rail, the thing you have to ask is not what the rail network cost, but rather what would it cost (and how dysfunctional and unworkable a city would be) if we didn't have that infrastructure.
Oh and one other thing. The paradigm in which all you're concerned with is internal rate of return (a private company borrows money and therefore has to pay for it in fares) quickly leads to a death spiral - you're charging too much for fares and therefore people choose the alternative. This happens over and over and you've correctly pointed it out happening in China. It occurs because of the belief that high speed rail must pay for its capital out of fares. No, it should not. Instead we should be investing in it as basic infrastructure in order to seek the return of wider social and economic benefit for the nation as a whole. You know, Australia invested beyond $100 billion (in todays dollars) in its interstate highway network. There was no business case (as we know it today). There was no expectation of a "profit". We did it because we wouldn't be a modern, functional nation without a transport network. We need to stop being so schizophrenic in our attitude to high speed rail.
Oh and btw, your discussion of energy cost is right, and wrong. Yes, energy use does go up non linearly with speed. But under most reasonable passenger load scenarios, the electricity cost is a small fraction of the fare revenue and a small fraction of the overall operational cost - that cost is mostly dominated by maintenance, staff and back office costs. Of course, if there's hardly anyone on the train then you've got a point.
Btw I'm not defending China's decisions to build lines into increasingly silly places. A lot of this isn't about economics. its more about geopolitics and internal control. However, when you have nearly ten million people along a corridor that's 200 kilometres long (as we do here in Australia between Newcastle and Wollongong) then you do have a situation where the wider social and economic benefit is worth it and you will save tens of billions on future road costs.
But only if there is growth. China, as well as the Soviet Union, grows well from a low base, then all the miscalculations, every fraction of a percent of spending begin to take away the growth potential. Sooner or later, a crisis will happen, whether it be a sharp aging of the population within the country or some external factors in the global economy, and fixed costs will not go anywhere.
A simple example, a subway was laid in our country. But there was a crisis and the second station was frozen. Over the next 10 years, the cost of maintaining the depot ate the budget for building several stations and the government decided to close it, inheriting only debt.
Are you seriously arguing that the lower cost to build HSR in China isn’t much to do with the super cheap labor there? Also, Australia is such a sparsely populated country spread out that HSR only makes sense in one tiny part-Melbourne to Sydney with a stop in Canberra. And that’s a maybe. Those two big cities are very far away (850km) while HSR works best when you have many cities that closer..
There isn’t a wider economic benefit. It’s a luxury travel for the richer people of China. It does have some economic benefits but it doesn’t mean all HSR routes are smart decisions which is why HSR has $1 trillion debt and growing rapidly in China despite having many lines that are profitable. The reason they over built HSR is because China wants to fake it to the world about how great they are. They also built some routes as a way to help oppress people in some parts like Xinjiang where they are committing genocide and Tibet where people have been oppressed for a long time.
Instead of building a few too many HSR routes that are bleeding so much money ($1 trillion debt and rising rapidly despite some profitable lines), they could have build more traditional rail and or improved it. If you don’t think China needs more non HSR rail then why do they have plans for 70,000 km more of rail?
Excellent comment Samuya Cow, thank you.
I did 25 hour long journey between Shanghai and Guangzhou as the fast train was sold out. There were no empty seats at the train so I had to stand for most of the trip. The first thing I did when I came to Guangzhou, I bought ticked for the fast train back to Shanghai. I would pay not 100$ more for the fast train, but 500$ more at that moment. 😄
How full was the fast train in comparison to the slow one?
I have a little folding stool that fits in a backpack. Suggest you get one for your next crowded train trip. If you manage to score a seat you could lend the stool to someone else :-)
$500? Are you sure it wasn't ￥500? I can smell the sus. Unless you meant you were in the first-class or VIP room.
@@mswinds he means by that point he would be willing to pay way more than 100 dollars for a fast ticket. Even 500
@@mswinds Why do some people have the reading comprehension skills of an amoeba on crack?
This just goes to show you that transportation isn't a one-size-fits-all sorts of affair. Each method has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and HSR is no exception.
The country is too large. Countries like many Europeans or indo-china peninsula countries' size is okay but like the U.S, Canada, Russia are have no sense.
Unless we can have hyperloop or something.
@@muadhnate I'm more interested in HSR for more densely populated areas of the US, light rail and buses for within city streets, conventional rail for less densely populated areas, still reserving planes for coast to coast travel, and personal cars for out in the boonies.
Spacial thanks to #Doctorojie Channel who cured my herpes virus completely .
@@muadhnate tbh, the problem with america is not hsr. But their reliance on car.
@@muadhnate That's the point, the airline industry has so well developed and dominated cross-state transportation so deeply in the U.S. already, thus it makes your statement right.
But ask a question: for the trip that the distance is within 1500 kilometers,
will the trains bring better efficiency on the energy, capacity, and the cost？
will the places that along the railway get benefit from this transportation method?
Lastly, when the whole world is caring about global warming and facing more and more extreme weather with extreme damages, will the airline industry always be the best choice?
I live in Hong Kong, I’m 192cm so I struggle to fit in economy seats on Chinese airlines. Given the choice I would always take the high speed train if it was viable. They have a LOT more legroom in even the second class seats, are fast, quiet and comfortable. Even took the 2,000km ride from Beijing to Shenzhen once. It took around 9 hours but it was one of the most relaxing journeys I’ve ever experienced
Why dont you just fly business, its cheaper than high speed rail.
@@ConradKo I think he already did the math
@@ConradKo As a Chinese my self, high speed train are fur more cheaper than commercial airlines
@@user-sc2co8et3x depends for longer distance plane is usually cheaper even business class
If you take redeye you can just sleep on train wake in morning at destination
Raising the price of a ticket doesn't help them, either. That simply reduces ride numbers. So most rails will raise the cost of freight to the point it is often cheaper to move by truck than by train. This contributed to their fuel shortages a few months ago, as the ability to move coal across country was limited.
Exactly if a plane ticket on swa is 60 bucks and 100 on Legacy carrier and 200 bucks on the train, most won’t pay more for something that will take longer. Like Amtrak it will only be a rich man’s novelty
GAGAGAGAGAGA!!! I want to cut my toenails... NEVER! I am the feet TH-camr. Thanks for being a fan, dear qam
High speed rail is never used for cargo
This assumes they could even find coal to transport, as they've functionally burnt through reserves and are panic buying.
@@dadikkedude Nah, some of the HSR in China has been delivering high value-added commodities since 2014. Commodities like coal and ore still need freight trains. (Too heavy)
Even though I agree and think most in China would agree that there might be some negative impacts from high speed rail in the future. At least where I live (Yangze River Delta) it has been a blessing for many. Lots of people here live in smaller cheaper cities while taking the bullet trains off to Shanghai every day commuting (for the higher wages while paying a fraction of living costs). During weekends I often travel between cities many times a day to play and have fun. It's blurred the boundaries between cities to the point where I feel the entire greater region of the Yangze river delta is just one single megacity. And even though it may be a bad economic gamble, it's one of the things in life that I wouldn't ever want to see disappear.
The video didn't say all chinese HSR was bad just that there are a lot of routes that are losing money. It's probable that the routes where you live are worth the cost
Overall, it is still a financial disaster, where only a handful of lines are sustainable in economic terms. Enjoy the feeling of prosperity while you still can. I can’t see any possibility of the majority of HSR lines in China can go on like that in the long term. .
CCP government is just a knock out version of Soviet government
It's definitely nice to have the connection, but many countries wouldn't be able to operate something that loses the government tens of billions each year just operate & maintain. It's not that it should disappear, only that it should be thoughtfully considered where it's implemented.
A great point is the impact it has on conventional rail. When you dismantle & limit regular rail, freight/shipping becomes more costly & less efficient, where now they're opting to use roads & trucks to move far less cargo. Ultimately it can lead to more road congestion, more air pollution & higher expenses (but cheaper than HSR) to where everyone suffers in a different way.
@@saint_matthias What lol
PolyMatter, as a person living in a Western country outside of China but regularly visits, there are some things that I agree with in this video, but I have a vastly different view from what was presented. I would like to counterargue that the Chinese government, while not entirely clear or definitive, have some sort of vague grand plan for the next 10 years of the future development of the country. HSR is just one of them.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a subject matter expert so please do take my opinion with a grain of salt.
First and foremost, the construction of the highspeed rail was birthed due to two significant issues that affected China at the time. The first was the 2008 financial crisis which saw many economic sectors take a huge hit and its general economy, which was entwined with that of the US, saw its own market spiral into an almost uncontrollable situation. To salvage this, the Chinese government took a page out of the US and decided to invest in infrastructure. Similar to the infrastructure boom during the great depression in the US, the economy was able to keep its head above the proverbial water and function as normal (of course with some visible slowing down but overall, it was alright). As for what infrastructure to build that was yet to be decided.
The second problem which developed HSR was the economic disparity between cities. As shown in the video, the eastern coastal cities had the most economic prosperity while inland cities barely had any significant economic activities. Furthermore, due to the economic disparity, salary and wages between the two cities will differ widely (think Silicon Valley wage and some random Midwest city wage). This had the adverse effect of attracting people to move into major coastal cities. Originally it was not a bad thing as it can create mini-Silicon Valleys like ShenZhen HOWEVER this also caused a brain drain of the inland cities. The talents will leave their inland city to pursue a better career at a coastal city and the inland city will not see any benefit or return as their talented people all left.
This also caused the inland cities to have slowed economic prosperity and output as well as innovation. HENCE the problems combined caused the Chinese government to construct HSR (there are still other factors which would be discussed later).
I should mention at this point that I agree with the fact that the Chinese government does pursue many constructions out of vanity to use as propaganda, but HSR is not one of them in my opinion. Allow me to explain. The video mentioned that the HSR infrastructure lacks wealthy passengers to make it profitable, which is while true, is not the main aim of the HSR in my opinion. The HSR connects poorer rural minor cities in-between major cities to a proper infrastructure line which allows for those towns to prosper as well. This is due to the creating of maintenance and operational jobs within the area which ripples throughout the community and slowly become more prosperous (this point can be disputed as not all minor cities has seen growth).
The next point I would like to tackle is the stimulus in transport and power infrastructure. The video says that it was a gamble that did not pay off. I would argue the opposite. The demand does materialise but materialises slowly. One thing the Chinese government has to leverage is its ability to create economic growth. This has been true especially looking at the GPD of China itself. The citizens are all happy to know that they will earn more over time and their children even more so. Hence, it is more of a generational thing, and it is an early investment. Like most early infrastructural investments, it will be at a loss until decades later (e.g. Hoover Dam). You cannot place profitability so early into its investment lifespan yet (will be discussed again). Also considering the huge population difference between China and the rest of the world excluding India, China is more than 4x the population of the US. Imagine transporting that many people per year, its infrastructure cost would be insanely expensive in the short term but will be beneficial in the long run.
The next point the video raises is the ticket pricing and overall cost/efficiency. As mentioned above, the HSR connects minor cities to major ones. It allows investors to invest and develop minor cities over time. The current cost is not too expensive, because once again, people who use HSR are more likely to come from a major city and travelling to a minor city OR another major city (rather than minor to major city). This means that the minor cities will develop overtime and will become major cities one day, justifying the cost of the HSR. Efficiency wise I cannot say because I am not knowledgeable enough in that field, however from what I do know is that the comparison of efficiency as input versus output is a bad misrepresentation of the HSR. While many lines do not carry many passengers at all, it serves as a connection first.
E.g. Connecting the Central station with some suburb 30km or further away. While it is not "efficient" or easy to justify the cost for the low profitability, it is still a great benefit for the people living there as they have a quick access to the CBD when needed. Think of the HSR as a more national scale version of this. Yes, it is not very profitable however, it is a godsend when needed.
Slow trains are argued to be the main contender of HSR which I would say to be both true and false at the same time. Leisure travelling is one of the biggest uses of HSR and slow train but each has their own advantage. Slow trains offer a cheaper alternative BUT the price shown in the video refers to economy class (or the crap seats). Sometimes can become uncomfortable for middle class people over long distance. Slow trains also come in a variety of models, some with air cons some without, some with open windows, some without. Cramped seats etc, you can imagine. Imagine sitting in a subway line for an entire day to reach that destination (not wonderfully comfortable I can tell you that). The price difference also includes comfort as well as time compared to slow trains. This is because even the cheapest seats on the HSR are much more comfortable and arrives much quicker (a win-win if you ask me). Slow trains have a different purpose compared to HSR. HSR connects major cities and the ones in between HOWEVER slow trains serve as a rural connection overall. HSR would be more like a highway between two big cities and exits to smaller town that lies in between, but the slow trains are the streets that connects the more distant suburbs and towns to the highway in the first place. Yes, the Slow Trains serve a lot of passengers but once you factor in the economic line, the majority of people who ride the slow train are low-income earners and even now, slow trains are being phased out over time as nearby cities experience growth (not to discredit the need for slow trains).
I do agree with that HSR has overshadowed the cargo trains but interestingly enough, cargo trains have not experienced a reduction in demand. It has maintained the same levels as before and overall, still functioning as before (to my knowledge at least).
Last but not least, HSR would seem pretty useless if all the above is not considered or has taken a hit. HOWEVER it also has incredible strategic use. It can send supplies extremely fast to disaster stricken areas and quickly replenish compared to airplanes. HSR only needs a station to accommodate the train and a huge airfield and control tower is not needed. Furthermore, it is very reliable. HSR can run in almost any weather whereas airplanes cannot fly if there are any bad weather (stormy, blizzard, etc). Trains will get the job done. Also, to be on the dystopian side a bit, consider that an uprising or protest (cough HK cough* please don't arrest me xi) happens, planes + HSR can quickly deploy personnel to "control" the situation. Just sayin'.
TLDR;
The video does not go into depth as to why it is inefficient or NOT part of a future vision plan and jumps into conclusion that HSR is a failed gamble based on vanity. HSR is not a failure and is a long-term investment for the infrastructure of the country. While it does have some downsides, its overall benefits vastly outweigh the slight downsides. Cost wise and efficiency wise, it is more than reasonable.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
EDIT: The first comment bring up some good points and I answered it in the replies somewhere
Most of what you said at the beginning is irrelevant since the same could be accomplished with normal rail, or as a compromise 250kmph rail which is still considered HSR and as polymatter said is almost half as cheap (10mn vs 19mn). So I'll only address what you say about normal rail
1) i don't know whether the prices were for economy class or what else but no matter what it was, does it not unequivocally stand that at the end of the day factoring everything in, people would've preferred cheaper, slower rail, from the results of the poll in the video?
2) this 'purpose' of normal rail isn't anyhow inherent to them or God given, it is obviously wholly set by us. So ofcourse that is the purpose they _currently_ serve, since that's literally how the entire system they live in has been constructed
3) even if demand for cargo trains is same, it could've have increased. And from what polymatter claimed, that is exactly what would've happened since he says cargo was forced to use road transport
4) you don't need a public transportation system to deal with natural disasters...
There are separate, vastly more efficient ways to specifically create fast systems for disaster management (which most countries use since practically no country has such extensive HSR coverage)
5) Again, the exact same thing about reliability can be said for normal rail so null point
6) (for riot control) same as 4
Very well written comment, thank you!
Who reads this lol CCP government is just a knock out version of Soviet government
Very well said.
@KJJ i don't understand who you're addressing. Who exactly is taking what polymatter says as the Bible? He presents logical arguments, and referenced facts. His conclusions aren't being taken on face value
Why do we still judge public works by profitability? It's moronic thinking that has CRIPPLED our ability to have large scale infrastructure projects happen around the world. Roads aren't profitable. Hydroelectric dams aren't profitable. Airports aren't profitable. And if any of those are, they're doing so as a secondary benefit. The primary purpose is to provide economic impact mixed with improved general welfare.
The world would be in a much, much better place if they got out of the horrible mentality of assuming that public works projects need to generate returns on investment in dollars. They generate returns in terms of access to work, reduced traffic, economic development around the train lines, and a bunch of other intangibles.
IDK, I think the fare box revenue is not totally worthless, just overblown in the US. Yes, every town over 40K having HSR to each would be a huge boon, but if 90% of operations relies on the state, then funding it is mostly politicial issue, usually just as a throw away charity that never gets much money, leading to long term decay. Restoration projects just become election promises that never measure favorably to opening capabilites. Its own reveune eithier by fares or station services can help keep it running regardless of politics, then again, most preverse incentives towards highways over communter rail probably comes because the developement oportunities make highways and suburbian homes more profitable and easier to manage than higher density rails. Doubly so since the dividison of road maintainace payments means the highways are not their problem, the overpass road is likely state reponsiblity, etc.
it's times like these where i wish more people understood what socialism was
Not just socialism. It's socialism eth Chinese characterstics 😂
There is a missing point. The reason many local governments building more than necessary high speed rails is that the land price near those stations sky rocketed. They can more than cover the cost by selling inflated land (this is another problem by itself). Freight rails does not promote land price, therefore slow/freight rails were under-invested compared to previous 5 year plan by central government, while high speed rails were over built. I live in Shanghai and prefer high speed train much better than air travling beacuse they almost never delay, and the stations are usually near city center.
Isupport studied English with this
I restarted English after 10 years
I am a beginner studying English with asmr.
Please come and take a look and
Thank you
I just seen a video on why china sucks at air travel planes delay over 50% because 80 percent of airspace reserved for the military so planes take ass backwards airway routes... unlike da numba wuan country in the world where 90 of airspace is public heres the youtube video th-cam.com/video/sJPxjVASlBc/w-d-xo.html
Good point! Didn't expect to see you here, 栗子!
@@Steve7li 哈哈 竟然认出我来了
这个不是假话，我在中国互联网上也听过这件事情
I'm surprised that this video highlights the neglect on conventional rail. HSR has always been the talk of ideal rail where I am and while it seems all talk at the moment (and I'm for the building of HSR), it's true too that conventional rail seems to be neglected a lot and not being improved on as much as it should be.
HSR in your context means dedicated two way corridor and dedicated terminals. Otherwise it is just conventional rail going a bit faster and offers marginal benefits.
@@gearloose703 oh yeah definitely, I think the Shinkansen is still one of the best models out there but the emphasis is not to neglect the existing regular rail at the same time
The chinese conventional rail network is a far more massive network than the highspeed train in china.
Build HSR now in preparation of retiring convectional railroad in the future. As GDP goes up, more will be willing to pay a small extra fee for HSR. Why wasting resources to maintain old conventional railroad and never progress further. We must have long term vision; think about the country 10-20 years, not months, from now. This is public infrastructure for the entire country. So not everything has to have positive pay back now. This is something America lacks, always think short term profit, no vision.
@@kinghills5993 As the video said, you still need freight rail to run on conventional rail. Also HSR will skip nearby stations so conventional rail will still run for local services to serve suburban areas. Look at the model in Japan for example, they have Shinkansen and conventional rail running side by side.
infrastructure is one of the few things actually worth going in debt for
and the idea that people can work in cities and live in much cheaper areas, and not spend half their free time commuting is a huge boon to humanity
Working in the meta verse is far more practical
@@Lucas-qk8lc Not sure how to respond to this, though ... For starters to "live" in the metaverse you need a good internet connection and that is concentrated in the cities, which tend to be more expensive
@@alanshteyman1071 u dont have to live in the metaverse u can work there for some hours and live on. As for internet connection it will depend on starlink or other advanced satellite systems
There's infrastructures that are useful and built to last and there's tofu dreg constructions that are unused. Just lumping them all as "infrastructure" and saying they're worth going in debt for doesn't make any sense.
@@indianatarzan8001
Here’s how they turned out:
GDP will expand by 10%. Wrong (it grew 8%).
Most Fortune 500 companies will be Chinese. Right.
China will create five new billionaires each week. Right. (It’s now the world’s richest country)
Extreme poverty and homelessness will disappear. Right
China will narrow its Gini gap. Unknown.
Average Chinese will outlive Americans. Right. (US life expectancy fell 3 years).
Chinese vaccines will protect 60% of the world . Wrong. (It was 50%)
China will revolutionize urban life. Wrong. The new city will open in 2022 .
China will unveil the first exascale computer . Right. Three, and the Gordon Bell Prize)
China will announce another quantum surprise. Right. (A quantum computer 10,000 times faster than Google’s Sycamore).
In fact, 2021 was the best year in Chinese history. Here’s what they did:
Eliminated extreme poverty.
Achieved 98% home ownership.
Mastered Covid, with a death rate 0.6% of America’s.
Grew the economy faster than ever, by $2 trillion PPP, four times America’s rate.
Became the richest country on earth.
Built three exascale computers. One runs AI problems 88,000 times faster.
Brought two gas-cooled Pebble Bed nuclear power plants online.
Fired up two thorium-fueled reactors, eliminating uranium from power generation.
Certified a Covid treatment that reduces hospitalizations and deaths 78%.
Became the world’s largest movie market.
Successfully tested the world’s most powerful solid rocket engine.
Flew three hypersonic missiles around the planet.
Released a fractional orbital bombardment missile, at 17,000 mph.
Commissioned three warships at a time to become the biggest navy.
Issued the most patents of any country and dominated scientific research.
Sold $140 billion retail online in 24 hours. Amazon’s record is $5 billion.
Made 55% of global energy savings.
Generated 1 terawatt of renewable energy.
Produced a new billionaire and 300 millionaires every work day.
Completed new train lines in seven countries, including Laos’ first.
Ran 12,000 cargo trains to and from Europe, up 30% on last year.
Joined RCEP, the world’s biggest trade pact.
Launched the world’s first central bank digital currency.
Built a programmable quantum computer 10,000x faster than Google’s.
Operated the first integrated, 3,000-mile, commercial quantum communications network.
Installed one-million 5G base stations, giving Tibet better 5G service than New York.
Communicated between satellites via lasers, 1,000x faster than radio waves.
Fun fact about the BRT or the elevated express bus system coming from someone who used to live in Xiamen. The reason why Xiamen didn’t have a metro is because despite its economic status, there weren’t enough people on the island city to justify the CCP into putting resources into the metro project. But now Xiamen has teamed up with several other cities and finally got its own metro project the XRT, I think, mostly up and running.
Few things to add from smeone living in China for a decade (already!!). Some HSR routes are simply not "efficient" because of too many stops. Think about the Shanghai - Nanjing line: there are some routes that stop in Kunshan, Wuxi, Suzhou which makes stops every more or less 10 to 30 min trip. If you know that the High Speed Train uses the most power during accelerations and brakings, then the power consumption will grow a lot. Another point to notice is that the highest speed was reduced. It was supposed to be 350 kph but reduced to 300 kph due to several issues with the quality of the rail material and to safety concerns. Last point: because of some quality issues, the lifespan of the tracks was reduced. So this means that the initial assumptions at the start of the construction are no longer valid. This will cause issues in the near future when there will necesseraily much more and thus most expensive maintenance on the tracks + the whole ecosystem. I really love polymatter, your content is top notch !!
I think polymatter was correct. China doesnt have any less bureacracy than the US or Europe, but rather it just has a different flavour it has to deal with.
IMO, i think its okay to have a large number of station to served as long as they can create types of service (non-stop or all stop). For notable example, the Shinkansen linking Tokyo and Osaka alone (which has 15 intermediate stations in between) has 3 types of services ranging from the fastest to the slowest one.
Wrong! There are two lines connecting SH to Nanjing. The regional line that stops a lot in jiangsu province (first built in early days, meaning 2011 time frame), or the SH BJ trunk line which covers SH NJ section in as fast as 57 minutes at top speed 350kph. Look it up go to baidu and type G18… china is changing every day. Improvement made to people’s live are being made daily. What’s wrong if HSR made stops? Are you supposed to concentrate your development in big cities like SH and Nanjing and forget the people in Wuxi or Suzhou? Any sense?
@@honkhonk8009 Yep, the difference is that their corrupt/incompetent politicians have much greater power and impact with their wrongdoings.
@@yyeeeyyyey8802 I just love how other countries have 0 corruption. All politician doing in other countries has 0 bad impact and 0 mistake.
PolyMatter, can you please make a video on how Malaysia's monarchical system works. Thank you very much.
Ah yes the corrupt Malaysians
Wait Malaysia is monarchy ? I didn't knew
You missed out the part where China uses the HSR at night and off peak hours as courier trains transporting cargo or a hybrid approach half passenger and half cargo, if you need to send produce 1000km away most companies would use HSR over planes since its cheaper and just fast as less security checks for trains than an airport and train stations are closer to the city center as compared to airports /gVS4eWqXLOc
How exactly do you convert a train for passangers into a cargo train, every night?
@@dxelson For small items, you can stack boxes on the seats and luggage holding areas. Not an elegant solution, but it works.
@@LucarioBoricua that dosent seem very good for most companies.. it would only work for ones selling or transporting smaller items
Different train cars, like cargo train cars possibly?
@@LucarioBoricua there are standard containers for a reason, how much space per train car is available, do all train cars have the same space? how is cargo secured? What is the cost of converting passenger trains every night? Rhese are all factors that need to be considered that add up to the cost
Great video! But I would argue, there are just more real-world concerns than simple numbers. I'm no expert in this realm but I will list a few of the concerns I can think of as an average Chinese:
1. Economic concerns. Investment is good for business. From 2008 to 2015, the government needed to invest huge to support the economy. HSR is simply the most logical option back then. Where did all those money go? To contractors, workers, and people who lived next to the lines (and a few corrupted officials, ofc). So the money is no wasted.
2. Public service concerns. The train is almost never designed to be profitable, as you said in the video. It's a public service, which means you can't look just at the balance sheet and say "hey, It's not making money. This is a bad idea.". Take Beijing's subway as an example. Those trains transport millions of people every single day, and it is also losing money every single day. As long as the benefit it brings to the entire society is greater than the cost, then its existence is justified.
3. Equality concerns. One of the major reasons why so many non-profitable lines were built is that these lines are connecting relatively poor cities. As you may know, China has huge income inequality. The rich cities are super rich, and the poor cities are super poor. The plan is to interconnect all these cities so that economic development can be transferred and shared by the whole country, instead of by a few leading cities. This plan will take decades to manifest, so it's too early to say "oh man this isn't working".
4. Political concerns. The line to Xinjiang you mentioned is the most obvious example. Nobody ever expects it to be profitable. The whole purpose of that line is to bring that distant and rebellious province closer to the rest of the country. If everything goes well, the connections will bring trust and prosperity. If everything goes sour, the line can still be a way to insert dominance.
very insightful thank you
Exactly, no-one expects defense spending or foreign wars to pay for themselves, yet that standard is applied to transport infrastructure and healthcare.
The fact that you just justify political intervention in Turkestan to distract from economical failure done by the CCP
@@jacobzadran3819 Justify? No. Rationalize? Yes. Political opinions aside, I believe you know what I said is true.
@@LowestofheDead military spending is crazy high. china spends 200b a year and america spends 800b. That amount is enough to pay off all of the debts china owes
Inflation. Everybody forgets inflation. Inflation is pretty damn high in China. Inflation means that if China waits too long, land prices would have doubled, salaries would have tripled (and Chinese will no longer want to do the hard work) and legal headaches would have quadrupled (see U.S).
On the other hand, inflation means they can one day triple the ticket prices. Don't believe me? I've lived to see public transport ticket prices in Beijing go from 0.1 RMB to 2 RMB. I thought the x20 increase was highway robbery at first until I realized it's still really damn cheap. A hundred years from now the ticket prices can increase by x10 and nobody would bat an eyelash, and the initial investment would look like pocket change.
Since you're not on the ground, you also don't see how the transportation infrastructure in China has completely changed some industries. China's domestic tourism is now around half a trillion dollars, and the government has started pushing rural tourism, which for now is still in its infancy in China but is set to really take off (judging from the popularity of rural social media celebrities like Li Ziqi for example).
Also, I have No idea what's going on with logistics in China, but my mom in Beijing can order fresh fruit from Xinjiang or fresh oysters from Southern China and it arrives the next day at the latest. There's an app called Pinduoduo which has changed the way commerce is conducted in China, cutting out intermediaries and enabling people in villages to directly buy/sell to each other and to cities. Unlike most e-commerce sites, Pinduoduo has a focus on groceries and daily necessities. It can't work without China's ultra-fast logistics because everything would otherwise spoil on the way.
I want the video creator to respond to this comment tag me if he sees this
underrated comment. Most people conveniently overlooked the economic spill over effect from building public transport. They just looked at profitability aspect and paying off the loan. The economic growth from the public transport far outweigh the loss of operation cost. The government could simply subsidise the operating cost using money generated from extra tax revenue due to economic growth.
Look Polymater is just your typical Western Expert. Banking on Western Ignorance and huge demand of coping content
@@mjabb02 "The economic growth from the public transport far outweigh the loss of operation cost" Hi there! It looks like you're trying to make a giant assumption without any valid evidence or data! Would you like to cite that?!
@@mjabb02 If something is unsustainable eventually it will drag down everything around it with debt. Look at some US suburbs that have failed or nearly abandoned that were built during the 50s and 60s. Too little population density to support the maintanance of roads and water and sewage and electrical. Now they just let these towns wallow in sewage overflow and flooding and the roads crumble. There is a price that will come due anytime sustainability isn't fully factored in.
And in California we insisted on upgrading miles of existing rail to connect a bunch of cities instead of building a new right of way avoiding thses cities for a fraction of the cost. This includes running over Tehachapi Pass which is out of the way. Not to mention the consultants ate all the money and California refusing to override local government when it comes to literally anything. And it can do this. It could just end Caltrain's existence with one act in the legislature.
how it works where pepole don't want to live in "passover" areas that don't benefit from a statewide project. Should probably of created a route between San Diego and LA as proof of concept though
@@itsjonny1744 that would have been way more mountainous and costs would have inflated due to that. If they wanted to do mountainous, high cost and useful if canceled, they would have gone for Tejon Pass. That would have at least allowed conventional trains to run between Northern and Southern California. Which they can't do now. Also, the cities in the valley don't really want the high speed trains anyways. So skipping them to save money and upgrading the San Joaquin would have been more expedient than wasting money connecting legislative districts that don't want it.
One of the huge advantages of rail is that it can stop at cities along the way. Bakersfield and Fresno are huge destinations. They're not fancy, famous cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco, but they're still important hubs in California. Rail works on a network effect, like the phone system or the internet. A phone system that only connects two phones is far less useful than a phone system where every phone can call any other phone.
And, conveniently, the population centers of the Central Valley are in a line, so it makes sense to build along that line. That way you can serve Fresno to San Jose, or Modesto to Anaheim.
When it's complete, the majority of the passengers will NOT be going from SF to LA. Most of the trips will be between one of the larger cities and all the other cities along the way.
Or to put it another way, imagine how much less use I-5 would get if it had NO EXITS between LA and 580 to the bay area. Most of the people driving on I-5 north from LA are not going to SF. What makes it useful is that you can get off along the way.
@@thetrainhopper8992 Except for the fact that California got a federal grant that spesifically was for useful sections + had to go in the valley.. Hard to say no to a billion when funding is unclear even now.
California high speed rail is being fought on so many fronts + a federal/state gov that don't want to use their ability to force land away since consequenses are harsh
@@thetrainhopper8992 Conventional trains do run from north to south along Tehachapi pass already. It's just that passenger trains are almost never allowed to use it because SP/Union Pacific only single-tracked it and doesn't want to allow anything on it but their freight traffic.
I think the main reason chinese continue building their rail is because they want to boost the economy on their inland province. As you know, their most prosperous province located relatively to the sea. It's a gamble but they might see these maintenance cost is worth it in the long run by betting on their inland province growth. Beside from what i read, some empty HSR is converted to freight for cargo especially e-commerce, the "arrive next day" kind of delivery.
Am no Chinese tho, I don't know the field situation there, just my opinion
There's I detail that wasn't clear and I wanted confirmation.
These mega projects are all from the Central Government? I think it's probably and makes sense that the Central Government is forcing the big cities to be connected. That rail on the desert "surely" must be the Central Government idea, right? But the Local Governments have a lot of autonomy, isn't they that should construct the slower and more local trains? Maybe the fail of the Central Government is not forcing a stronger policy that disincentives car focused projects.
"Beside from what i read, some empty HSR is converted to freight for cargo"
I just saw a little video today showing this. A multi-lane rail system with some lines dedicated to conventional trains doing freight work.
How did HSR boos the economy inland?! Traditional rail would allow more people to use rail AND it would function as freight rail which would help inland much more. See 12:40. Lol, all I see is so many comments trying to defend China. China built excessive HSR because they want to show off to the world. HSR cannot be used for freight. Nice lie though.
“What I read is some empty HSR is converted to freight for cargo”. Lol, nice shilling for China. Regular rail can move much more freight than HSR. Freight is basically non existent on HSR because it’s too expensive and would require modifications. China should have built traditional rail in half of these routes instead of going a trillion in debt just to try to make China look so much wealthier with all the extra HSR.
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson same reason why people would take plane than sleeper train. If you have more to spend, you use the faster option. If a business want to say open a new factory say on a neighboring town 500km away. The best option for business trip survey there would be HSR. Cargo may be also transported by normal speed train, but there's no harm having faster train to transport stuff, especially time sensitive goods.
Usually when rails are built between two places. The less attractive one loses people/power.
It is not true that China hasn’t found a way to do it cheaper and faster. It isn’t just lower cost of labor, it’s that standardization allows for that automated thing they use to lay the next section of rail.
And the government can just take whatever it wants so no red tape.
It is far beyond direct cheap labor…the steel and concrete are hugely subsidized too.
Yes, and the video mentioned that China took advantage of economies of scale while building it's routes.
However, those economies of scale are false, because the size of the HSR is far greater than demand.
There's a similar situation in US grocery stores with sales on perishable goods, like meat or milk. They'll hook you with a BOGO deal to buy more than you can use because it's at a discount. But, it only works in your favor if the amount you can use is greater than the percentage of normal price that you spend.
For example, consider a sale of "buy one milk at full price, get the second one 40% off (BOGO 40%)." If you typically can only use one unit of milk before it goes bad, then buying two doesn't make financial sense. Yes, you'll pay 80% of the full price of the two units. But, the cost is 60% higher than the cost of one unit. So, in order to break even, you have to make use of at least 60% of the second unit. If you can only use one unit before they both go bad, then you'll throw away a whole package of milk, and lose that 60%. Make sense?
Also, changing your normal usage _just to use up the milk_ doesn't make it less wasteful. You aren't benefiting more by overusing it.
China got a bulk discount on it's HSR network, but it can't possibly take full advantage of the whole network. So, most of the price tag is wasted, even though the product was discounted.
@@jpaugh64 you make to much sense. 6 months later after this video, chinas economy is having problems. Gdp growth was just 0.4% this past quarter, Henan baking crisis is possibly the tip of the iceberg for banking, large numbers of people are withholding payments on loans because housing projects aren’t being built, housing market is shaky and on Verge of a collapse, China lent out massive amounts on projects and many of those countries are now struggling to pay as some are hitting financial crisis already unable to pay China, etc. China is having all these issues and the debt crisis is problem. So spending on all that HSR where it wasn’t remotely profitable is now looking very bad.
@@jpaugh64 I follow you, but I do not understand how it relates to what I said.
How can economies of scale be false? Why do they have to build to meet present demand? Can't they build based on what they believe will be future demand? And why are you looking at this as if it's something the market should dictate anyway? I think giving everyone access to high speed rail is a good enough goal, whether or not it would make sense for a private company to do it. And, even with all that ignored, how would that make the economy of scale false? How would that defeat my point that they have innovated a way to build cheaper and faster?
In relation to the milk analogy, milk is a perishable good, rail lines are not. Rail lines are a thing people can use to multiply their productive capacity by bringing in people, capital, and goods at high speed and low cost.
the thumbnail design is so perfect, as a graphic designer i appreciate the art.
they have electric busses and other electric stuff but that doesn't make it inviormentaly friendly, all of there energy is from coal
@@OHOE1 how is this related to the original comment?
@@simulify8726 ما الذي حققته بترجمة هذا
@@StarKillerSK what have i done
@@crippleddepression1142 😂😂😂😂
Being a middle-income country is an advantage. It's actually the strategy Chinese government use: Build as much infrastructure as possible while workforce is still cheap. So in the future you would only require to spend for maintenance.
Maintenance cost is still insanely high.
Look at the US. In our highway boom, some places are failing to pay off even its highway debt. Its not a massive issue, and is definitely managable, but imagine how it would be like for HSR.
For the US to even begin having those problems, they had to let certain highways age for like 70ish years. China built theirs in like 20 years, and already face financial trouble
@@honkhonk8009 Infrastructure need be repaired in perodic, you just leave it there, they will fall apart quickly
@@honkhonk8009 maintenance cost is high. Building cost is impossible in the future.
@@honkhonk8009 that's what tax money is for: building massive infrastructure as public utility not as money making scheme. Apparently you feel better that your tax money is spent on tomahawk bombing afghan school bus several thousand miles away?
but problems comes up as tofu drege constructions... just that other day a whole damn viaduct fliped on the side like that famous photo of the Kobe (Osaka) earthquake 1995
I don’t like how the takeaways in the end is about “showing off” and overlooking the enormous social benefits came from such infrastructure. You have to understand how much the general public benefited from the super efficient infrastructure otherwise would have no way to afford had the system been owned by profit maximizing private entities. They simply would not build a link between two unprofitable cities, but the existence of such unprofitable link fueled growths of many impoverished cities and lifted millions out of poverty.
I live in Tokyo, two things I love and also annoyed: the Shinkansen bullet train is absolutely amazing to ride on, yet very expensive. About 5-7 times more expensive compare to bullet trains traveling similar speed and distance in China (labor costs etc, I get it, but still too expensive).
Second, the multiple subway companies system created their own stations and subway tracks that you have to transfer between different company’s platforms in order to transfer trains let alone confusion and headache, fares, payment method etc.
Back in the US, I used to ride the “high speed train” between Boston and NYC that’s nowhere near “high speed”, very expensive (similar to airfare), breaks down so often, so unreliable I ended up driving most of the time.
China’s high speed railway network isn’t all what you see, it’s both efficiency and impracticality combined, but from an average citizen’s point of view, it’s godsend.
Oh, you are right, nothing gets done in the US with all the political games and companies battling for money rather than focusing on the people.
You missed the point completely. Did you even watch the full video? He is not argueing against HSR. He is saying that certain tracks withing certain distance perameters are both a social good and a economic good. What he is pointing out, is that alot of the HSR in china doesnt really serve either function. Goes to areas where a plane is both quicker and more efficent, and connect places that dont have a high degree of commuting.
Japans use of the technology is pretty great for its use. Its one HSR that connects all the urban centres of japan, its exacly by the book.
Like what the fuck is the point with having a high speed rail through the fucking gobi dessert. It would be like japan making a bullet train that goes to Tosa or Hokkaido.
@@MegaRide123 "Goes to areas where a plane is both quicker and more efficent" planes polute a lot and their air space is congested.
"and connect places that dont have a high degree of commuting." at the time of the making of the video using outdated data, not in the future
"Like what the fuck is the point with having a high speed rail through the fucking gobi dessert" to connect China to Xingjiang (uyghur) and the Silk Road? Use your brain please
@@samalheid6630 You can connect china to those regions, by both more cheaper means, quicker means and more effiecent means.
Theres literally no reason to have HSR over conventional rail at that point. "use your brain please". or have those 10 people who commute to bejing from the west on a plane instead. It isnt alot of congestion, and building HSR thru the entire gobi dessert, for a miniscule amount of passengers, is hardly more envoirmently friendly, or less wastefull....
I think a lot of people are missing a key point that he spent practically half of the video talking about. Rail connections to the areas they connected is an incredibly benefit for the country. BUT it could've been done at a fraction of the cost because most of those railways have little to no benefit from being HSR over slow-rail. In fact the extreme increase in price may very well oppress the poorest of those areas by making them unable to afford the transit on these new connections whereas their richest neighbors will benefit immensely. The ironic problem this self-proclaimed communist country just created is "The rich get richer". (Yes I'm aware that China is almost entirely capitalistic by nature these days, but that isn't what they call themselves)
People are pointing out that the benefits of high-speed rail are more than just their consumer fares, and that it's unfair to call them "unprofitable." However, I think the numbers provided were a great gage of how well different lines are used. Further, specific debt was issued for each line and so it's a very real issue to each one. It's very refreshing to hear about these matters so pragmatically. A serious and direct discussion of how much a government project costs is something politicians and the public routinely avoid.
I'm personally impressed that any such project could directly pay for itself. And, counterintuitively, I actually saw a lot of things presented here as indications of efficiency.
Completely agree. Ironically, the fact that all of these implications and conclusions could even be drawn in the first place indicates efficiency - something that cannot be said for many government initiatives in the US.
@@iamalexhu In what sense do you mean that?
Certainly the lines that make a profit are a great indicator of profitability, but given the insane amount of debt this project burdened the state with I would say taking this as a roadmap for HSR development in any other country at all is a horrible idea.
And that's not because every line should definetly always turn a profit, if there's some lines that are so extraordinarily profitable that they can cover others you can build these others, but what pisses me off is that people in the comments here bring up the "doesn't need to be profitable" argument and just choose to ignore that that amount of debt is crippling to any sort of state.
Like, you can't just cherrypick yk...
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 I agree with your point but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m saying that unlike many of the government initiatives in the US, China’s initiatives comparatively never run over budget, are delayed, or any other bureaucratic nonsense, which makes collecting this type of profitability data even possible. On the other hand, an initiative on a similar scale in the US would constantly be lobbied, and their statistics would be inaccurate at best, and purposefully misleading at worst
@@iamalexhu i think you mean something like "analysis paralysis", "conflicts of interest", or too many chefs in the kitchen. on one hand, China's singular "hivemind" is a very simple, efficient answer: yes or no. Do or do not. on the other hand, Western bureaucracies are full of many opposing factions, conflicts of interests, overanalysis, red tape. hence many projects can lead into indefinite procrastination and delays. QED inefficiency.
Yep. As usual for "economics 101" types, they can't understand efficiency or utility beyond their purely monetary values. It would be funny if it wasn't so damaging because these people have huge influence and their views certainly seem to dominate all political debate. Whenever someone wants to improve society all they have to do is, "that will cost 100 bajillion dollars!" And the debate ends there. It's farcical.
I think one point that you miss in your calculations is the huge positive spillover effects that high speed rail brings with it. Imagine for instance what an enormous economic boost it is for smaller cities to get connected to a mega city like Shanghai. By only considering ticket prices as the "profit" from the rail network, you forget the resulting economic growth. When the state owns the rail companies, this growth is profit!
In addition, while many of the lines may be empty today, ridership is likely to increase as more of china urbanises and more of the population gets lifted up into the middle class. With all modes of transportation it's often said that "if you build it, they will come". This is because the infrastructure induces its own demand, e.g since people are more likely to move to a city if it has a fast HSR connection to a city like Shanghai.
Now I can neither predict the future, nor do I know any exact numbers here, but I still think it is too crude to simply regard the project as a failure because the ticket prices don't cover the costs on all lines today.
the issues raised by you are in facted touched upon in the video. your argument to explain how a loss of 900 billion USD is somehow justified is ridiculous. that is more than evergrande a year.
@@murderofcrows2179 And how much is the public debt of the united states? 29.6 trillion? and Japan? 12.2 trillion? How this countrys keep working? This is called investments, when the time to pay this 900 billion come there will be money for it, and then they will borrow more and build more and earn more and pay for the debt and it goes on and on and on. It's not so importan how much is your debt, as long as you have the money to pay for it.
“Now I can neither predict the future, nor do I know any exact numbers here” - then it seems that your thoughts are cruder.
"infrastructure induces it's own demand"
I feel like this is probably really true of public transportation in cities. E.g., if I lived in a city with public transportation, I wouldn't need to own a car to work or go to school. I would only need a car to leave the city, and then I'd just arrange for my parents or somebody else to drive me. That would save me a lot of money and give me more freedom enter the workforce faster. (This is a very American perspective, not a Chinese one, of course.)
This is what I thought about when I heard that Jakarta created it's first metro-line recently, but no one used it immediately, even though it was temporarily free, and so it hasn't reduced Jakarta's road-congestion problem yet. I was thinking, "right now, everyone has a plan to get to work, school, etc., without using the metro system. Only once the system is already there can people plan for it".
Trips between cities in different parts of a country are not so common though, so they're probably each planned separately, which means that this "momentum" probably doesn't affect them as much.
@@mfgJoseph The difference is that he hasn't reached a conclusion, except that the video's logic is flawed. Once growth in the wider economy attributable to the rail system is considered, then it can be seen how successful or unsuccessful the project was.
Having been on a High speed train, I can absolutmy reccomend it! It was so much better then the inter city flight.
Yeah it's great when cities aren't spread out like they are in the US
@@rejvaik00 The USA could use it in cerain places. One of the big issues is the lack of public transportation in cities which means people are more likely to drive so their car is with them.
@@guppy719 no the US doesn't need a country spanning high-speed rail network because unlike China the US doesn't have over a dozen cities in a straight-ish line each with over 8 million people
China's population density is massive by comparison some cities like Shanghai and Beijing have a whopping 20+ million population!!
US Pop density by comparison is low on a nation wide scale we have 1 single city with 8.8 million, New York City which is the largest concentration of population in the entire US
Second is Los Angeles, with a population of 3.8 million which a difference of 5 million is a significant reduction!
After that comes Chicago with 2.7 million
Then houston with 2.3mil, Phoenix with 1.6 mil, Philadelphia with 1.6mil as well
Look at that, top 6 largest cities in the US and they scattered all over the country! How in the heck you think you can create a rail line linking California, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York and expect passengers to ride on it? And the business operating it to turn a profit as well? It can't be done
Speaking of price China had to pay a hefty price for such a system 900 billion in debt to get this project through no local, state level or federal level government wants to fork over anything even close to that for something unnecessary
Any improvements to public transportation are going to have to start with proper city planning and city expansion, and possibly founding brand new cities closer to existing ones
@@rejvaik00 It's not always about population, people don't always choose HSR, even though it might be twice as fast as trains. I personally only take HSR if it is more affordable than short distance flights (If I am not time-sensitive with my trip). If you are thinking population matters because the demand is always at 100%, you're wrong, ticket's do not always get sold out, but trains and light rails are different, they are much more popular and people actually take them as they are more economical. But in terms of public transit, China have always been the pioneer, have built and always will build them regardless of costs, because it does greater good for the general public and that's all it matters, they believe these public transit bring more value and opportunity to China's economy as a whole. Hence they are now the #1 economy in the world. India is projected to overtake US by 2040 as per Wikipedia sources. If US cared about the general public, they would have started by improving the old transit systems like the NYC subway/metro decades ago and providing universal health care, but nah politics > public wellbeing.
@@guppy719 cascadia is a great candidate. A route connecting Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland would be very popular. Lots of wealthy people in those cities
China - people have always missed - has part of that old Soviet productionist bias that has helped drive incredible growth but also means that to keep production, profits, employment, and revenue turning over to make a lot of bad debts on the books make sense more and more government money goes into driving reinvestment, production, soft budgets for producers and so on. It is also why even though the Chinese state has incredible state capacity much of its state is bureaucratically and in level of services so bare as much of the existing money goes into wiping away bad debts and driving still more production. Equally in fairness to Xi Jinping he is no fool and part of the reason he wants more equitable growth or even some redistribution in favour of poorer Chinese is that he recognises broader based purchasing power is necessary to drive further growth and also it is popular with people and reduces ill feelings toward a Party that is often seen as focused on the wealth of its own members as its primary goal.
Basically all the poor regions in the mid and west are undeveloped wealth waiting to be explored.
goddamn where tf did u go to school lmao
China is a meritocracy. US is a plutocracy.
So basically hes like "to stay popular I must build rail roads not f35 fighter jets"
@@singular9 the problem is no one uses those railways lmaooo
the pump-priming is another reason that they started building the high-speed railroad in 2008. You see, in order to slow down currency devaluation building infrastructures is the best option. Since it creates thousands of jobs, increases national happiness.
However, building these things is easy compared to maintaining them, and as you mentioned, only a tiny fraction of the railroads are actually making a profit. So, you need to the economy running which means you need to rise the tax.
Things you might not know are that most of the local governments in China are actually in debt and the money they got is mostly coming from selling their land to developers.
Here in France HSR is also inefficient if we analyse it from a purely capitalistic lens. But we know is absolutely essential.
Its like having a universal healthcare system, we just know how it's necessary.
Going to the us from that perspective is often asking to yourself, what's the point of having one of the highest GDP per capita ? And also, China only has 1/6th of it lets not forget about it ...
Somebody didn't finish the video
Its the fastest way to cripple your country come crisis time. Good luck with your stagnant economy
@@moneysittintall3611 Yeah hard to take Europeans preaching the gospel of the welfare state seriously when they essentially traded their children's future for comforts in the now. There's a reason USA's share of global GDP stayed consistent over the past century while Europe's tanked and its not just because of WW2. The EU's influence only shrinks and shrinks... You can't just look at the post-WW2 period and think "Ah yes the welfare state seems to be working perfectly." Gonna have to wait till the next depression, the next Great War, etc before we can say for sure that its worth it. Conventional wisdom however would say delayed gratitude results in greater rewards down the road - if nothing else, the wealthier a country is then the greater potential welfare state they'll be able to support in the future.
@@daroaminggnome USA's global GDP has always been tanked by big corporates. As wealth gap is getting wider and wider, it's meaningless to have such a high GDP because it's the big corporates who made the money and not average Joes.
@@moneysittintall3611 funny to see how America is managing to have one of the largest debt per capita while being at the same time the most polluting nation per capita, having no real plan that at the very least would try to solve car dependency , while having indebt students, while being one of the first world nations doing the worst during this COVID crisis both on the healthcare and on social safety nets...
Yeah good luck with that.
Citizens of Europe definitely don't want the American way despite what our corrupt leaders are currently doing...
What's the point of having high GDP already ?
Dear PolyMatter, I love your documentaries and always find them very educational. Having been to China a few times, using their HSR train system really opened my eyes on the value of the train as a means of transportation, especially being someone who hardly takes trains in the west and almost always flies or drives.
For example, I could buy a ticket from Shenzhen to Xiamen at the train station and get the next train that ran every 1-2 hours. I recall the price about 50 USD for a 3-4 hour ride at an average speed of 250 km/hr. I found the ride very affordable, comfortable, convenient and very efficient in terms of time. If you take account all the hassle of going through airport security, check in, and runway jams, I realized taking the train for many routes took about the same time or better than flying. After my experience, I wasn't surprised to learn that the train is the main form of transportation (city to city) for China, which makes sense for the reason I stated above.
Because you are a foreigner/tourist. Most Chinese wage earners don't have 50 USD to spare for transport, which is a day's wage for most people. It's for the top 20% of society.
@@tianko5609 Yes, I agree. Though I am not an expert on all the migratory travelling patterns in China, I would suspect that most of the population are not using the HSR trains every day, and so hence it would still seem like the more cost effective way of travel than taking a plane.
@@nickchua3901 Most chinese dont use planes
@@nickchua3901 don't believe in that troll, if a person works in Xiamen or Shenzhen, it is ridiculous to assume 50 dollar ticket would be overpriced. Even people from remote regions are willing to pay for HSR in return for time. Time is money for the majority unless you are not in a hurry anyway. Even for a 200km/h slow train it only cost you barely 20 dollar which is in no world considered expensive even in the poorest region in China.
@@tianko5609 I think the old thinking of majority of Chinese are poor and cannot afford USD50 is myth now. While I cannot say they are very rich, but most Chinese can afford this. I found this out during my trip to China in 2019, it was an eye opener.
I think the extensiveness of the HSR network in China is due to a lot of speculation about the future. Richer citizens who travel more often and whose time is more valuable are not going to be content with slow trains or buses (high quality sleeper services tend to cost more per passenger than the equivalent HSR journey + hotel, so the advantage is mostly lost there). So what would happen without HSR would be a massive increase in domestic air travel. China would be a lot like the US in this regard, the default option for most journeys over 4-6 hours would be a plane, with multi-day road or rail journeys mostly only for the poor (who likely won't travel as much anyway). But you can imagine with all the extra people, the sky would be filled with aircraft.
This isn't without costs, the US government subsidizes many small regional airports and even the flights that go to them, in order to prevent whole swaths of the US becoming economically isolated. But, it is certainly a lot cheaper than building 1000's of km of HSR to all medium and large cities and then having to subsidise most of the network... for now.
If environmental taxes or supply chain issues make aviation fuel much more expensive, then the nation who built all the HSR is going to be in much better shape than the one who is now facing a larger and larger proportion of their population who now cannot afford regular fast, convenient long distance travel. So it's a bet on if air travel will become more cost prohibitive in future. It might not, electric short haul and more fuel efficiency combined with bio or synthetic fuels might keep domestic air travel accessible to the masses. But if that doesn't happen, countries like China will have a major advantage.
It's inevitable that fossil fuels will become more and more expensive, because the cheap to extract hydro-carbons are extracted first. What remains will be more and more expensive to extract.
If we factor in other benefits into the equation from HSR built out, including a fully supply chain for HSR/job creation, connect lower income region to wealthier region/social stability & development, new advanced material & processing & manufacturing capability, sciences and technology development, environment impact, to name a few, it is net positive cash flow even though rail department collected high debt. Put the politics aside, in a democratic society, to build sth similar, too many stakeholders and interest groups are involved. Near impossible.
I personally doubt that officials were thinking this far ahead, not to mention how the oncoming demographic collapse, along with a myriad of other factors, may well be set to severely limit China's economic growth. But, even beyond that, many of the routes in China would remain unprofitable even with increased standards of living, because the increase in demand won't exceed the overbuilt infrastructure.
@@bobbob-kc9wd I think it depends on the alternatives. Currently HSR cannot compete with air travel except on the most popular routes with a reasonably well-off population. If we make air travel much less competitive, then things change.
very interesting point
Well I think China didn't do it to flex but good infrastructure is crucial for economy. All across Europe governments are losing money on public transport. The are not trying to impress anyone but the know they boost economy enough to make it worth it.
because america is so abscessed with profit.....they build nothing
@@david50665 No it's just American political leadership is weak and more interested in giving away free money to buy votes instead of investing in infrastructure. You can see that up til around 1970, the US had mega infrastructure projects across the nation. Now these projects tend to be local and regional and not meant to impress and make headlines.
If you ask most Chinese, they would actually rather save faces no matter the cost, doing everything even tho it's failing. One such example is the big hospital that they built in a record time, the infrastructure built literally collapsed one month later
@@NoovGuyMC Brother this is not unique to China. Here in the US hundreds of bridges are long overdue in maintenance. Our apartment buildings collapse or catch on fire due to poor safety conditions or bribery.
@@hegaliandialectics4289 that's also corruption, but what I'm talking about is that the CCP brags about their achievements a lot, even tho the quality is none. As in trying to save faces because of some event that shades bad light to them
I want to share one real-life example I experienced as a person who grew up in China and moved to the states during my high school years. Our family condo was on the edge of the city in the southern part of China. there are literally miles and miles of fields not far from where we lived. and the one-time government decided to build a high-speed rail station and a subway station not far from where l lived in the early 2010s. I talked to myself, nobody will ever take high-speed rail there to visit the fields or the nature sceneries, that was just the dumbest idea, AND subway ?? total waste of money.
I went back to China in June 2019 ( 6 months before the COVID pandemic), the place where I lived has become a major hub of modernization in my city, highrises, businesses, and economic activities came to my area after the infrastructures. looking back, they all made sense. I bet my city government does not make any money when they first built the rail and subway to my area, it is not difficult to find out, because there were literally fields and some run-down roads.
The Chinese government at both local and central level plan very far into the future and they also have the capability to follow through with their plans. those infrastructures are like arteries and veins that carry nutrients to parts of the body to facilitate growth, give it a little time, when you look back, they will make sense. ( Hint: google "the greater bay district" in south China).
That's very interesting, I'm glad you shared!
It’s almost if you build things for future profit, not for immediate returns, am I right?
@@charlotteloreleideoliveira8780 for future prosperity, not necessarily profit.
Yes, urbanization is going to drive millions more to the cities. China is still only 60% urbanized, while the U.S. is 80%
@@kaixiang5390 even 60% Chinese urbanized population is nearly twice of total 🇺🇸 population
The US also invests money subsidizing almost empty flights. Basically every country in the world subsidizes transport in some form. The way that debt is going is pretty clear. It's going to be paid off with tax money. The problem is the scale to which they did it, and corruption from construction companies as they racked up money has probably a lot to do with it. But you are completely disregarding the secondary benefits here. The GDP grew and poverty shrunk immensely in that time, they specialized a work force, they created millions of jobs that even if they weren't permanent, there are untangible psychological benefits. Finally, the idea that someone's decision to spend 22 hours on a crowded-as-fuck train instead of 6 in a nice train is based purely on financial strategy is exactly why economics sucked so hard at predicting consumer behavior. In fact, even in economics this reasoning is out of date. In psychology, it's outright absurd.
and also here in the USA the financial oligarchy elite run this country meanwhile in China the politicians are in power !!
Drag him Victor
@@jordancarpenter4093 You obviously never been to Russia if you think oligarchs are running your country.
Great point. The rail system has greatly benefitted the poorer class of people who could now afford to travel to find more economic opportunities. A good comparison is the extremely low pricing of high speed train tickets in China compared to that of Japan, where train is 3x more expensive than flight! In the US, everyone is so blind to the fact that they absolutely need a car to access the most basic forms of sustenance, supplies and jobs. (especially in California) That would be impossible for many in China.
@@2hotflavored666 b-but RUSSIA!!! Lmao @ you
"Politicians think only one election ahead", the harshest truth of most democratic countries.
Even in undemocartic autocratic nations too
@Simon Bolduc But in India modi thinks a lot.
@Simon Bolduc those are the ultra example of autocratic nations and leaders.
At least they have to think one election cycle ahead. Autocratic governments don't even need to do that.
Hey, you can't plan for the long-term if you don't survive the short-term
First I want to write that I have seen many of you videos, most of your videos are amazing. This video I am not sure that I am agreeing. One big problem that US has is its infrastructure. I know several Americans, who says that one of the best parts, when they come to Europe is that we have working public transports. I think it is like free delivery. It is something that you don't want to pay for and if it is free, it is a really good benefit.
I think also that the high speed network is very imortant for the unification of China, it is hard to set a price tag on that. This has always been important for China
Third and last point is that infrastructure is something you are doing for the future, I don't think that every highspeed track will be profitable. But it is still important to have for a region to start developing. It is like the chicken and the egg, the region is undevelop so we don't build infrastructure. Then it cant develop cause it has no infrastructure. I have been to places with really bad infrastructure and it gets me so frustrated. To put some extra money on it, is usually not a bad idea.
couple points on top of my head
1. economic benefit along the rail way such as short term travelling, increase bsusiness activies in short to medium distance range.
2. increase local government income along railway line from land appriciation.
3 courier business volumne incrase a lot by high speed rail hence again increase national economics.
4. human capital is more mobile , large population can commute in longer range without driving.
5. reduce a significate amount of oil consumption.
the last point is that before 2015, only one line is profitable, now there are 5 lines. so when the ridership increase , there will be more lines are profitable.
Great if all you care about is counting beans and how many more beans you can collect. There are other moral imperatives not considered at all in this video
yeah I bet there's a real "economic benefit" to using slave labor and Uyghur internment camps
@@PravinDahal you're provably, verifiably, factually wrong. China uses forced labor more than any first world country (if you can even call 90% of China "first world"). Obviously you A| are a propagandist and/or B| has been fooled by propaganda. You are being lied to and/or you are lying. People know the dark truth of the CCP and no matter what you liars say, the truth will prevail.
@@t7H2si0vß2 the irony of your message. touch grass
@@PravinDahal The difference is that the US allow independent reporting to be made about these prisons while the CCP refuse to allow anyone to go there.
Three Gorges Dam, HK-ZH-MO Bridge, and the water transfer project are not vanity projects. It is a gross oversimplification to label them as such. The Shanghai tower can be considered a vanity project, which is why China banned the further construction of these skyscrapers.
hk-zh-mo bridge is a complete waste of money. It's utilization is very low even before covid let alone now.
@@datajunkie3427 The bridge is fundamentally there to further integrate the Greater Bay Area. Profitability and even traffic volume are ancillary. Moreover, considering it only opened Q4 2018 and under strict regulations, we would need several more years of *normal* operations for cost-benefit analyses to be of any worth. As I said, it is a gross oversimplification to label the HK-ZH-MO Bridge as a vanity project.
@@unifieddynasty It also stands to reason to assume that the bridge was built under the assumption that the SARs would be abolished or further integrated with the rest of the country at some point. At that point, going between HK, ZH and MO wouldn't require passport controls or anything of the sort and the bridge would become much more utilised.
@@datajunkie3427 Not really to move millions to hundred billions of good or travel in lesser time. Congestion doesn't mean money well spend.
@@datajunkie3427 it's part of the GBA project.
Like you said only very few lines create the majority of the revenue. That is also mostly true in all other countries. Trains and reachability are a major factor for the success of many holiday destinations, so while these lines are usually highly unprofitable on their own they tremendously benefit the region that is now accessible. Regarding China it remains the question what lines were just part of a political agenda and which were a necessity. But you also said that. I just wanted to point it out again. Great video.
Most of the less busy stations and railways are in the less developed region of china, but as the video already said, China plan things on a much longer time scale, so it's actually nice to have the infrastructure ready, the development will come
I am a chinese. Actually I think china gov build railway system not from the point of making money. It is basically from their principal serve the people. Make everywhere has the train service for the people. Like a poorest area of china, even one house in mountain, china gov will build road to there. It is not simply about money or profits.
Why do you worry about how Chinese government run its country? Are you trying to teach Chinese people how to live their lives? The superiority complex is strong in this one. China has left the West esp. the US in the dust in terms of public infrastructure. That is not even funny.
@@junguo3088 The US highway (called interstate highway system) is losing money each year, coming out of tax dollars. But its overall social benefit as a profit is expected to be 600% of the nominal loss. OP did not do any analysis nor he ever understand the system.
The video is just pure China bashing propaganda. He is trying to fool the simple minded people on the internet. Not a serious discussion.
Look at OP's track record, all of his videos on China has the smell of propaganda. He has been intentionally misleading people.
@@rockwatercrafts9835 Toatly agree the OP misses the point, if you look at Interstate highway system when it opened, even after a few years , like this anaylisis of HSR it would be similuar or worse, these things are built for decades of use. now do this vid in what it will be in 40 years, i say it will be return on investment and them some.
I laughed so hard how you pivot it at the end about skillshare. Yes the president of China definitely needs to subscribe.
I took the high speed train from Beijing to Anhui. Was really cool to go so fast and great to not deal with weather or Beijing related flight delays. Would do it again, though 5 hours is still a long time
It really isnt' though. To fly from Beijing to Anhui would take about 3 hours as well, and you need 1 hour+ just to check in and 30 minutes just to get out of arrival and this is all considering the fact that your plane awsn't delayed ( which it often is in China as you well know).
Sure! It's a good time for the distance but 5 hours is still 5 hours. Gotta prepare yourself some entertainment, like a book or at least your phone charger
@@sleepyjoe4529 true, and you can't use the internet on the plane, while you can deal with your phone on the train
It's much much more comfortable than a flight.
Another reason that people would want to take high speed train instead of planes in China is that the flight lanes in China airspace is so congested. Before Covid, even flying boeing 787 between Guangzhou and Shanghai(only around 1200km) during busy times couldn't even fill the demand... Delays, especially in the coastal cities are way more often than in US, and it is only getting more and more frequent cause the military operations(training and exercises) against Taiwan, and an increase of high-level diplomatic flights from other countries (to Beijing).
From personal travel experience, I would say most of the lines in the eastern coastal part of China would make sense cause air travel is just so bad and people's wages are generally increasing. And the high-speed lines in the western part are probably built for political reasons.
Hehe, I was thinking what this video was advocating for, the pollutionless and efficient air travel or good ol' car travel or anti-travel that leaving your house is a stretch let alone leaving your county
@@finlanderxx you sound very american saying "good ol' car travel"
@@jonathanodude6660 Something tells me he's Finnish actually.
@@gwarfanatik oop
I have found that flights in China have become way less prone to delay than before. 10 years ago it seemed every domestic flight was delayed due to “air traffic” and now (past 3-4 years) my flights are almost always on time.
The problem is not thinking far ahead enough. China does not need the rail itself to be profitable, it needs the time saved by the passengers to be profitable. Time not spent sitting on a train can be spent working or buying things.
Pal, those lines are not profitable because chinese people are NOT riding on them. There is no time savings for the customers they didn't attract.
@@Origami84 This. Should have been obvious one would think. The converse can only be true if riders of Concord Class productivity utilize the system on non-profitible lines, but that doesn't seem likely as those people fly.
@@Origami84 Pal, this is China th-cam.com/video/GfNrCOvP_i4/w-d-xo.html
The only reason to have high speed rail is to reduce the CO2 footprint of the alternatives which are air or road. I'm not convinced there is any other economic benefit to it except in very special circumstances.
@@Origami84 Youre kinda wrong, even if 10% of the population rode on these trains, that is already 120k people. Remember, their population is 3-4x larger than the US, therefore it doesn't need all one billion people to be riding trains (heck, it cant even support that much people right now).
You actually say that this kind of construction is inefficient. How do you calculate the benefits it brings? Including public interest and economic benefits. This simply cannot be calculated. My personal experience is that this railway system is immeasurable for the changes in people's lives, and it is valuable! If there is such a railway system in the UK, it would only take 20 minutes to get from London to Edinburgh, can you imagine this? How life-changing is this? This closeness of distance is significant to people.
London to Edinburgh, Shanghai to Beijing, Tokyo to Osaka, Shenzhen to Guangzhou. All makes sense, but from Beijing to nowhere? Why? Who signed the proposal? How even the proposal is being made? How's the profit projection for 10/20 years? How's the maintenance?
This should be a pit for corruption withing local government, I couldn't understand why.
@@gold9994 Do you know some of those "nowhere" places have larger population than some European countries?
London - Edinburgh would take 2.5 hours. The British rail network is far more advanced than China's. which [only] has high speed rail and local metros. There are huge holes in China's network that Britain and Western Europe take for granted. No two cities in the UK are more than 360 miles apart. In England it's no more than 247 miles. Given the geography, that 247 miles is done in the same time as the Tokyo to Osaka Shinkansen. Given we are competing with air, you have to look at how fats you get from A-B and apply the public finds accordingly. Britain is exceptionally well connected (but used to be even better connected in the 1960's before the closure of half of the rail network!). Britain is also a small island with a highly wealthy population on aggregate. The railways are amongst the most used anywhere on Earth. Different services serve different distances and suburban and town areas - China doesn't have such a network. Then again, neither does most of the world. Being in awe of the new is understandable but new is not necessary in the UK - just modernisation and upgrading with [some] new line intervention as in HS2, East West Rail, Crossrail, Hoo Peninsula metro extension, that sort of thing.
The first second and third largest cities in England and wider UK can be reached in 2 hours flat. HS2 will make this 1 hour. Urban geography and land ownership and protections make anything faster than 225mph alignments for any other form of transport impossible and pointless from a cost point of view even if it were possible. There would be no benefit until you got to Newcastle from London. Britain has what it needs. The only argument would be for Edinburgh, but it only has a population of 1.3 million at its widest definition and Glasgow 2.5 million to London's 24.5 million. Is it worth all the expense for that from London? No. People just fly instead and planes have most of this market.
All well and good, won't even bother with the 'is it a public good or not' argument (alot of valid points there) but just one thing:
The Chinese trains are running and you could get on to one to even talk about its debts and running costs. The LA trains have spent quite a bit of money, will cost even more, AND its going to take another 10+ years, before we even know if it's going to go the way of Chinese trains or worse...
So, not so efficient train systems or zero efficiency from it not running at all having spent money and time on it?
Yeah, but the California train is at least not losing billions every year in operating costs. Still cheaper. I am from California btw.
@@laddiebuck12 That's because you think of it in profitability terms and not in the common good. If recycling isn't profitable, you do it anyway because it's in the good of society and you pay for it with your taxes to keep it going. Otherwise the garbage will ultimately overrun the world. I mean are you some company shareholder or societal shareholder? And how is it necessarily cheaper having already poured billions in an unrealized project? Is this some kind of American mental gymnastics of defining "winning?"
If there was ever a myth, it's American exceptionalism. Talk about self congratulating oneself for not moving forward and making sure to Tonya Harding everyone else behind you in the process so you can claim some shallow victory of "first place."
@@questworldmatrix
"But is it profitable?" is the question that cripples any initiative to serve the public.
That's what capitalism does to the average Joe.
Just because Chinese HSR is better than yours, it doesn't mean they should be used as an example. There are better examples, like Japan. We build HSR lines at 260kph at first, but instead of upgrading it to higher speeds, we prioritize building other lines to give people more access to HSR. I know it doesn't sound fair because Japan is so crowded, but when looking at a map of the US I can draw like 8 lines in a few seconds that would be profitable
@@hamanakohamaneko7028 Comparing with Japan just doesn't evoke the same level of repulsion the way China does, because it's regarded as a democracy (and anti-Japan propaganda has fallen out of fashion in the early 90s).
By using Japan as an example, there is the risk of Americans actually demanding HSR to be built within their country.
I think what this video fails to consider is it social cost or worthiness to the people and the government. The government is there to make its peoples live better,and by building this HSRs,it did it. The populace and the country as a whole is united by rail and connectivity is greatly improved and the people are given choices as to what transport medium would suit them. They may have spent 900 billion dollars a for all of it,but considering the US is spending 700-800 billion dollars a year for its military industrial complex,you could definitely say this is a much worthwhile investment than a military one. And afaik this raillines are stateowned,so they could take the beating of no profit as many of their other lines are profitable wjich could then subsidize the unprofitable ones. The only question in my mind really is whether if it is profitable as a whole?, though this is something the chinese government doesnt seem to care so long as greater social impact is achieved.
I like the argument for knock-off effects, the rail might make negative money but the effect it has might make up that money elsewhere for the state.
What I would like to know is how is freight handled with high speed rail.
i completely agree and thought this was extremely lacking in this video, it feels super capitalist to me to only care about the monetary benefits when social benefits are just as valuable
@@peachydais I don't think its so much caring about the monetary benefits of the project, but the overall long term viability of the project. Governments can't infinitely prop up something that's unprofitable
Slavery? What about that? China basically still used slave labor. The life of chinese people is not good for the average person...
@@chuckdeuces911 im not sure about this, but one thing im sure of,is that in just a generation, China was able to create a middle class population more than tne combined population of US and Japan. Yes,there are still hundreds of millions to go,but thats already a huge achivement,and witha greater focus for domestic development, this would only increase in the coming years as China continous to integrate its economy in the world esp with its belt and road initiative.
One crucial thing you missed: the political consideration. China is a big country and some parts of it are far away enough from the "rest of the country" that political dissent and seperationism is a real threat. A high speed rail to even the most rural unpopulated areas metaphorically brings the country closer together and more within the grasp of the central government.
Political is the not the main drive lol it's much cheaper to use military Chinook to transport military staff .
@@genova4485 But a Chinook isn't very good for controlling population distribution and ethnic migration within the country
One crucial thing you missed: China is a socialism country that is not always profit driven but social welfare driven, so there is good 5G coverage on subways and in under populated remote areas etc. Are you trying to argue that is to have control of dissidents on subways?
Plus the ground up bones of uyghurs really help with the cost of concrete.
Never thought about it like that. I could see how that would be important to China.
I think one point completely missed in the video is that high speed train allow the cities to expand much larger than before. With access to high speed train, you can live 100km away from where you work. (combination of high speed train + city metro) This was simply impossible in the past, and it has huge benefits.
I don't think Chinese workers commute daily on high speed rail 100km as you suggest. Its for special trips. Its just not workable to rely on a train daily for work, they can be delayed, and need taxis daily or similar at both ends, unless you live within 1km of stations which is small fraction. People will prefer to live closer, or drive car which car is probably cheaper gas would be just $10 a day and you could stay late. Nope. Trains replace airplanes basically on under 500km routes for under 100km or over 500km no one uses even high speed trains.
Umm.... Welcome to California where everyone lives over 100km from work and drives everyday.
This only makes sense if the cost of that commute is low enough that becomes attractive. If you're paying at least $50 a day just to commute both ways you would be high income and could probably afford a place much nearer to the city.
@@raptormesh ... Commuting is NOT likely on California HighSpeed Rail. Most Euro routes are usually 4 times a day. Paris- Amsterdam 300 miles is 10 times so every 2 and half hours, so maybe 6, 830, 11, in mornings just not enough for probably all people, but maybe it's close... But costs are over $100 each way. An article said ""single ticket Paris-Amsterdam over the (old slow train) would now cost 66 euro, regardless of whether you buy it two months in advance.
The fare for high speed (new Thalys train) If you order well in advance and if your departure time is not fixed, you might get a single ticket for as less as €44 -- two thirds of the kilometre rate. These heavily advertised prices, however, are the exception rather than the rule.... Most tickets, even if ordered two or three weeks in advance, cost €119 or €129""". High speed honestly is like an airplane, in cost, no one commutes daily via airplane I think. . . Sigh. A train is a slower version of airplane, why the F do people dream of trains to go 500 miles on 2 hours not a plane at 1? Europeans, half don't have cars so need trains, 90% of Americans do and that's not changing US cities are spread out... I myself take the Greyhound bus, $82 to go from Minneapolis to Houston in haha 24 hours, I listen to audiobook and have a relaxing time, it's weird other people are so rushed demanding to cross continent in 3 hours, like it's a human right, to me... I admit Greyhound use to be faster like 20 hours but they added more stops. By car it's 15 hours, which I've done, then I drove to Mexico and got drunk man was I tired.. Cara are awesome.
It works forever when someone keep paying the debt.
I don't know if measuring and comparing the overall length of railways from China with small European countries or Japan and South Korea is fair. Most of them are at least 30 times smaller than China (South Korea even about 100x). If we add this factor to our equation, then China is equal to other countries, if not "worse". The comparison between China and US on the other hand fits because their size of about 10 million square kilometers are almost identical.
The thing is the total length of HSR in China is twice the total of the rest of the world. So If you compare China with the rest of the world combined, even though it is not fair to China, obviously China is still doing much better comparing to the rest of world in the sense of building HSR.
Still a poor comparison, considering China has 4x the population of America.
Also remember the income per capita of each citizen. Yes cost of living is less but does it off set the lower income.
Still point taken China is a large and populated country still if they did slow rail they would be better off.
You could also do length per GDP, like he should have done intead of per GDP per capita.
@@davidsuda6110 What do you know ? Have you been to China ?
To add a counterpoint: even if China's high speed rail is not all strictly "profitable", would it not also have huge economic benefit by providing fast, efficient, and accessible transportation? When a central government makes these considerations, the math for the success of the project is not purely "ticket sales vs. operating costs".
Consider the USA's highway network. They almost universally aren't toll roads, so the billions spent on maintaining those roads each year would be considered a huge economic loss by this logic. But the US still invests in these roads, not because they are a "public good" like parks or museums, because there is a huge economic benefit to having them, entirely seperate from whatever fee revenue they generate. Surely there is a similar (if not identical) argument to be made for high speed rail.
Agreed, you have to look at infrastrcture as a whole. Its like you can't say the doormat of your factory is not efficient, you have to do a cost/benefit analysis of the entire factory.
totally agree. that literally what came to my mind firstly
It is hard to compare high speed trains with standard. For me the main failure with high speed rail is - you can only transport ppl not goods and for economy transporting of goods is most important and in same time it is not important how fast but how cheap and much you can transport from A to B this is why the US have to invest in the rail and have huge economic benefits in meantime China have shiny new luxury car without engine cuz the US is still more advanced in rail transport of goods using much older technology.
You are missing the point here.Roads are multipurpose..can be used by everyone. The rich the poor ..ones with a fancy car.. ones with a cargo truck..Roads provide an omnipotent sense of autonomy ...whereas high speed railway are niche sophisticated machinery which need to be maintained in addition with the Roads..If china is in trillion dollar debt in regards to its railways it doesn' t mean they dont have to maintain any roads..
Roads are non negotiable.
But the roads are making municipalities go bankrupt. Watch some video's of NotJustBikes on this issue. The local US (and Canadian) governments face the same issues that China does here. Urban sprawl generates just enough income to build new roads, but after 50 years there is no money to renovate older infrastructure.
Another point is that you should compare the highway network to the low speed freight trains. This is extremely profitable for the country, but like polymatter said, it is neglected due to investments going to high speed rail. So the highway network (or the low speed rail) generates and enables a lot more economic leverage than the high speed rail ever would.
Then the final point is that, yes it can be an investment, but then there needs to be a payoff. If there is a single bridge over a river, the economic payoff is enormous because it links two regions. But if I were to build a second bridge right next to the other, and I keep expecting the exact same return of economic payoff. Then im in for quite the dissapointment. The second bridge adds no additional value. The same with the newest high speed rails being built. The first 5-10 lines can be considered in the category of being profitable or generating economic payoff. The bottom 30 lines losing money are just dead weight. And then think of the quality of building in China and probable renovations or maintenance of the network. Within 30 years all lines will need another investment just to maintain the structural integrity.
10:55 I'm pretty sure that the Lanzhou track was primarily designed for political interests of "uniting the country" or possibly encouraging ethnical migration, rather than economic interests. China really wants to tie it's western part to its east as to not risk that parts of it become "too independent".
"uniting the country" yeah yeah! of course exluding uyghur muslims, political prisoners, people of low social credit, and all other people in work internment camps or slave farms
Agreed. The video doesn't mention that a lot of these marginal lines in China are there for geopolitical or internal control reasons.
@@saumyacow4435 you mean the CCP has built some of these lines as part of a genocide of Xinjiang Muslims? Send the Muslims to concentration camps and use HSR to bring in as many Han to drown out the voices of the Uighurs?
Pretty similar to how during the 19th century railroad construction was an integral part of the US's colonization of the west and the genocide of the indigenous population. Of course that's horrible but if you wanna go be a completely morally detached businessman you can't ignore that this makes sense for a country to do.
@@hedgehog3180 yes, thank you for agreeing there are sinister motivations for some of the HSR routes in China
As a California resident who have lived in China for a few years, this video is absolutely right. I was blown away by the high speed rail system in China and how well and quickly they were built. In California I don't know what happened, seems like a lot of bureaucracy and corruption, billions of dollars and nothing got built.
China has way bigger corruption.
@@editoron yes according to Western media. And if you only read Western media. But don't underestimate corruption in Western countries.
@@dvlarry China is brutal dictatorahip. For chinese government is very easy to steal money. (like Russia) And also that high speed rail system is good for us. (americans and europeans) But not for many chinese people. China will have problems operating these trains in the future.
@@dvlarry Evil people are samely bad all over the world
Didn't actually watch the video, eh? 😃
Eventhough the trains are losing money, I think the Chinese government is rely on societal productivity. If you are able to move people to areas where they can work, then the taxes will cover the cost of the inexpensive travel. This is better than people sitting at home complaining there's no work.
Only American complain basic social services projects losing money. 😂 Other parts of the world not even understand that.
These trains are meant for frequent travel, not one time trips, who's moving out to Xinjiang using HSR when they could just take a slow train?
@@edwardliu111 yeah that's very true. How many people in Xinjiang would find 50USD "affordable" as a traveling method?
don't public roads lose money all the time?
You're assuming the average Chinese pays tax. Most avoid paying it, as corruption is rife.
13:29 you just answered your own question, politically it is VERY efficient. Managing a country isnt as simple as breaking even on projects. In this regard, who is to say that it is a bad investment?
At least someone gets it. These ppl talks only money.
U can say it’s efficient politically but that’s definitely not the whole story. From a more older traditional Chinese culture thinking. In the old days, Building roads and bridges or any infrastructure for the “people” is a very noble thing. Even if it’s not serving a lot of people. It has other values. Stories about how some build roads deep in the mountains only for the access of the few also has meanings. Same idea can be applied to helping people save time, cheaper cost, or providing more options for its citizens in the modern day.
@@ii121 Nice summation of this video (and many others on this channel).
@@ii121 what’s up wumao. How’s it hanging? How’s Xi doing? So you also don’t believe the concentration camps are a thing in China? Those Uyghurs, right?
i dont think that any of the train infra is ever built for profit, they are mostly to boost connectivity, indian railway only recovers 47% of cost from train ticket but it boosts connectivity, stimulating economy.
btw us delaying a project for 10yrs to come on height of doors or something is just comical, lol
Indian railways is a profit making organization tho
i thought indian railways is profit making org,i think u r wrong
True.
Texas is making an HSR, and it would be even funnier if the one state that loves cars and hates public transit, actually makd a state-wide HSR before California did.
cali in general is just known in the US to be a shithole, and have incompetent government.
@@honkhonk8009 you know what would really be comical, a 3rd world country making an HSR before a 1st world superpower.
13:53 You also shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country has a flawed system that there isn't anything you can learn from them. China's HSR network may be overbuilt, but it demonstrates the relative savings on capital investment from an economy of scale and central planning. If there's anything that the U.S. should take away from this, it's that if we want to build our own high speed rail lines we should approach it similar to how we built the interstate highway system: commit to it financially and build them in bulk rather than one line at a time.
Yeah let's start bulldozing black neighborhoods and putting them in ghettos again. We can ask China how to slience people who refuse to move!
You could easily make that point, but the one he's making is that the HSR was built for politics and we shouldn't confuse it for "their system works better because they already have it up running"
That said, good luck getting a +$10 trillion HSR from scaratch bill through congress though. Even with a hub and spokes to regional cities beyond the main backbones across the country it would still be huge bill and the land disptues would be fiercely fought out from coast to coast. No one is going to see the future diviends on capital hill and they won't do it without the need clearly demonstrated. Even the NE lines would take > 1-2 trillion to get NYC to Boston, let alone Boston to Atlanta
Build them in bulk? That's a curious conclusion. On his video on Japan's Shinkansen, RMTransit concludes that rail upgrades and extensions should be built gradually rather than big projects all at once.
I suspect the reason China is good at building HSR is the same, they keep building them, rather than building a lot and then letting the expertise decay after a long time.
@@nomobobbythe fact it is up and running and provides an objective societal and environmental good is proof in of itself their system works better. and as you said, such beneficial projects could never happen in the US due to special interest groups and partisan bickering.
Due to the long time cost of check in, security check, boarding,waiting for take off promotion, taxing, and delay & extra. Most of middle income classes in China just prefer to swiping the id card and jump in to the HSR. The hidden goal of HSR is to improved the satisfaction of urban ppl and it really did. Me and my wife wouldn't been married without the HSR, the fight simpley double the time cost, and i wouldn't be abtle to date her every weedend in a city 1000km away.
As an Ameirican, sounds nice, but who going to fund the gaps in revenue?
The US could plow HSR through, but without its own revenue scources its just going to break down over use like the city buses and NYC subway. Where will this system be in another 30 years?
@@nomobobby maybe a suspension of funding to support coup detat or regime change in other countries for 5 years would be enough to build hsrs all over US?
I love this high quality in-depth research presented in documentary style, I see it as the present future of journalism
Some 800-900 years ago, a builder would lay out the foundation for a magnificent cathedral. He would do this knowing and accepting, that he would never see the completion of his creation. It would be left to his great great grandson 100 years later, to put down the final piece. Why can we not do this today? Why are we limited by a 4-5 year term that one person serves?
The answer is very easy, use the profit line to cover the non-profitable line, and railway is not just for travel, but also can be served to logistic. which is the reason why shipping cost in China is much cheaper, and this will additionally provide more business to individual small business, which you can get it back by taxing them later.
The video is unfortunately mistaken why the rails are constructed as a mode of high speed passenger transport.
China has to import oil as fuel for airplanes, and purchase airplanes from Boeing and Airbus, as they cannot produce them.
High speed trains can match speed of air travel in terms of total travel time. The trains are 100% designed and made in China. The HSR projects created lots of jobs.
Also the trains do not need any imported oil as fuel.
So, instead of wait for future demand for high speed passenger transport to raise and have to purchase more passenger jets, China built HSR, even at a loss to operate for now.
He contradicted himself, he started by saying China plans long term but then focused on the short term gain or/and loss of the high speed rail, the point is on the long term, it is way more beneficial to the country's economy and people's life. Maybe someone from a capitalist country could never understand.
@@Faye_Liu so china could never understand. The long term gains are debatable, the economic growth these trains bring can be brought in with cheaper and more practical infrastructure from regular rails to cars to planes. These are either faster or more comfortable and practical and convenient. So why should the goverment spend money on things people aren't gonna use and isn't bring isn't bring in a profit or being highly used. I'll answer for you, they shouldn't.
@@kordellswoffer1520 Are you a Chinese who live in China, who benefit from the convenience and modernity now and would potentially benefit from the wider economical gain in the 20, 50, 100 years to come? NO. The potential economical benefit is not even easily measurable, and plus most importantly it is a public resource, not a private profit machine, again as someone from a capitalist country you would never understand. I also suggest you talking to a Chinese person, preferably someone who live next to a high speed connection, see how their lives have improved and benefited then come here to debate, it would be much more convincing than making judgement out of thin air.
@@kordellswoffer1520 And I just read your other posts, it seems you dislike China as a country, I guess you aren't here to debate why China should or should not have HSR, but rather to vent your hate wherever that comes from. Again, only the Chinese themselves could judge if the HSR benefit them and their country, your opinion, hardly matters.
@@Faye_Liu haha nice arguments. I do dislike China but my dislike for HSR is more influential in this discussion than my dislike for China.
I don't know about other cities, but Shenzhen to GuzngZhou is always full. No matter when I went, or cam back. ShenZhen to HK also (at least 90%), when it was working that is. Haven't used other relations so far - You are right about using plane over high speed.
And they forget most of China is relatively dense. As dense as western Europe, not hinterland US (that would be western China such as Qinghai).
So there's plenty of cities with millions at each 100km you travel. And clusters with 20+ millions that will grow as urbanization goes up and cities become one. So the situation in China isn't comparable with the US but with Japan where there's not many places devoid of people and cities, and close clusters of cities.
I love trains. They are so much more comfortable than airplanes, cars or any other means of transportation. I love the idea of widespread high speed trains, and giving up on the majority of low distance commercial flights. I hope one day we'll reach a point where cars are completely obsolete as you can reach any place on Earth through public transportation.
As much as I love cars and driving my own this can be happening with the rise of autonomous driving.
People will see the ability to drive your own car less and less important up to the point it will become obsolete as autonomous cars can get people there safer and easier.
Maybe up to a point where private owned vehicles will be banned and there will only be public owned or government owned vehicle that people can use to go anywhere using existing network of roads.
Stuffs straight from my nightmare
@@pureintroverted9304 autonomous cars are not safer than you think, even like tesla company won't do anything about your broken car caused by auto drive because his policy written any people who drive it autonomously still need to handle it by manual.
to your question, thats why autonomous cars are expensive user while the mid-low income also help the environment with good public transport, can you buy that car? btw i saw slovekia or slovenia idr made a flying car which suits you best fly or autonomous?
@@pureintroverted9304 I hope so much that there will be viable self driving cars soon
i hate driving around in my car behind all the snails occupying the road
driving a car is the worst waste of time in my life (for me, i am happy that you enjoy it)
Sees Suisei profile pic
Shuu shuu shuu
@@glorioustigereye :D
I live in China from last 20 years and have taken fast train several times and most of the times it’s always full
Only since the pandemic I have found empty seats more then usual. But still most of the routes I travel have enough passengers. So I think Chinese fast train are successfully running and expanding…
Yeah, but doesn't makes sense why they built hsr from nowhere to nowhere... Why? Who's the decision maker? I'm sure that Xi Jinping is smart enough to realize that this is just a money pit for corruptors.
@@gold9994 I mean it's pretty simple really... China has a shit ton of excess industrial capacity. It's the same reason they give discounted investments around the world.
Their economy would collapse if they decided "hey we built what makes sense to build so let's stop"
@@AbeYousef You don’t really understand the essence of infrastructure project
Yes China will rule the World very soon. Trains are the most efficient way of transport. They are 200 times more efficient then EV car transport and 600 times more efficient then ICE cars. USA is going down really fast and collapse in next few years because China has HUGE advantage.
@@teranova5566 LOL China is not USA, it hasn’t been into a war for like 40 years, I really don’t think China has that kind of ambition
I always thought it was the Japanese known for efficiency.
I always thought it was the Germans known for efficiency.
It was.
I always thought
If you know the workplace culture in Japan, you'll know it's the farthest system from efficiency.
Every emerging economy had a period of time of which they are known for "efficiency", UK -> Germany -> US -> Japan -> now China
I think talking about increased electricity costs for HSR is an important talking point, and I do think that HSR has a reputation of being a fix all for public transit when that’s clearly not true and HSR is not applicable in all situations. However, I think ignoring the issues inherent with car dependent cities and the alarming amounts of carbon produced by air travel lampshades your point. There is no panacea to public transit, it’s a mesh of systems and modes of transit that work for the given community they serve.
The host is just cherry picking to cater to his audience.
The video is misleading. Yes, electricity consumption does go up non-linearly with speed. However under most circumstances (where you've got more than a few passengers) the electricity cost amounts to a small fraction of the ticket price and also a small fraction of the overall cost of operation (maintenance, labour etc).
When you are trading time for money - the most important question to ask yourself is - "how long does/would it take me to earn the equivalent $$?"
That's not a question worth asking when discussing public transportation, since there's no need for it to break even. The benefit comes from cities expanding and having more people traveling to work.
Unless you’re $900 billion in debt, yeah, it’s not worth discussing
@@petepowaaa National Debt is an investment. That's why countries like the U.S. and Japan are far from bankrupt.
China's high speed rail is a service provided by the government to its people at a subsidized price. the US is treating it as an investment which ultimately should make money. That's the difference.
So basically the tax-payers are paying for your tickets and the interests on the loans to pay off the loans :) that's what subsidized means. You don't have to make money on everything that being said if your project puts excessive burdens on your tax-paying population then it really doesn't matter if you had good intentions or not. And yes this would not be viable in the US as a lot of Americans don't trust their governments to make the correct choice in spending their tax-dollars. In China the population doesn't have a say in the matter they can only hope it was a fiscally correct move, even if it isn't they cannot hold their leaders accountable for bad economic decisions anyway.
Basically, the money is mostly made back by the economic growth high speed rail provides to every region it reaches. Can't only look at passenger ticket sales alone.
no
But the operational costs outweighs the pros. Hence them running on losses
@@trolllovindaddy have you ever heard of externalities?
@@trolllovindaddy all welfare programs run on a loss. I assume you think government should just let people starve to death as well because running on a loss means cons outweigh the pros
@@trolllovindaddy reallly?? he literally say that gdp of China when they started to build high speed rail are just only $3000, right now gdp percapita of China is $12.000, quadriple the number!!!
I'm pretty sure that these inneficiencies are why even the grandest plans for a US high speed rail network will still feature single lines running between major networks of urban rail connections, or maybe a single line circuit that connects the national park system along that "optimal road trip" loop with branched off lines connecting urban nexuses that that route passes through if the route decides it wants to abandon all the pretext and raise a complete middle finger to rural roadside communities that depend on passers through to not become completely unable to keep the bills payed.
@Nunya Business who asked ? and your viewpoint seems like that of a 13yo kiddo.
@@thienanho5328 They’re an obvious troll satirizing people who criticize those wanting increased wages.
@Alex Haughton yes true but maybe part of the reason people don't is that there not accesable enough
@Alex Haughton the wait time to get into the airport compared to getting into a train makes the train overall quicker and it is a nicer ride
I think this video is slightly mis-titled, though fits the TH-cam algorithm well. The point of the video isn't so much about chinese efficiency but rather highlighting that sometimes the one-size-fits-all solutions common in China doesn't always work well (like HSR). Actually, these template solutions - just build a high speed rail everywhere we need/want to connect, achieve the desired outcomes efficiently. The goal for them isn't to make money. If you look at efficiency from that narrow perspective, it is marginally acceptable at the best of times. They are incredibly efficient in the sense that a connection between two random spots can be whipped up at a moments notice, so the time inputted vs the connection that is ultimately produced is very minimal. That is efficient in one aspect. Much like the rest of China's efficiency feats, it is all down to standardisation - a inherited trait from its low cost manufacturing days. Whilst they are slowly moving away from it, there is really no question that this is the most efficient way to make a lot of somethings, very quickly. So, in a very charateristically chinese manufacturing way, they produced the solution of High speed rail to tackle all sorts of transport and connectivity problems in the country. This results in a comparatively very cheap HSR solution compared to everyone else, but because HSR isn't the be all and end all, this doesn't work well in all cases.
What exactly was the program to build the Interestate highway syste again? And how "efficient" in terms of profitability was it again?
In the US it seems everything needs to make money, except for defense where money is almost no issue at all and road projects (at least at one point in history).
Mrs. A says to Mr. A, look at Mr. C's fancy car, why are we still driving this beat-up 40-year old jalopy? Mr. A says well Mr. C didn't actually planned to build fancy cars right from the beginning, see we had a financial crisis, so the bank called them and give them a huge loan, anyway they paid 40% too much for the fuel injectors. Mr. C's effiency isn't what it seems. Now push harder! The car isn't gonna start itself!
If the project should not be making money, where does the budget for employees come from?
@ a lot of things don’t make money and this applies to a lot of public transit systems in the world. Usually governments fund them with tax revenue and in the case of China, debt!!
The video isn't mistitled. Chinese efficiency is a myth.
Very good video. I wish we had this high speed rail in the US but obtaining the land, etc.would be a nightmare.
The US has eminent domain. China lacks this. They can not force you to give up your home if you do not want to give it up
@@David-bh5leno, the us government can still force buy your land but they have to provide compensation matching market value
This video was made on the pure calculations of profitability of HSR, but that's not the intention of the Chinese government. HSR is transforming into a public utility, just like the running water in every town and city. Furthermore, it becomes a national business card where the Chinese government promotes on the International stage. HSR not only capable of creating higher economic growth, it also ease people density issues in major city and allow people to live further away from work place. Like the 5G network, it's an enabler for endless other possibilities.
You didin't watch the video
It dosen't even promote enough growth to justify the cost of buiding the HST
@@tachin2.07 It does. The data given in this video was a decade old. In 2020 the HSR is responsible for 25% of all city to city travel according to the NRA. In the mean time the wealth gap between the first tier cities and the second tier cities had shrunk massively. The HSR is considered to be a major contributor to the growth of the lesser developed inland cities.
@@zwen3763 give me the facts not the thougths
Beyond that, it just feel like a "gotchya" in the sense that when people look at this rail system and say China is "efficient", what the average person actually means is expedient in comparison to projects elsewhere which take an absurdly long time to get off the ground. The narrator even *recognizes* that because that's how they describe inefficiency at the start of the video, and then they spend the rest of it countering an argument nobody made.
@@tachin2.07 He gave you facts with figures and even a source. And as the guy under you said, by "efficiency" people meant that the Chinese are building them way faster while other countries always have delay and have to increase the budget by a lot while it costs at least 40% less to build them in China according to the video.
Great video as always!
One small mistake - at 9:00 you refer to deciles, when you should say quintiles. From your graph, you are splitting the population into 5 brackets, not 10.
those are still deciles, he’s just cut off the 6th-10th deciles
@@invisi. I don't think so, because he says "$93 is at least half the weekly income for 60% of the population" pointing to the 3rd bracket. The third bracket is only 60% if it is quintiles (each quintile representing 20% of the population).
@@vkmtahgi just had another look and actually yeah i see what you mean you’re totally correct
it’s a really bad graph i’m ngl there’s no indication of 50% on the graph and there’s also a random dotted line indicating 100% that goes unmentioned in the script
my thought process was that the 100% line was the 50% line and so the 5th - 10th deciles would be included (giving 60%)
ok but what is a deciles and quintiles ?
@@ashincyril9429 let me google that for you
I enjoyed the first half of the video but have a major disagreement with a couple comments in the latter half.
1) Many middle-income Chinese and large amount of business employees can afford HSR travel, which is already a huge population. Neither air or road travel would be a sustainable option in this case (how interesting this video failed to mention about the CO2 emission reduction due to HSR vs. air/road, which can be a vital deciding factor beyond just pure profitability).
2) I agree that whether some lesser-used routes should have been built in the first place is debatable, but extending that argument to "China's megaprojects are just to impress" is unfair. To say the least, being the most populous country and highest GDP by PPP means that many things in China are enormous in scale. Indeed, the Three-Gorges Dam and the South-North Water Transfer Project do raise arguments even within China to this day, but it's also true that they do try to resolve world class problem on a megascale (i.e. the former for providing clean electric power to millions, and the latter for addressing the water shortage issues in northern China). Making that statement without first discussing about the problems that these megaprojects try to tackle is, at least, unprofessional.
3) Like many have pointed out, HSR profitability has a lot to do with GDP per capita, and China still has a long way to go, so for many lines that are currently unprofitable, we need to have our eyes on the future. I recall that in the 1970s when Taiwan started to build the highway connecting Taipei and Kaohsiung, the highway was initially rarely used and was jokingly called a parking lot or mosquito-raising field, but as the GDP per capita started to increase the highway was quickly filled and became congested and the government had to add more parallel lines. As Chinese economy continues to grow and standard of living continues to improve, many of the now-unprofitable HSR lines will make more sense. As the video also pointed out, as labor and land costs increase, it'd be much more expensive to build HSR. So to me it makes sense to plan ahead with lines that connect major cities in different regions, which greatly help with the potential and opportunities of poorer and the traditionally less connected areas.
4) The comment that the Chinese government should invest more on traditional rails and freight trains is on point. In fact, the guidelines from the Chinese government have already shifted since a couple of years ago, putting more focus and budget to important slow trains (especially intra-metropolitan routes) and freight lines. Although HSR network will continue to grow/improve, the future plan shows that it won't be nearly as fast as the past decade.
Yes it is a bit of show off when you go from noting to the largest. There is a reason every other country developed their HSR over a period of time as they had to be accountable to the electorate. Nobody can question the CPC of why they spent $900 bil. If they do they will disappear.
This was a good point about the nature of megaprojects in China. It's still about blingbling but less-so than say UAE megaprojects. China does put some decent amount of forethought into most of its projects
I would make a point that is that the reason why some megaprojects are seemingly hastily built and perhaps without much calculation into future utility and return on investment might have to do with the fact that many people who start these projects end up getting promoted when they reach various targets or metrics and then other people are brought up to finish these jobs and often there is a lack of accountability going backwards, like the people that created the messes are already way high upper in the food chain and they are not made to pay consequences retroactively, it's more like the current bagholder gets the brunt of the responsibility for the negative consequences.
So they will just borrow money and try to hide the problem til they get promoted and can leave the problem in another fellas' hands.
And I think the problem in China is not a lack of efficiency per say but it's a lack of accountability as everyone is so concerned with their "mianzi" and not admitting to any wrongdoing and having any egg on their face.
Chinese do not care about CO2 emissions.
*This comment was written with the approval of the CCP.*
@@marcelm6983 Comments like this was exactly why I said all the above. For people like you, arguments and logic don't matter at all; if it's not entirely anti-China then it's approval of CCP or an endorsement of authoritarianism. Things are not black or white, and one doesn't agree with or disagree with everything. And no, I disagree and hate many things the CCP did, many things that my parents had to live through. But yet, it doesn't change the fact that one should only judge by knowledge, fact and logic.
Honestly, public transport doesn't need to be profitable. If it helps developing the country, it's worth subsidising. We've seen here in Germany what happened after the railway network got privatised. The companies had to cut of rural areas to stay profitable, even though there had been laws set in place to prevent that.
1:34 One of the things that I have to give to my country, in high speed trains we're amazing(and somehow every line evades Extremadura xd). One seat in AVE from one side of Spain (Orense )to its capital (Madrid) is 65€, compared to the third place a ticket for a trip about the same distance (Tokyo-Osaka) is around 30€ more. (I know that Japan has a lot of mountains, makes money off public transportation and the trains are better and always™ on time.) But it's pretty nice nonetheless, if only there were a line from my home to the city my Uni is...
If im not wrong, China, Germany, most of Russian HSR and Spain also drive almost the same train. It's a German Siemens velaro 1train with different interior
Wish Portugal would connect to the Spanish high-speed rail network 😒
Yeah, i'm still waiting after ten years for them to finish the train till Vigo..
@@supercunthunt7756 China uses a lot of different trains. One of them is like you say.
Spain loses money though. The Spanish govt. is one of the highest net recipients of EU funds. Are those trains just another drain?
This guy always has the WILDEST CLAIMS when transitioning into the episodes sponsored stuff at the end
Yeah saying that Xi Jinping should have taken a course on skillshare was so funny 🤣
I personally would disagree with PolyMatter on this. Although the high speed train itself is indeed not profiting, it is simply too hard to calculate how much economic power it brings. For example, by moving cities to cities easier, it may help people when they do business, studying, and so on. The cultural and economic exchange between cities is a something that definitely beneficial but unable to be calculated.
this guy probably has never step out of Hong Kong. I lose a few brain cells trying to understand his analysis every time.
@@comphome8822 Then why do you still watch all his videos if you fully disagree with his analyses?
@@Jason88215 same reason why people watch "top 10 fails of 2021" or smth
@@robierahg17 Isn't it good since it increases productivity and reduces cost on the middle class which makes them spend more thus driving up the economy?
@@pain5835 Giving them the means to travel more efficiently helps stimulate economic growth between isolated regions. Imagine the US today without the intercontinental highway.
I think it’s worth mentioning that a lot of the Belt and Road Initiative projects include rail construction, and China’s self-experimentation in perfecting quick construction may pay off in that sphere alone
Trains have collided and people have died
@@low_vibration please list for me the countries that have not had train accident deaths
@@darrishawks6033 you lauded china's supposed perfection of quick construction so i pointed out a fact that directly disputes said mastery. Look up tofu dreg construction
@@low_vibration I didn’t say a god damn thing about perfection or mastery lol
You just saw a positive mention of China so you wanted to smear China instead of engaging honestly. Chinese railway construction is fine. There are examples where it wasn’t fine, but the sample size in China is many orders of magnitude larger than any other country on the topic. So again, list me those countries you think don’t have any inkling of this issue.
@@darrishawks6033 "...china's self-experimentation in PERFECTING QUICK CONSTRUCTION..." do you know what tofu dreg construction is?
I almost choked when he recommended skillshare to Xi. Good stuff man.
Good video which adds a lot of flavour from a capital returns angle. However, I, and I am sure many others would agree, think that public infrastructure such as Water, Power, and Transport should be a public good with investment aimed at creating economic ripples (which I appreciate are hard to quantify) rather than being assessed on a project-by-project basis. Project Finance mentality causes disastrous consequences for public infrastructure - one only have to look at UK Water, UK National Grid, and UK Rail to see why.
I might remind you that the UK has clean water from a tap - something few countries [still] seem not to have achieved. The National Grid is the THE most advanced power network anywhere in the world. What you refer to is the power available. That is a political decision but nothing to do with the engineering genius of the National Grid. They simply have to deal with the results of government policy which make them incredibly efficient. Regards UK rail - the British (rather than UK) rail system is one of the best anywhere in the world. Name me another country in the world outside Northwestern Europe and Japan that has metro (and a combination of three rings of service types to serve all suburbs), Regional, Intercity, and soon to be high speed (to solve a capacity specific problem) connecting together all of its cities within 4 hours, but most in 2-3 hours? Frequency is the highest of anywhere in the world for Intercity and regional as well as metro in London in particular. Britain is fully developed. It has no need to build - it did it 150 years ago! The money today goes into modernisation, management and maintaining the network, as well as upgrading and building [some] new strategic pieces of line. Britain is incredibly easy to get around.
@@richardwills-woodward sorry to break it to you but no, the UK doesn't have the highest frequencies.
Japan wins.
Every single category of public transport.
In peak hours they have 5 minute Shinkansen frequencies.
Pretty sure that's not a thing in the UK.
Also yeah, fair game comparing Northwestern Europe with Sub-Saharan Africa, I'm pretty sure the difference in institutional strength and general wealth will not impact the construction of infrastructure at all.
Oh and uh, I actually have 2 examples outside northwestern Europe with better HSR than the UK: Spain and Italy.
@@richardwills-woodward Regarding the projects tho, specifically HS2 I believe it's good that they did it as they did it, it's just that as always with such projects there will be things that aren't prefect, like the station terminus in London not connecting on to HS1 or the like.
The biggest issue is of course the cost, but that's mostly because of the 0 risk policy, and that's really just a result of how government contracts work in general.
The UK gov didn't want to overpay for companies that underbid the actual price, but since now the construction companies carry 100% of the risk they charge exorbitant prices in order to cover their asses.
Maybe a 75% risk policy could've lowered the price by 15 odd billion pounds, if that's a difference worth making for you that is...
@@richardwills-woodward But overall I agree if you don't at least put some effort into project finance you'll end up with ridiculously stupid outcomes, and I'd define the Chinese HSR network as such.
There's 0 justification for many of the lines, not because they should've never been built and not because China can't wealthy ever, but because the government literally didn't want to built the later more unprofitable lines. It's just that the ministry kept building on own inertia, partly through corruption even.
They've sucked resources from other, more essential parts of the rail grid which given current income of the Chinese and the huge need for freight rail is a terrible idea and they burden the CCP at a time when they could least afford it.
Due to the way that China structures it's tax system, and due to the fact that only an estimated 2% of the Chinese population actually pays taxes (no joke btw) some municipalities are starting to go bankrupt due to the pandemic and the CCP local government bond market is one of the largest asset markets world wide.
Throwing in another liability, especially one that is tied to such a vitally important infrastructure project really is no good.
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 You misunderstand the Japanese system. They have 5 minute frequencies because they only have two large central centurions from where everything goes from. London has many termini. If you combined the London termini of the main lines, you would also have a 5 minute frequency. No more and no less. Spain and Italy's networks are much worse than the UK's. Spain has nowhere near the frequencies of the UK. Italy too. Their regional services are nowhere near as advanced nor their local services. Italy has a very good network however - Spain does not. HS rail is irrelevant. Intercity whether normal or high speed is what we are talking about. In England, the furthest distance between 2 cities is 247 miles. This is achieved in 2hrs 39 minutes because the geography allows. The same distance in Italy and Japan is achieved in the same time even with water trains due to the route taken. What matters is capacity, yes, but if you purely look at speed then your geometry matters. Pound for pound, the UK rail network has achieved the same with a lot less money. The only reason high speed rail is going to the UK is due to capacity, which after Covid is not really required. This will be future-proofing. Other routes already offer good times - London - York 188 miles in 1hr 39 mins. With 125mph trains, the UK STILL beats most networks in the world, many with high speed. But this is a different conversation. In terms of frequency and network reach, the UK is way ahead of all countries except Japan and Germany. Germany wins on urban rail outside its top few cities. In England, there is a lot of work to do to use the existing railways and turn them into a proper branded metro network as in Germany. London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle (in that order) have the best urban rail networks in the UK. Germany still doe better however.
The design , animations and visuals in Polymatter videos is simply amazing 😍
$900 billions in China means 40000 km of high speed train system, but in the US, it is just one-year US budget on military expenses. The $120 billions given to Ukraine would have been enough to complete the California HST and probably some left over for the homeless.
"900 billion can buy a lot of HSR"
You should tell that to California. They spent about that much to build a HSR line from nowhere to nowhere.
We all missed the point here: China didn't create the high-speed rails for profit motives. They build it anyways whether or not it's profitable. Their motive is power and stability.
That point wasn't missed, in fact it was directly touched upon. It seems you missed watching the video.
You missed this at the 11 minute mark thanks for watching haha
And providing services to the people regardless of their income.
Its crazy what you can do with slavery, genocide, and mass theft of patents and information.
@@nickkangtaylorb His conclusion is pretty much agreeing that public goods doesn't have to be profitable, but then follow up with profit concern anyway.
Bruh, I've agreed with a lot of what you've said in the China's reckoning series, and I'm certainly not defending China, but this is such a reach. Rail connections are incredibly valuable beyond their financial means, not just as a "public good", but for defence, state cohesion, and governance. The least profitable and longest lines you mentioned here, the ones to Guangzhou and to the far west of the country, are the most important for these factors, particularly defence.
HSR isn't used for freight because it's not engineered to sustain heavy weights. HSR is not useful for defence as it cannot move machinery or cargo.
At this point in time HSR is terrible for China, this video was good but perhaps didn't emphasise how much financial strain is occuring. Were talking about hundreds of billions of debt, high interest loans to pay existing interest which are been defaulted on... and China's solution is to shift the debt to state governments by forcibly selling non profitable routes because nobody in the private sector wants to buy unprofitable routes.
Essentially the debt is compounding and when combined with the real estate collapse and aging population, China's economy is in real danger of collapsing. China's super economy has been built on weak foundations.
HSR (is awesome) but only luxury for society not a foundation because it cannot be used industriously (for freight).
I think you may be confusing high-speed rail for just rail. All of what you said IS related to rail connections...but this video isn't ABOUT rail connections (Except in that it points out how China is neglecting it's normal rail in favor of HSR) it's about high-speed rail.
@Tomas Lau Yes because this video is about HSR and that has been their near trillion dollar investment/debt which is crippling and has none of the industrial benefits of standard rail.
The video is talking about the crippling economic effect of HSR only made possible by a dictatorship government as opposed to a democratic gov entwined with capitalism that frankly isnt capable of such a large project (red tape).
Saying that there are strategic benefits is to not understand that they do not apply to this debt because this debt has nothing to do with standard rail, this debt is purely from HSR.
Oh sure opening areas is good, having potential economic growth in more areas is good...
But the line has to be paid back!
Okay how about Highways? Those are slower. They will help move goods around so will allow certain areas to rise in economy. That is a given. Buuut they should not be made of Tofu Dreg!
So China isn't clear there either.
@@MrSnakekaplan Yup, all great projects created on debt. But by moving debt around it just "disappears" ...except it doesn't. It is still there and will cause huge problems later much like Chemical Waste is nowadays.
The three Gorges project is not a vanity project. It will produce massive amounts of electricity during the annual flood season to supply prosperous eastern China and reduce flooding downstream.
I really like the psychology you talked about near the end. We all like to think other countries have things sorted compared to our own. But your video is a great example of how things under the surface reveal a different truth.
lol
This video reminds me of a famous TED Talk video, "A tale of Two Political System". China model is unique and only fits China. Every country should seek the best way to govern themselves based on their own situation and conditions. China model does not provide the alternative but prove alternative exists.
I do hope they live in their own lies , that’s called dream , never wake up.
Well said.
@@weizhang2834 Don't we all? A dream, a narrative, a sanctified value, a bundle of lies, anything it takes to shield us from the cold reality.
@@刘天阳-s5c remember your dream is your only scheme so keep on pushin- Curtis mayfield, move on up.
I do agree with this sentiment. A country of people should be governed with rules that befit humans. A country of meat batteries should also be governed accordingly.
I think these hight speed trains can be efficient as a public good. They increase growth of a countries wealth big time.
My guy skipped 15 minutes of the video
(Especially the part which it increased car usage for being expensive)
they’re effective
It is efficient for large cities. On smaller cities it isn't. Basically, high speed train's efficiency rely on economies of scale.
@@dsssingh they actually used them to carry goods for 11.11
Umm not when they push out freight and normal rail resulting in goods and people transportation in roads which isn't efficient
In Canada we have rail lines used by both freight and passengers trains . However it's what I call one lane tracks. Imagine instead of multi lane highways 5 westbound lane and 5 eastbound lanes you only have just ONE LANE for both eastbound and westbound traffic and the ONLY thing that prevents crash is schedule timing. Also freight trains get priority over passenger trains . We'll be talking and talking about this until the next century . I really like to know where all our taxes go to .
There are only 80km of high-speed rail in all of North America and all of it is in the US. It's really sad especially acknowledging how the US literally paved the way for travel by train... But that was... 200+ years ago?
I find this situation incredibly reminiscent of the Stalinist gigantism of the 1930s - 50s. Creating vast projects with no consideration for demand was a staple of the command economy, like the Volga-Don canal which was hailed as a triumph of engineering but was empty for most of the year.
And yet China's GDP has risen dramatically and the USSR isn't around today.
Exactly my thoughts.
@@sleepyjoe4529 USSR in the 50's was a formidable place. Just like india in 2100, maybe.
Except now it is used all the time.
@@gearloose703 India in 2100? Now, you mean. India is already a superpower.
If you dig a litter deeper into the reason why China decide to build these unprofitable rails, especially the one discussed here 11:00 , you will find there are 2 more purposes than postulated in the video. 1. Cultural need: In Chinese culture it is crucial for workers in cities to go back to home town near new year. Every year there is a lot of complain of not enough rail capacity. Therefore, even though it may lose money, it's still important for the government to provide solution to this ChunYun problem; 2. Military strategy: China is suffering from extremists and separatism in its west side. Military troops are said to be transported to the west boarder at the millions in 10 days using those railways.
I used to enjoy your videos but this particular one really leave much to be improved on.
Well China kind of got the extremists a bit under control in, let's say, extreme measures.
Wouldn't conventional rail be more effective for both then? As the average worker from those regions are usually poorer conventional rail would be more affordable - and for the military conventional rail would also allow them to bring heavy equipment and cargo to support the grunts.
Idk what's going on in California, but here in New Jersey we've had mixed use doors on our "commuter" rail trains for as long as I can remember. Decades at least. They really are not that complicated.
Jersey has been silently on the come up in recent years.
@@kaleb5926 NJTRANSIT has a lot of problems. But I am always surprised at how good it always looks when compared to Rail elsewhere in North America.
I think part of the reason for that is that all but one of its passenger rail lines are connected to NYC. The geography of the region means that no matter how you travel, you must cross the Hudson through a limited number chokepoints to get into the city. So with traffic as bad as it already is, and with ferries being useful but not nearly as efficient, the idea of not having some kind of rail in the region is unthinkable.
I've heard that the rail routes in New Jersey are seldom used though, is that really the case?
@@bobbob-kc9wd it’s not what it was during the turn of the last century. Like everywhere else in the country, there were plenty of lines and stations that ended up being shut down and are currently in various states of repair. My own city has an old station from that era that’s just sitting derelict. Other stations are still still standing as historic buildings, but have either been supplemented with a new station/infrastructure (a lot of these towns have a much bigger population than they used to) or repurposed entirely. Ticketing is 99% automated, but you might see an open ticket office depending on what station you go to and when.
One time my friends and I were taking the train into NYC for Halloween, and the main building at the station we were at was closed because a private party was going on inside.
@@bobbob-kc9wd if you’re talking about the current routes, it depends on when you go. I’ve been on trains where there was only standing room available, but that hasn’t happened in a long time. If you’re ever in the NJTransit section of NYC Penn Station, you can watch the hustle and bustle that erupts when they announce what track a train is on.