HSR Lessons From China
Although most HSR critics and deniers seems to believe that the US is still living in the 1960s where we’re the richest, most innovative country in the world and therefore doesn’t need to feel competitive with anyone else, here in 2010 the reality is that the US could learn from the experiences of other countries, and adopt innovations they have pursued themselves.
One of the best such examples is China’s massive investment in high speed rail, which was the subject of an interesting USA Today article:
The Dec. 26 opening of the high-speed link between south Chinese cities Guangzhou and Wuhan is the latest example of massive state spending to keep China’s economy roaring. The fast-expanding network of high-speed trains is stoking patriotism, too.
“This train is the pride of the Chinese people,” says Hu, 42, the boss of a paper factory, who chose the train over a direct flight home to northeast China.
Why is HSR popular in China? Let’s hear what its riders have to say:
Speed and convenience are paramount for business traveler Zhao Shiquan. The founder of an environmental equipment company, Zhao stopped checking in for a Wuhan flight at Guangzhou airport in late December when a friend suggested the new train.
“I wanted to know which is more convenient, the plane or the train?” says Zhao, settling into his reclinable, first-class seat.
At $110 one way, the train is more expensive than flying because airlines such as China Southern Airlines offer prices as low as $28 to fight the new competitor.
But many people still prefer the trains.
“Planes are often late, and time is vital to a company,” says Zhao, 42, who employs 100 people in his firm in Changsha, a major city en route. “In China, you need to meet people in person to do business, and take clients out for meals, so I often have to travel. High-speed trains could be the answer.”
As was discussed in the comments to yesterday’s post, this is also an issue here in California, where flights to and from SFO are subject to frequent fog-related delays that HSR won’t have to worry about. Not only are planes often late, flying in the US has also become very inconvenient over the last decade, to the point where many travelers would likely welcome an alternative that is comparable, if not superior, in cost and travel time.
There are other reasons why Chinese HSR has done well:
The trains are powered by electricity, so they’re not weighed down by huge engines and hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel. The carriages of the “Harmony” trains running between these two cities bear a smart, plane-like appearance, with restrooms far larger than their airborne counterparts.
Attendants dressed like air stewards push trolleys of snacks, including beer and peanuts, down aisles that are patrolled by two armed, uniformed policemen.
The dining car, usually a noisy focus of days-long Chinese rail journeys, appears a zone of quiet. Only microwaved Chinese dishes and fast food such as beefburgers, at $1.30 each, are available.
So it seems like a comfortable, modern way to travel, which counts for a lot in a country whose extensive rail network often left a lot to be desired to the traveler. Of course, the debate about whether HSR is worth the cost is one that is happening in China, just as it is over here:
The focus on infrastructure, and failure to raise incomes, has created a “lopsided development model,” that may leave China as “an emerging market economy without emerging consumers,” worried You Nuo in the state-run China Daily.
The cost of building high-speed tracks, at $20.1 million per mile, is money well spent, counters Qian Lixin, a veteran rail expert at the China Academy of Railway Sciences in Beijing.
“China has met many difficulties in construction, and gained experience in building railroads at low cost. But American railways are owned by individuals, not the government, so investment is the biggest problem,” Qian says.
You’s argument is not that different from Larry Summers, who doesn’t believe sustainable infrastructure helps create jobs or consumers. Both You and Summers are simply wrong. The HSR projects helped to tide over China’s large class of construction workers, ensuring they were able to keep consuming during a global slowdown. That meant lasting investment and greater prosperity for workers across the country. Further, the existence of fast, electrified trains will help reduce China’s dependence on imported oil, meaning that as peak oil begins to bite even harder in the coming years, Chinese workers won’t see more of their paychecks going to buy oil. Of course, it would help if China were to develop more sustainable and renewable sources of electricity to power the trains.
Unfortunately, USA Today also gave space to let anti-train zealot Randall O’Toole rant against HSR, without telling readers his work has been funded by oil companies:
“Transportation works best if you use markets, not subsidies by government,” says Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who researches transportation and urban planning.
“High-speed rail is an obsolete technology that requires huge subsidies in France, Japan and China. Our government seems to view trains as a form of social engineering that they think is better than driving or flying,” he says. “Everybody will pay for these new rail lines through taxes, but only a few people will use them.”
O’Toole says high-speed rail here will just transfer wealth from airline owners to train owners, at great expense to taxpayers as contracts go to the politically connected. He also rejects the argument that trains are more convenient because they deliver people into the heart of cities instead of to airports outside of cities.
“Less than 8% of all jobs in the U.S. are located in the downtown of our cities,” he says.
What a bunch of bullshit.
American transportation is largely government-run (look at our roads) and it works just fine. Our roads are subsidized and nobody seems to complain much, even here in Orange County where new freeway lanes were paid for by sales taxes. HSR in France and Japan requires public funding to build but not to operate, but O’Toole lies to the USA Today reporter about this and makes it sound like the train operations need subsidy, which they don’t.
This notion of “transferring wealth” is just ridiculous. It’s as if O’Toole were advocating in 1910 that government should subsidize the candlemaking and horse-and-buggy industries and not fund any new roads so as to protect those existing owners. It’s just nonsense, and it’s a sign of how little regard our media gives to facts that they let this get printed.
In any case, as with most HSR systems, once people ride the trains, they see the value and become regular customers:
At the end of the line, businessman Zhao considers his trial run a success, and vows to return.
“I feel very proud, as China now has the fastest train in the world. On average incomes, we remain far behind the West, and it’s very hard to catch up,” he says. “But in some areas we are very advanced.”
Stories like Zhao’s will become commonplace here in California at the end of this decade, as long as we don’t let ourselves get distracted by the critics and ensure that we get HSR built as planned.
