Oh my…[:O]
Who holds the debt?
For those who want to read the original World Bank study (101-page PDF):
They do. Roughly analogous to intergovernment loans in the United States.
I read most of it while the overlap is not surprising since the video shows it took pertinent parts from the World Bank study. I definitely noticed the World Bank study is written in very careful language where the video is more frank. Also, the text heaping nothing but praise on how the railways were setup, managed and engineered…I have an issue with. My interpretation there is it is written sensitively and not to offend. There is a point where a skeptical reader would say to themself…this reads as too good to be true.
Perhaps the notice up the left side of the report’s cover has some bearing on this…
Yet, some on here have touted how great the Chinese railroad system is because it’s electrified and we should be just like it because it has HSR.
Well, it IS great, electrified, and HSR.
Just not even remotely economically justified. For a very considerable percentage of the route-miles in the developed Chinese system, with no clear indication to me whether the ‘take rate’ for many of the nominally-non-cost-effective routes is increasing to the point it would break even or better on above-the-rail operating costs.
If the issue of how much true HSR costs is included in an appraisal of ‘great’, it presumes either massive construction and operating subsidy from ‘somewhere’, or the deep-pockets access to suitable capital, the synergistic economic factors, and the sheer determination of Wes Edens and Fortress.
My understanding of the China Rail situation is that the routes into less-developed areas of China (much of the huge expense in construction and thus debt) is for the future, as major urban metro areas have become overcrowded and too expensive for additional growth. I suppose that “forward thinking” was a motivation for our building a transcontinental railroad through what mid-19th century Americans considered an uninhabited wasteland.
You think NYC or SF are expensive for housing? Try Shanghai!!
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high-density corridors, i.e., Dallas to Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth to San Antonio, etc.
The most promising market for corridor passenger trains is getting people out of their cars. To do so the train needs to be a bit quicker than driving. It also needs to be dependable, frequent, comfortable, and price competitive.
In 1950 the Southern Pacific’s Hustler ran from Dallas to Houston or vice versa in 4 hours, 25 minutes. It made two stops. The average speed was 59.8 mph.
According to Google Maps, the estimated driving time from Dallas to Houston is 3 hours, 34 minutes, which probably assumes a light traffic day. On a heavy traffic day, it probably takes 4 hours.
I believe most if not all the SP (UP) route is still in use. I imagine it could be upgraded for speeds to make getting from Dallas to Houston in around 3 hours possible. It probably would cost a lot less than building a new high speed railway line. Moreover, the line runs through the Texas A&M campus. With its more than 72,000 students, A&M could be a major market for a frequent, quick train to Dallas or Houston.
The U.S. needs to focus on the optimum solution(s) for its challenges. We can learn from other countries. But we need to adapt those learnings to our culture. And most importantly build what we can afford.
According to The EurAsian Times, July 13, 2023, “China Railway sells bonds to state-owned banks and brokerages to pay the costs.” The article discusses the costs and funding of China’s HSR.