After taking office in 2009, President Obama aggressively marketed high-speed rail in the United States. (I noted at the time that most of what the administration called “high-speed rail” was in fact expensive slight upgrades to existing, money-losing passenger rail service.) After several states rejected rail funding and with California’s planned L.A.-San Francisco corridor facing majority opposition, lawsuits, ballooning costs, and generally dismal prospects, the Obama administration has largely downplayed its previous rail boosterism.
In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama made high-speed rail a priority of his administration:
Our infrastructure used to be the best, but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”
We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, constructed the Interstate Highway System. The jobs created by these projects didn’t just come from laying down track or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.
So over the last two years, we’ve begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. And tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble those efforts.
We’ll put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We’ll make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based [on] what’s best for the economy, not politicians.
Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.
But in his 2012 State of the Union speech, high-speed rail was not mentioned once. No new federal funding has been appropriated since 2009′s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus”). Only gaffe-prone Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is still occasionally claiming the U.S. needs China-style choo-choos cross-crossing the country, recently telling a reporter, “The Chinese are more successful [in building infrastructure] because in their country, only three people make the decision. In our country, 3,000 people do, 3 million” and that “[w]e owe it to the next generation to leave them something. We shortchange the next generation if we don’t leave them high-speed rail. That’s our obligation.”
There is a reason for the president’s recent lack of enthusiasm. After a crash killed 40 and injured 192 people in 2011, high-speed rail has become one of the biggest political scandals in modern Chinese history. A new article in the New Yorker profiling the rise and fall of disgraced former Railway Minister Liu Zhijun details just how terrible China’s high-speed rail experiment has gone:
One of the most common rackets was illegal subcontracting. A single contract could be divvied up and sold for kickbacks, then sold again and again, until it reached the bottom of a food chain of labor, where the workers were cheap and unskilled. (The practice is hardly unique to the railways: in 2010, a rookie welder employed by an illegal subcontractor was working on a dormitory in Shanghai when he dropped his torch and set the building on fire; fifty-eight people died.) In November, 2011, a former cook with no engineering experience was found to be building a high-speed railway bridge using a crew of unskilled migrant laborers who substituted crushed stones for cement in the foundation. In railway circles, the practice of substituting cheap materials for real ones was common enough to rate its own expression: touliang huanzhu—robbing the beams to put in the pillars.
With so many kickbacks changing hands, it isn’t surprising that parts of the railway went wildly over budget. A station in Guangzhou slated to be built for three hundred and sixteen million dollars ended up costing seven times that. The ministry was so large that bureaucrats would create fictional departments and run up expenses for them. Procurement was a prime opportunity for graft. The ministry spent nearly three million dollars on a five-minute promotional video that went largely unseen. The video led investigators to the ministry’s deputy propaganda chief, a woman whose home contained a million and a half dollars in cash and the deeds to nine houses; her husband, who also worked for the ministry, was found to have a collection of gift cards—a discreet alternative to cash bribes. Other government agencies also had serious financial problems—out of fifty, auditors found problems with forty-nine—but the scale of plunder in the railway world was in a class by itself. Liao Ran, an Asia specialist at Transparency International, told the International Herald Tribune that China’s high-speed railway was shaping up to be “the biggest single financial scandal not just in China, but perhaps in the world.”
If the president is reelected in November, don’t expect a second-term Obama administration to renew its pledge “to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail” by 2035 because “China is building faster trains.”
Then try Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, South Korea, Turkey and soon even India have built or are building 200mph rail.
And just because China did it badly does not mean they are not getting it sooner than the USA is getting its act together.
China getting it ‘badly’? have you ever ridden on the Shanghai-Beijing or Guangzhou-Wuhan line? The facilities in any of the major stations as well as comfort of the trains is better than anything in the US (or even Europe, for that matter).
At what cost? And I don’t just mean expenditures, I mean opportunity costs. Just considering the transportation sector, what if China had instead invested in freight rail, highway, and/or airport and ATC improvements? The same goes for the rest of Asia and Europe. The densities in Asia and Europe allow HSR to work better there (despite recent discussions in Texas and Florida, it is unlikely profitable HSR could be sustained anywhere outside the NEC in the U.S.), but had air travel been deregulated and privatized in the 1960s-1970s, would HSR had been seen as an appealing alternative? Passenger rail is inflexible relative to highways and airways.
True, HSR is not as viable in US as it is in China or even Europe due to lower population densities (except some small regions on the West and East coast) and urbanization patterns. Economies of scale would not work as good as they do in China too due to lower volumes. But that is the only realistic reason and excuse not to take it for granted in the US. This is by no means an indicator that China got anything ‘badly’ or ‘wrong’. Matter of fact, China got it very well: construction costs are cheap (much cheaper than they are or would be in Europe and US), technology is top notch and or par (or exceeding) that in Europe on Japan, occupancy rates on most new lines are well over 50% and are in the 80′s-90′s of % in some cases (Shanghai-Hangzhou or Shanghai-Beijing), again far exceeding anything in Europe and comparable or exceeding Japan. Tickets are cheap, comfort is great, financial position is improving on at least some lines and is covering operational and debt servicing costs from ticket sales alone (Shanghai-Beijing PDL and Shanghai-Nanjing ICL are most notable examples. other lines will probably be ok too).
The so-called critics often mention the Wenzhou train disaster… right, as if trains haven’t crashed elsewhere (e.g. Germany). Only they forget to mention that there are more people dying on the roads in America EVERY DAY than there are people dying on China’s trains (not just HSR) every YEAR.
Despite the corruption (which is a general phenomenon in China affecting road construction much more than the railway construction) or some mistakes, China’s HSR system is perhaps the most successful infrastructure project in modern history along with American Interstates or German Autobahns. You know what I mean if you’ve ever ridden a HSR train in China and if you’ve seen how train travel looked like in China before that. HSR has completely transformed travel. it feels like a whole different country now. And the system is not even nearly complete.
And there is no “what if China invested in freight (…). China IS heavily investing in freight railways. In fact China is heavily investing in ALL modes of transport: freight, intercity passenger railways, expressways, urban rapid transit, airports, shipports. Many of the existing railway lines which were formerly used for passengers are now used solely or mostly for freight whereas HSR lines are left for passengers only in most cases. A great deal of freight capacity was released in such a way in just a couple of years. Probably more so than in the previous 20 years before that!
China’s investment in highways is by far the largest of any country in the world and by the end of this year it will have 95 000km of expressways/freeways. That is more than the US interstates and nearly as much as the total length of US freeway system which includes Interstates and other freeways. Just look at the map.
Even second tier Chinese cities now have airports which are larger, more mdoern and more sophisticated in every aspect than any airport in America. Many have been built and many still are U/C or in late planning stages. Just look at the new Beijing T3 or new Shenzhen T3. Dozens of airports are being built or expanded as we speak. Perhaps too many at this time which will exceed the demand for the next 5-10 years or so.
Urban transit. 22 (that is TWENTY TWO!) rapid rail transit lines are being built or are in late stages of planning right now as we speak in Chinese cities. That is unprecedented in history.
Same story in every single area of transportation. And you are saying “what if China had instead invested…”. Well it is. In fact more so than any other country has ever done and more than it ever did at any point in the past. I am sorry but it just sounds that someone needs to do some more research on China’s transport infrastructure build-up and investment bore putting forward such arguments.
From what I recall, passenger rail’s mode share in China has actually slightly declined since the introduction of high-speed rail — it’s about 5 percent, I think. Rail requires special, extensive, inflexible infrastructure and vehicles, which will almost always make it less attractive than road and air alternatives for passenger travel in all but a minority of cases that depend heavily on density and/or trip distance.
The big concern with China’s freight rail network (at the moment) is that it appears to be lagging in its port connectivity to handle more intermodal, containerized freight — the fastest growing segment of freight movements.
As Jonas put it correctly, China has been investing massively in freight rail, double tracking, electrification, as well as in highways, ports and airports. When traffic grows like it does in China, staying idle is not an option. It is not the US market. A major investment program is also underway to also develop multimodal terminals throughout China.
Roads and highways are valuable, particularly in low density countries like the US, but also in China. Where you have high densities and low construction costs like in China, high speed rail also provides a valuable option with less fatalities per km travelled, less energy consumption and less carbon emission than car transport. This is not a minority of cases in China.
Railways carry about 30 percent of the passenger km in China, not 5 percent. Conventional rail is likely to become less relevant over time as people shift to high speed rail. Looking at change in market share is tricky in an environment where aspirations of car purchase are growing rapidly.
The impact of the high speed rail is already visible as described in the note below from the World Bank that reviews the first three years of HSR experience in China:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/02/16207720/high-speed-rail-first-three-years-taking-pulse-chinas-emerging-program system is heavily
OiC,
Thanks for pointing out my sloppy writing. The “5%” was supposed to indicate the estimated decline since HSR was introduced. Passenger rail’s modal share (in passenger-km) has been declining since the ’80s with greatly expanded use of highways and airways — from 55% to a little over 30% today. Rail freight’s modal share (in ton-km) has also been declining, from 45% to under 30% today. In contrast, rail freight’s modal share continues to increase in the U.S. (again in ton-km), which is now over 45%, thanks to the rise of intermodal shipping.
China appears to be making European-style investment decisions, to the detriment of their future growth. There are less risky, higher value investments — and ones that have a more equitable distribution of returns, i.e., more mobility for lower-income transportation users, if that is something you find important — out there to be made. That’s my point.
Comments on this entry are closed.