Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

China’s Very Fast Trains

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in ,

By Peter Galuszka(second in a series)

SHANGHAI —  As the soggy countryside zipped past, my eyes were fixed on the speedometer of the maglev train hurtling towards Shanghai Pudong  International Airport. The instrument hanging over a passenger door shot up from 150 kilometer per hour, to 247 kph and finally to 300 kph or about 187 miles per hour.

The ultra-fast, eight-year-old line got us from the city limits to the airport in all of seven minutes. It can go even  faster– 268 mph. And as we started to slow down during this exciting run, I thought back to Virginia and all the silly hullabaloo over getting creaky old Washington Metro to Dulles International Airport.

The thought was a bit of a downer. At Dulles, the official international airport of the capital of what is supposed to be the most influential country in the world, you can’t even think about infrastructure improvements without a series of peanut vendor arguments from the right wing. They include whose ox gets gored to pay for Dulles rail and whether the Metropolitan Washington  Airport Authority has (gasp!) a labor union official on its board of directors.

Here in China, they don’t mess around with such nonsense. If they want to do something, they do it, or build it. It is a Communist country with plenty of industrial policy so they just fund it. Of course, they have the money to put into an ultra-modern rail system built by Germany’s Siemens and that is admittedly a problem in the U.S. But the Chinese, unlike Americans, are looking ahead to what’s needed and are not sticking their heads in the sands to worry about whether their grand schemes have the dogmatic imprimatur of the American Enterprise or Cato Institutes.

The Chinese think big. To get an idea just how big,  consider my experience at the Beijing Capital International Airport. My wife and I checked into a hotel near the airport for an early morning flight and had some hours to kill in the center of the capital. Later that evening, we took the airport express train back to the airport and the hotel.

Mind you, the Beijing Airport is a truly monstrous destination. Conde Nast Traveler named it the world’s best airport in 2009. But the three terminals are far from each other to accommodate the latest in airline size, notably the bulbous Airbus 380 that can hold 555 passengers.

We got onto the airport express train for the 25 minute trip to the airport. As we pulled into Terminal 3, the most recent addition, I told my wife, “We don’t want this one, we want Terminal 2.” So, we stayed on. I had expected a brief ride. Instead, the train gained speed for two minutes, five and then eight. My wife was glowering at me, imagining this to be yet another in a long series of screw ups during our  nearly quarter century history together. “I hope we don’t end up all the way back downtown and have to come out again,” she exclaimed, her eyes narrowing. Imagine my relief when the announcer said, “Terminal 2 next.”

Big, indeed. If these project and the litmus test for the future, then Americans are truly going to be left behind if they buy into the short-sighted, skinflint philosophies that have been popular ever since Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “China’s Very Fast Trains”

  1. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Big, indeed. If these project and the litmus test for the future, then Americans are truly going to be left behind if they buy into the short-sighted, skinflint philosophies that have been popular ever since Barack Obama was inaugurated.”.

    Total government spending in Americas was under 10% of GDP from 1900 through the start of WWI. It averaged about 12% in the 1920s. It was just over 20% during the 1930s – New Deal and all. Spending climbed from 20% to 30% in the 1950s. By 1980 it was about 32%. By 1990 it was 35%. Today, total government spending is a bit over 40% of GDP.

    The problem is not a lack of spending by government.

    The problem is a lack of competence in government.

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Well as I recall…… Obama wanted high speed trains but it was no dice from the GOP..

    when we talk about govt spending – it’s important to note 2 very relevant things:

    First, almost half of our 2.1 trillion in revenues is really FICA taxes and not spendable for anything other than SS/PartA.

    Second – of the remaining amount about 1.3 trillion from income taxes – we spend more than that on DOD/HS before we spend another dollar on anything else.

    We spend 5 times what China does on “defense”.

    They have a large military but they spend much less than we do and as a result have the money for infrastructure.

    When I think of “competence” in govt and ‘clown shows” – I think the govt in large part reflects what many who elected govt want.

    For instance, we have large numbers of people in this country who think we do not spend enough on the military and homeland security – nevermind that we are spending 1.5 trillion more than we take in – in revenues – and China is buying the debt.

    our politics reflects a great number of people who claim to be fiscal conservatives but at the same time believe we “have no choice” by to spend the 1.5 trillion or else wild eyed Muslims will come and get us… and the irony is that before the Muslims.. it was the wild-eye Chinese commies who were going to come get us.

    Now we have folks like Peter and his wife travelling to that country of “commies”…..

    have a great time Peter – screwups and all.

  3. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    So just what is the public benefit from building high-speed rail? What is the private benefit from building high-speed rail? Who receives that private benefit? What are the costs to the public for building high-speed rail? What are the costs to the private beneficiaries for building highs-speed rail? I would like to see answers to these questions.
    Dulles Rail. MWAA estimates only about 6-7% of Dulles Airport passengers will take rail to or from the airport. Is that worth imposing tolls that could reach $17 or more? How do the DTR users benefit from moving 6-7% of total Airport passengers to rail, considering that, if they drive, they are not on the DTR, but rather on the Airport Access Road?
    Right-wing opposition to the underground station. Opposition to the underground station was led by Democrat Sharon Bulova. She opposed the underground station as an unfair burden on DTR users.
    Also, the underground station could have been built and its costs recovered by a surcharge on Airport passengers. But MWAA did not want to charge users the costs for the underground station. Indeed, MWAA told Fairfax County executive Tony Griffin that MWAA would pay Fairfax County’s share of the underground station’s costs, but not those of the DTR drivers.
    Project labor agreement. Phase I of the Silver Line has a PLA that was voluntarily agreed to by Dulles Transit Partners, the general contractor. MWAA is forcing the successful bidder to accept a PLA. Coercion is quite different than voluntary negotiations.
    MWAA practices classic Obamaism – incompetent giveaways of other people’s money.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT do you think any of the Dulles rail issues would be any different if Obama was not the President?

    Would the PLA or the DTR tolls issues be different under another President?

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    with regard to air travel verses high speed rail. A significant amount of govt tax money goes to airports and airport operations.

    If we put our airline system on the same sink or swim basis that we do rail what would happen?

    The difference is that other countries believe that both air and rail (and transit) are legitimate govt-funded operations and don’t see them as money losers but rather economic underpinnings.

    Other countries see education, health care and mobility as legitimate govt functions. We only see education that way and even then we tend towards wanting it privatized.

  6. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Dulles Rail-related issues are not affected by the Obama administration in my opinion. The administration has not done anything – pro or con – with respect to the project. While I suspect the administration would like the PLA, I am not aware that the cram-down of the PLA has any relationship to the Obama administration. Virginia businesses have been sold down the river by Mark Warner and Tim Kaine’s pal, Maime Reilly. (Full disclosure, I was screwed by a labor union when I had to pay dues in college, even when I was laid off. So I don’t like labor unions.)
    It’s my understanding that urban airports pay their own way in taxes and fees. There are subsidies to rural airports, which should be reviewed. I also think that there may be some federal subsidies to the capital construction costs of airports, but I don’t know the source of the funding.
    Assuming that we subsidize the-airline air transport industry, should we also subsidize the rail industry? What does high-speed rail get us? I would like to know. Amtrak is a dog that provides little value to the US public except in the Northeast Corridor. We should confine Amtrak to that area and shut down the rest.

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The building of the Hoover Dam was bitterly opposed for many years before it was started. Critics claimed that it was a boondoggle that would primarily benefit California. They didn’t see why it wasn’t charged on a “user pays” basis by taxing only those who would benefit. Others claimed that the construction technique being considered was dangerous. Many said the dam would be impossible to build.

    Well, well, well ….

    Here we are 76 years after the dam went into operation. I wonder if it was worth the $165M that was spent to build it?

    Thank goodness, in those days, America had men and women of vision running the country. Pity that’s not true anymore.

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    how can high speed rail be so useful …liked….valued… in Europe and Japan and so “not” here?

    if i works well in China and Japan why would it not work well here?

  9. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Europe, Japan and China have areas with substantial density. Many people live very close to each other. Density makes transit more affordable and reduces the amounts of subsidies needed. Indeed, I have read reports that certain areas have profitable transit, even bus lines. But in most places, even bus service needs huge subsidies. Fairfax County DOT studies show that.
    Where are commuter trains successful? New York, Philly and Chicago. A lot of people located near each other, going to many of the same places. Where is Amtrak successful? The Northeast Corridor. Lots of people located near each other, going to many of the same places. But even there, the bus lines take many passengers because rail tickets are priced too high.
    I used to go to Philly quite often and regularly took the train. The trains were quite full. High-speed rail might be successful in the D.C-Boston Corridor. Where else? Will Californians take rail between LA and SF? How many would it take to avoid subsidies?
    Too often transportation decisions are not made on the basis of providing cost-effective solutions to travel needs. They are made for political purposes. That’s one reason why I would like to see more economic and engineering studies for major transportation projects.
    Look at Dulles Rail. It did not meet revised FTA guidelines for federal funding — too few passengers to justify the investment. John Warner got it grandfathered under the old standards, but it still could not pass the old standards. FTA was not going to fund it. The beneficiaries pushed the politicians to fund it anyway. Now we face tolls as high as $17 in the future to build it. And higher real estate taxes to pay its operating deficits.
    Frank Wolf originally wanted BRT (bus rapid transit) in the Dulles Corridor on a dedicated right of way. This could have been built for about 1/10th of the cost for rail and it could be operating today, taking drivers off our roads without the need for toll increases.

  10. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the idea that high speed rail is for dense populations seems counterintuitive though.

    I strongly suspect that most transit in Europe and Asia is subsidized just as ours is.

    the question is why does Europe and Asia see rail and transit mobility as a fundamental need and we don’t?

    Richmond to Washington is a good example of a trip that is too short for air and too long for auto. At 200 kmh – the trip would take less than an hour.

    VRE commuter rail is right now maxed at 20,000 passengers.

    and the irony is …they are still building more stations.

  11. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Yes, but China has to do all that without the benefit of public participation.

  12. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I think Groveton likes that idea….

    😉

  13. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Imagine what public participation does to progress in a nation with a billion voices.

    It is the same problem here, only a little . Not small enough to eliminate the problem.

    We need to accept representation, and we should leave that representation to technical experts, not flaks like Stewart Schwartz.

  14. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Richmond to Washington is not too short for air with the right airplane.

    Could be under an hour and under a hundred bucks, easy.

Leave a Reply

Read More