China Aims To Ride High-Speed Trains Into Future

[Beet]

January 3, 2010
Workers are putting the finishing touches on a French-designed, glass-and-steel train station on the fringes of Wuhan, a major metropolis on the middle reaches of the Yangtze River in China.

Inside, the mostly middle-class passengers line up to board the high-speed train. It takes just three hours to cover the more than 600 miles to Guangzhou, China's third-largest city, in the heart of the industrialized Pearl River Delta. That's 10 hours less than the conventional train takes.

While the United States has allocated $13 billion for the construction of high-speed rail over the next five years, China plans to spend $300 billion in the next decade to build the world's most extensive and advanced high-speed rail network.

Luxury At 220 Miles An Hour

In the first-class section of the train to Guangzhou, where tickets cost upwards of $100 — almost double the price of second-class seats — real estate company manager Yang Tao and his wife have swiveled the seats in front of them around and put their feet up. He says he's willing to pay extra for a comfortable ride.

"My wife is afraid of flying," he says with a chuckle. "Taking this train is more convenient than going to the airport, with all the security checks. The flights are often delayed and the airlines' attitude is arrogant."

Onboard video screens show off the train's advanced features. In the dining car, passengers eat roast duck gizzards and spicy noodles and watch the terraced fields and factory towns of South China slip past their windows at speeds averaging around 220 mph.

By 2012, China plans to have almost three dozen high-speed rail lines crisscrossing the country. Nearly 130,000 workers are now building the Beijing-to-Shanghai line, which at $32 billion will be China's most expensive construction project ever. The frenzy of construction is at the heart of China's massive fiscal stimulus to revive the economy.

Since entering service on Dec. 26, the new train between Wuhan and Guangzhou has forced airlines to reduce ticket prices on that route. Graduate student Grace Huang says it is completely different from the lumbering, claustrophobic boxcars Chinese train travelers are accustomed to.

"This train is a big improvement," she declares. "It's comfortable and spacious, not crowded like regular trains. Of course, there's nothing we can do about that — China just has too many people."

Critics argue that the bullet trains are overkill, and that what China really needs is affordable transportation for the masses. Xie Weida, a railway expert at Shanghai's Tongji University, disagrees.

"High-speed rail can ease our transportation bottlenecks," he says. "Migrant workers may not require high-speed trains, but if some passengers take the high-speed trains, that should relieve pressure on the ordinary ones."

Of course, that scenario will only work if the number of regular trains stays the same or increases.

China's leaders say their country will not follow the West's path of development — sacrificing the environment in order to industrialize. China's investment in high-speed rail is a part of this strategy, says Xie Weida.

"To solve the problem of public transportation in such a vast country," he argues, "rail transport is the only way to go. If we rely on airplanes and automobiles like the U.S., neither China nor the world will be able to handle such energy consumption."

In Guangzhou, passengers exit the train and board buses and taxis for the city center, to which the railway will later be extended.

For some Chinese, the high-speed trains have already begun to shorten the distances between cities in their minds. Some observers predict the fast new trains will have other effects on Chinese society, such as stitching together more closely China's patchwork of regional markets, dialects and cultures.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122179548

[phk]

Not China, but I'm particularly excited about the potential for a New Delhi-Mumbai high speed rail line.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We need this in the U.S.

Gas prices are already expected to reach $3/gallon again by summer and I wouldn't doubt seeing around the $3.50 mark at some point later this year.

Rail is the *ONLY* mode of transportation that does not require oil in any great amount that can be implemented relatively easily with current technology.  You build the tracks with steel and gravel and rocks, the trains with steel and plastic (from oil, of course), and power the trains using electricity which can be derived from whatever we have a bunch of (nuclear, coal, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass)...

IF we built a state of the art high speed line from New York to Los Angeles via Chicago that traveled at 280mph... a definite possibility.. and averaged 200mph the whole trip, you could make the trip in 14 hours.

Sure, it's not as fast as flying.. but when it starts to cost over $1000 to fly from NYC to LA boarding a train at 6pm, having a liesurely dinner and then sleeping (in a bed!) and arriving in LA at 8am would be the mode of choice for most Americans.. I can guarantee it.

[Lief 🗽]

And in the U.S. it'll take 30 years and a trillion dollars to come up with an unconnected system that travels at 110mph on diesel engines.

Really it would only take 15 years probably... but we have to include the inevitability that Republicans will be in power about half the time in some form or another.

Yes, because America is in terminal decline.

[opebo]

We need this in the U.S.

Gas prices are already expected to reach $3/gallon again by summer and I wouldn't doubt seeing around the $3.50 mark at some point later this year.

Rail is the *ONLY* mode of transportation that does not require oil in any great amount that can be implemented relatively easily with current technology.

Actually, I don't agree that we need this.  I ride the bus here in Thailand over distances similar to the one described in the story - I think it was around 600 miles.  (I go a little less than that to Bangkok very, very often).  Buses basically accomplish an enormous fuel savings per person, without ANY added infrastructure cost.  Of course they're gruelingly slow, but I suspect it will be more realistic in future to expect an ever falling standard of living - something which will force people to accept slower and less frequent travel.

The VIP bus (extra large seats, toilet, meal on board) here costs about $12 to go to Bangkok, which is not much money, and the great majority of the express or VIP buses travel overnight.  This overnight travel does make the trip a lot quicker as there is much less other traffic, and the passengers sleep.

[phk]

We need this in the U.S.

Gas prices are already expected to reach $3/gallon again by summer and I wouldn't doubt seeing around the $3.50 mark at some point later this year.

Rail is the *ONLY* mode of transportation that does not require oil in any great amount that can be implemented relatively easily with current technology.

Actually, I don't agree that we need this.  I ride the bus here in Thailand over distances similar to the one described in the story - I think it was around 600 miles.  (I go a little less than that to Bangkok very, very often).  Buses basically accomplish an enormous fuel savings per person, without ANY added infrastructure cost.  Of course they're gruelingly slow, but I suspect it will be more realistic in future to expect an ever falling standard of living - something which will force people to accept slower and less frequent travel.

The VIP bus (extra large seats, toilet, meal on board) here costs about $12 to go to Bangkok, which is not much money, and the great majority of the express or VIP buses travel overnight.  This overnight travel does make the trip a lot quicker as there is much less other traffic, and the passengers sleep.

Similar services are even cheaper in Pakistan. Though I'm not sure if you would ever go there except Lahore.

[opebo]

...Pakistan. Though I'm not sure if you would ever go there except Lahore.

Ha ha!  Great pun.

[Sbane]

Not China, but I'm particularly excited about the potential for a New Delhi-Mumbai high speed rail line.

Maybe 20 years from now......

[Linus Van Pelt]

New York to LA seems a little optimistic, but modern high-speed trains among major cities that are within 5 or 6 hours or so would definitely be a good idea.

[opebo]

New York to LA seems a little optimistic, but modern high-speed trains among major cities that are within 5 or 6 hours or so would definitely be a good idea.

For whom?  In a few decades the percentage of our population which will need and can afford such transportation will be maybe 1-5%.  Everyone else can just stay where they are or ride a bus.

[k-onmmunist]

It would be nice if we could have them here. It would also be nice if we could have the railways that Beeching closed down back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

New York to LA seems a little optimistic, but modern high-speed trains among major cities that are within 5 or 6 hours or so would definitely be a good idea.

For whom?  In a few decades the percentage of our population which will need and can afford such transportation will be maybe 1-5%.  Everyone else can just stay where they are or ride a bus.

Buses are great for inter-City transit and trave within a single major metropolitan area. But to go from say NY to Phill or LA to San Francisco, or Dallas to Houston a high speed rail system is preferable.

Whats wrong with spending money on infrastructure for a high speed rail network? You have advocated such expenses in the past.

I agree we could set up hundreds of bus lines, improve and expand existing ones, and modernise equiptmentm, there definately is the demand out there for it in the cities.

[opebo]

Buses are great for inter-City transit and trave within a single major metropolitan area. But to go from say NY to Phill or LA to San Francisco, or Dallas to Houston a high speed rail system is preferable.

Whats wrong with spending money on infrastructure for a high speed rail network? You have advocated such expenses in the past.

I agree we could set up hundreds of bus lines, improve and expand existing ones, and modernise equiptmentm, there definately is the demand out there for it in the cities.

I just think its the type of infrastructure that will benefit only a tiny elite.  How many americans will be able to afford $100-200 train tickets in the future?  Probably not many in a society where .1% will own everything, a few more percent will be well-paid acolytes, and the rest will just stay put and toil in desperation.  The well-paid acolytes can just keep riding airplanes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Buses are great for inter-City transit and trave within a single major metropolitan area. But to go from say NY to Phill or LA to San Francisco, or Dallas to Houston a high speed rail system is preferable.

Whats wrong with spending money on infrastructure for a high speed rail network? You have advocated such expenses in the past.

I agree we could set up hundreds of bus lines, improve and expand existing ones, and modernise equiptmentm, there definately is the demand out there for it in the cities.

I just think its the type of infrastructure that will benefit only a tiny elite.  How many americans will be able to afford $100-200 train tickets in the future?  Probably not many in a society where .1% will own everything, a few more percent will be well-paid acolytes, and the rest will just stay put and toil in desperation.  The well-paid acolytes can just keep riding airplanes.

To travel long distances that I envision them traveling(between cities), I doubt that "poor" would be traveling on them. I think a large amount of middle class, Traveling salesmen, Businessmen, doctors, lawyers, proffessionals would use them for work related travel. Many of whom may have the companies subsidize the travel expenses.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You would consider it a waste to speed up commerce with High Speed Rail, yet you would support dumping cars into the Ocean?

[opebo]

You would consider it a waste to speed up commerce with High Speed Rail, yet you would support dumping cars into the Ocean?

If we dumped cars into the ocean - if we in that and in myriad other ways adopted reasonable Keynesian and social democratic economic measures, then yes, building high speed rail - even if just for a lark - would be completely feasible and just another luxury on top of an already generously well off society.

However, we face a future of stark inequality, where society produces much less than its potential because of capitalism, and where even that more meager surplus is all squandered on golden toilet bowls and private helicopters.  There is no place in our probable future for  'high-end' mass transit.

[2952-0-0]

By the time I'm an old geezer, it will be possible to ride from London to Singapore all on high speed trains, while in Canada they will still be discussing the merits of a Toronto -  Montreal high speed rail line.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You would consider it a waste to speed up commerce with High Speed Rail, yet you would support dumping cars into the Ocean?

If we dumped cars into the ocean - if we in that and in myriad other ways adopted reasonable Keynesian and social democratic economic measures, then yes, building high speed rail - even if just for a lark - would be completely feasible and just another luxury on top of an already generously well off society.

However, we face a future of stark inequality, where society produces much less than its potential because of capitalism, and where even that more meager surplus is all squandered on golden toilet bowls and private helicopters.  There is no place in our probable future for  'high-end' mass transit.

I'm sorry Opebo, but nothing you have said in this thread makes sense.  What you are arguing is that a falling quality of life is an inevitability... but then you suggest we should just accept that inevitability by ushering it in even faster?

You are right:  In a future of oil reaching $500/barrel and gas prices jumping 3 to 4 times current prices... few people will be able to hop on a plane and travel the globe (except for a very special treat every few years, perhaps).

But if you can be whisked across the nation on a high speed train for a small fraction of the price of air travel... due to the low maintenance costs of rail travel and low cost of nuclear power to power the trains... it will liberate the masses.. not confine them to their homes.

This is why liberals like me argue for *transportation options*... we're not proposing taking cars or planes away.. but that we need to lessen our reliance on those two forms of transit.

Long distance buses will still be the best form of public transit between lesser populated areas where trains don't run to regional hubs where people can step onto a train.

I have no doubt that Greyhound will survive... the airlines won't.. and the car companies probably won't do very well either.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In addition:  Gas prices are already reaching record highs for the past 15 months and are expected to break $3/gallon during the summer. 

The House's plan for yet more money for Amtrak and transit projects couldn't come at a better time... though it should go further.  If we're going to sink into debt.. we might as well do so by building massive amounts of good infrastructure.. so when the bills come due, we can at least count on efficient means to move products to market, stimulate economic growth, and pay some of our debt off.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In addition:  Gas prices are already reaching record highs for the past 15 months and are expected to break $3/gallon during the summer. 

The House's plan for yet more money for Amtrak and transit projects couldn't come at a better time... though it should go further.  If we're going to sink into debt.. we might as well do so by building massive amounts of good infrastructure.. so when the bills come due, we can at least count on efficient means to move products to market, stimulate economic growth, and pay some of our debt off.

Agreed


We need diversification of Transportation. So that if something happens like oil going up it doesn't effect the entire transportation network.

[muon2]

In addition:  Gas prices are already reaching record highs for the past 15 months and are expected to break $3/gallon during the summer. 

The House's plan for yet more money for Amtrak and transit projects couldn't come at a better time... though it should go further.  If we're going to sink into debt.. we might as well do so by building massive amounts of good infrastructure.. so when the bills come due, we can at least count on efficient means to move products to market, stimulate economic growth, and pay some of our debt off.

The payoff for rail can come quickly. For instance, IL funded additional rail service on its Chicago to downstate routes in 2006. People worried that this would waste money and attract few riders. When the price of gas shot up in 2007-08 ridership boomed beyond expectations. A timely investment by Congress ahead of another gas price rise could provide similar benefits.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

US to go to more public transportation instead of individual cars?? Socialism!

Well about high-speed trains, the country I'm leaving in seems not so bad in that realm, and here it remains a bit expensive, I never take it because I live in South West and did most of the moves I had to do in this quarter of France which is the poor quarter in that realm (in modern technologies generally speaking, that remains France though, not Malia, I don't have to complain) but according to what I've checked.

The network about it is not bad here, it really reduces distances within the country and then sets some new kinds of demography for example, thanks to it, some people who work in Paris no more live in Paris, and not even in the Parisian region, they can live in cities at 200/even 300 kms from it, and in term of time of transportation it's like, and sometimes shorter, if they took the regional trains for the big Parisian suburb. Well, yes, by now, most of the network is tunned with Paris as a center, but it's just because until now France has been like that.

Also, people use to criticize France for its heavy taxes on work, but seems it remains an attractive country for investors, and according to what is said, this because infrastructures like TGV (name of high-speed rail here).

I personally generally support investments in that, though I'm always surprised by the time it takes to be finalized, or yes, even decided, here too. Hmm, seems China hasn't this problem... And I also must say I'm impressed by the size of their project...

[k-onmmunist]

Benwah, why do you use '...' so much?

[Damocles]

I was a child when this topic was posted. Twelve years later, and China's eating our lunch. Not just them, either - but also India, the various European countries, even smaller countries like Morocco. Where are ours?!

[Agonized-Statism]

Super interesting to read the more nuanced, almost Sinophilic pre-Xi Jinping Western attitudes toward China ITT. Neat little time capsule of 2000s mentalities.

Anyway, it was true in 2010 and it's truer in 2022: we need more public transportation. Doesn't necessarily have to be high-speed rail, but that would be nice.

We need this in the U.S.

Gas prices are already expected to reach $3/gallon again by summer and I wouldn't doubt seeing around the $3.50 mark at some point later this year.

Oh sweet summer child *laughs in $6.30 gas*

Twelve years later, and China's eating our lunch. Not just them, either - but also India, the various European countries, even smaller countries like Morocco. Where are ours?!

Big gubmint ain't takin' muh land