You must log in or # to comment.
BUT
AT
WHAT
COST
!!!
Eh, the thing is a large majority of their limes are unprofitable for being largely underused
Why did the Chinese take incredible amount of debt on to fund these lines that do not connect major population centers? Prob for that chart
This chart is a good example of what happens when transport infrastructure is judged through a purely economic lens versus what happens when affordable travel is seen as a necessary feature of a civilised society. (Not to mention the jobs created and the carbon saved.)
I would disagree, while I do not believe that public transportation needs to be self-sustaining at all; they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste
If a train line is not profitable, its not used
If a train line is not profitable, its not used
Peak car/capitalist brain. You gonna hold roads to the same standard?
1 Yes, I would hold high roads as they are comperatively a more expensive investment meant for a larger volume of transportation.
2 China is state capitalist, but for its dictatorial nature there is no accountability so there is no after effect of such a colossal fuckup
Any investment or possible “profit” is lost as soon as a road needs repairs. And high-use roads need repairs waaaaay more often and are a lot more expensive than maintaining a rail system.
Will not repeat myself, please read the comment you commented under
I think you have that backward, even accepting the idea that profitability is an important metric. If a rail line is not used it is not profitable.
Which part of the
I don’t think public transportation needs to be profitable at all
is misunderstandable? I used profitibility as a metric of usage as trains, especially high speed ones meant to transport a fuck ton of people; which I also wrote down
they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste
Building at capacity might not be the most efficient solution. First, towns grow. Second, China keeps costs down by standardisation (the Chinese HSR system has, if I remember correctly, 3 models of trains and two standards of track). And third, China is vulnerable to earthquakes and floods. So having alternative routes is useful.
The issue specifically is that there is no population centres in which these unprofitable lines run through
And no, government don’t and should burn thousands billions; and hundreds of millions in upkeep every year because what if maybe urbanization stops and people for whatever reason move back to the countryside
deleted by creator
Perhaps you could enlighten us with a map of profitable highways?
- Don’t think high ways should exist
- Roads are profitable for the rel heavy taxes laid on drivers
- Comprehensive transportation systems have huge indirect benefits for a society. While they lose money in direct fees, they support large economic improvements. For any transportation systems. Cars are good for widely dispersed populations, aircraft are good for long distances, trains are good for large groups of people and medium distances. Why can’t we invest in the right transportation for each use, give people access to the best choice? Instead we limit our choices, limit our options, even when they’re not the right choice
- Adding gas taxes and tolls together, typically covers less than half a highways cost, and most roads don’t have tolls. Roads are not profitable or taxes are not sufficiently high.
-
By your own outline a high speed rail is not the right fit, the already existing rail lines/ long term busses already met the needs of the areas! As for your second question countries limited resources, china could have spent all that money that it is currently burning maintaining the lines at a loss + astronomical amounts it burned to construct the lines to say transition to renewables
-
Cannot imagine where you live, but thats not true in Hungary, and I very much so doubt it as its not true for the 2 examples I looked up (germany and england)! Its so not true in fact as the treasury of hungary treats as income (usable for any and all purposes)
- Apparently you’ve never seen traffic in the US. We have a great highway system and a great airport system with many travelers. Too many. Way too many. Not only huge amounts of congestion for cars but huge amounts of congestion for flights, both in the air and on the ground. In the US, only a few cities have widely used transit and only one corridor has practical intercity rail. There’s lots of room for more. It needs to have regular service and be faster than cars to be useful. And it would be perfect everywhere there are two cities up to a few hundred miles apart …. Which covers like 80% of our population
- In the US, highways do not pay for themselves in direct costs. Gasoline taxes haven’t gone up in decades, most roads don’t have tolls, and even those who do don’t cover their costs. Roads aren’t directly profitable so why do we have a different standard for rail?
On average, state and local governments collect roughly 10 percent of oil and gas of their revenue (https://www.rff.org/publications/journal-articles/us-state-and-local-oil-and-gas-revenue-sources-and-uses/)
If facts are not on our side lets make them up
-
I know this might blow your mind but it is possible to build things in advance of demand and without a profit incentive
And it’s possible to technically birth hegdehogs, not that you should
???
He proposed of a possibility? Not a good one in my opinion, like planting an adult hedgehog into a womans womb and artificially inducing birth
Implying that infrastructure building to grow economies is somehow alien and inefficient is exactly why the west is declining. Roosevelt era and Postwar America made a habit of it, then make a habit of privatizing everything and allowing private companies to siphon public money into their coffers and let infrastructure decay while expecting unlimited economic growth. The idea that this monster we’ve created is somehow efficient or sane vs building capacity for economic growth is incredibly dumb.
I dare not fucking wonder how building a train line into fucking nonsense gonna induce economic growth in your mind but I actually don’t want to know
large majority of their limes are unprofitable
Waiting to hear this about the NYC MTA once Mamdani zeros out fares.
Exactly. And as we all know, population stays the same over time. So it’s truly a waste.
-
Rural area are dying out everywhere as jobs are in cities
-
Government meet needs not create them and that really should not change
If your government isn’t planning decades into the future, it can’t meet any needs at all. It takes that long to build things to address large issues. There’s a lead time. If you don’t start planning and building well before there is a need, you’ll always be late and will be seen as useless.
I guess that does explain the American government actually.
I am happy it doesn’t burn thousands of billions; and hundreds of millions every tear in upkeep so that maybe urbanization stops and people move back to the countryside
-
Most of the lines are used fairly well. Overall ridership of the network was 3.2billion trips last year. It is still growing.
As for the economics, it is infrastructure, which is going to last for a century or more. It obviously requires upgrades, but having a fast reliable, green form of transport between a countries large cities has a lot of advantages. Not the least are indirect economic advantages. Like for example making business trips easier, but also tourism. That is why Japan, South Korea and Western European countries built hsr as well.
That also means taking on debt is somewhat sensible, as long as economic growth from the better connections is bigger then the cost of the debt. That is honestly just running the country like a business.
Building a fast rail for tourism is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard; you actually have to produce something worthwhile for ec growth
Where did you shit that number? The whole system, and we are only talking about the underused lines, “only” transport 500k ppl a day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China)
I wonder why your source doesn’t state the amount of people moved, I sure love dictatorships!
lol the comment section is atrocious, Americans have no answers.
Cars <—> Fascism
I am going to regret asking, but could you elaborate?
This is blatantly false, California has built high speed rail in that time.
deleted by creator
Is there any comment content out there that isn’t just US-China dick measuring. Just get a room.
thanks Elon I guess
