Im a fan of high speed rail as much as anyone but a lot of this network has been built with massive debts and for a lot lines, no immediate commercial viability. Not a million miles away from Victorian railway companies in London building lines for, hoped for, future demand. I hope it works out, but there is for sure a risk of it becoming a millstone.
Why does public infrastructure need to be commercially viable? There’s plenty of good reasons for people to need to travel aside from engaging in commerce.
The justification should go the other way round; infrastructure is for public use, and commercial entities ought to be taxed extra for utilizing public resources.
They always forget in their arguments too, that being able to move people around is better economically for the whole country rather than businesses or the state trying to profit off people buying train tickets.
While they have been financed it has not resulted in substantial long term debts.
no immediate commercial viability
Lmao. This is public infrastructure not a business grift.
When the private sector is in charge of things like this they do it worse and at higher expense btw.
Not a million miles away from Victorian railway companies in London building lines for, hoped for, future demand.
Very different, actually.
I hope it works out, but there is for sure a risk of it becoming a millstone.
I’m sure the Redditor that thinks public infrastructure needs commercial viability has plenty of useful lectures for the Chinese state on how to drive production and transportation.
built with massive debts for a lot lines, no immediate commercial viability.
The Chinese state owns the whole system, and state debt isn’t what you think it is. This is not a commercial system, so “commercial viability” is irrelevant.
@davel Air travel is also demanding on:
* Road infrastructure for the airport, trains deliver people closer to where they want in the first place and the connect better to the rest of the PT system.
* Land use. Airports are huge.
* Airports also cost a lot, factoring them into the price of moving people around is important, frequently this is paid for the state.
* Noisy in ways that just can’t be mitigated.
Thats one of the best and safest investment any country could make. Rail will not become useless anytime soon. I would be more concerned about construction working conditions.
Im a fan of high speed rail as much as anyone but a lot of this network has been built with massive debts and for a lot lines, no immediate commercial viability. Not a million miles away from Victorian railway companies in London building lines for, hoped for, future demand. I hope it works out, but there is for sure a risk of it becoming a millstone.
Why does public infrastructure need to be commercially viable? There’s plenty of good reasons for people to need to travel aside from engaging in commerce.
The justification should go the other way round; infrastructure is for public use, and commercial entities ought to be taxed extra for utilizing public resources.
They always forget in their arguments too, that being able to move people around is better economically for the whole country rather than businesses or the state trying to profit off people buying train tickets.
Making a profit off of public services is not one of the PRC’s goals.
Is the US interstate highway system commercially viable? It seems to lose money constantly.
While they have been financed it has not resulted in substantial long term debts.
Lmao. This is public infrastructure not a business grift.
When the private sector is in charge of things like this they do it worse and at higher expense btw.
Very different, actually.
I’m sure the Redditor that thinks public infrastructure needs commercial viability has plenty of useful lectures for the Chinese state on how to drive production and transportation.
The Chinese state owns the whole system, and state debt isn’t what you think it is. This is not a commercial system, so “commercial viability” is irrelevant.
@davel @elgordino the viability is: how do we let people move around the country, what is the cheapest way.
This is cheap.
It’s also cheap everywhere else.
And by cheap I mean cheaper than alternatives.
It’s cheaper than just one more lane, bro. one more lane will fix it, bro, i swear.
It’s also cheaper than flying, in terms of climate change.
@davel Air travel is also demanding on:
* Road infrastructure for the airport, trains deliver people closer to where they want in the first place and the connect better to the rest of the PT system.
* Land use. Airports are huge.
* Airports also cost a lot, factoring them into the price of moving people around is important, frequently this is paid for the state.
* Noisy in ways that just can’t be mitigated.
It really isn’t a good option.
@davel comedy mode: one more track, you wont believe how many more people can use just one more track ;)
Removed by mod
“Ghost stations” are bullshit[1][2], and “tofu dreg quality” is bullshit running on the fumes of 1980s Chinese manufacturing (and is racist). Where do our iPhones and other smart phones and our laptops come from? What country’s lunar lander just returned from far side of the moon? What country files more patents than the next nine countries combined? People need to get their heads out of their asses.
deleted by creator
Thats one of the best and safest investment any country could make. Rail will not become useless anytime soon. I would be more concerned about construction working conditions.
https://www.trotskyistplatform.com/workplace-safety-now-better-in-china-than-in-australia/