Slashdot Mirror
China Begins To Extend High Speed Rail Across Asia
MikeChino writes "Last year we learned that China planned to expand its high-speed rail network all the way to Europe and now the nation has launched the first step of the project with plans to extend tracks into northern Laos. The nation has also set goals of expanding the high-speed rail line into Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore."
Commerce is maintained by FREIGHT service, for which current rail is more than adequate.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Their existing high speed rail lines are racking up serious debt. This plan to expand it is difficult to believe.
I was going to bring up the same point. I believe that the only profitable HSR line in the world is Paris-Lyon. So these lines are really much more expensive than they appear when sold to the taxpayers of the country.
I really hope that this idea doesn't spread to the USA in its present form. As Florida pointed out recently, even though the government was going to kick in a couple billion to get the thing built, Florida was going to be on the hook forever afterwards supporting it.
Until they can build a line that makes a profit AND gives me a reason to want to ride it in preference to other transportation alternatives, we shouldn't be building them at all. And artifically raising the price of gasoline to $10/gal is NOT a valid reason. That's just screwing us over because some Liberal Progressive politicians "feel" we should be in trains instead of cars.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There are two HSR lines that have paid off all their construction costs, Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.
Taiwan's is the only HSR line in the world right now that is falling behind on the loan payment, but it still covers all of its operating costs through fares. Every other HSR line in the world is making positive progress toward paying off the construction costs.
So what this all boils down to is, what is your definition of "profitable"? I've given three possible definitions from which you may choose.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
People choose cars over railways because they see a better cost/benefit tradeoff. That's why railways lose many and car manufacturers make money.
Automakers bought profitable bus and rail lines and shut them down to get us where we are today. People did NOT choose cars, they chose trains, and then the trains went away.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The U.S. transcontinental railroads were built terribly poorly. That's how they were able to lay 10 miles of rail in one day. The assumption was that once there was an operating railroad, that it would be very much less expensive to lay good track. It worked, we still have an intercontinental railroad through the same route that was originally laid.
It might be true that large portions of the China route are similarly without good roads.
Bruce Perens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal
Bruce Perens.