Comments by "Doncarlo" (@doujinflip) on "The Myth of Chinese Efficiency" video.

Infrastructure pays itself off from the total economic activity it supports, which is especially salient when it comes to moving cargo. America's freeways and existing rail network are great for making internal shipping cheap and easy. Airlines and China's HSR suffer from not being able to move high-margin shipments -- passengers and consumer mail don't pay nearly as well as bulk goods and HAZMAT -- and both airlines and China's HSR overbuild have very high capital and operating costs compared to their slow heavyweight alternatives.
12
@Alex-fm5ke Right, economic estimates indicate China could be approaching its peak, which could be followed by stagnation and decadence similar to that of Japan. So it's just as likely that China has become overcapacity and overleveraged as aging, pollution, and the end of easy profits takes its toll upon the PRC.
8
The problem with China's HSR network is that most lines are physically too weak to handle freight trains. Passengers and mail only pay so much, hauling cargo is far more profitable (it's the same case with airlines). What makes the US Interstates so valuable is that it handles both trucks and commuters (it was originally designed for massive military convoys). China may have seen a similar benefit if they instead installed beefy quad tracks where freight trains regularly flowed in both directions while G trains blow past.
4
That's why they built an HSR line all the way to Ürümqi, which is a financial black hole. And then the method to "unify" the country involves more flooding the destination with Hàn people and overwhelming the natives, instead of welcoming and integrating the differences into a greater ethnically-agnostic culture.
3
Also in China the state owns all the land, you just lease it from them. So land acquisition isn't nearly as complicated, and they're not scared to use more coercive methods to have you agree to sign away your property as they see fit.
3
Problem with HSR is that it's constantly competing against cheaper slow rail and buses, faster planes, and driving the toll roads. The increase in fapiao (tax receipt) revenue isn't making up for all the debts accrued in construction and operation.
2
Right, ironically America's existing 100+ year old rail network is still going strong because of how much stuff it's called on to move.
2
I'm an American and I'd just stick with metric the whole way, even for subjects about the US. It just communicates the data better.
2
Passenger rail companies were no saints themselves; the whole American ideology around tipping originated from rail companies not paying wages to the freed slaves who began working for them. The appeal of the car was that you at least have more control about operating and maintaining it.
2
If they can carry freight, which not all HSR lines are capable of physically handling. Most people are going to fly instead.
1
Have statistics on moving trucks coming in? The demand for housing still far outstrips supply, and those moving in tend to be the richer types who can afford a professional consignment.
1
How would it help though? What China needs more is a cheaper way to move goods (i.e. slow freight-capable heavyweight rail). Having no alternative to cross-province trucks, and then placing so many movement limitations and traffic fines on those trucks, is the opposite of what needs to happen.
1
But it still has to be paid back, which aren't being reflected in the fapiaos collected from HSR movements of people and mail. China would have benefitted more by expanding slow heavyweight rail and freeways (not marginally-built toll roads that restrict trucks and can't handle the constant loading) that makes shipping cheap and easy, but instead opted to try marketing flashy passenger trains as some sign of graduation to the economic big leagues. Ironically America's century-old rail system is still going strong because of how much stuff it's called on to move. Defense is arguably preventative, last time the US tried to demobilize it got sucker-punched by 9/11. Even worse would be ignoring conflicts overseas as they boil over and drag America into a more destructive total war, as had happened in both WWI and II.
1
Business travel is not likely to be as relevant anymore with so much development in telework, and China's HSR lines are built too weak to handle more profitable cargo trains.
1
It does cost more, both on energy usage and wear on the equipment. It's an exponential rise. Also as the video mentioned China's soils are not that great to bear loads predictably, which is why they use so many viaducts where they can limit the number of piles to drive and control the quality of the concrete for the spans in between.
1
Most domestic traffic goes towards cheaper buses and sleeper trains, as well as increasingly the faster planes and self-driving the toll highways. This is the persistent competition that HSR is losing to.
1
China would have benefitted way more from slow heavyweight rail capable of constant cargo train traffic. Most HSR lines are built too weak for this, and it won't look good to the Party to tear down and rebuild a proper mixed-speed quad-track considering how much debt they're already in. So they'll be bleeding money from all the freight fapiaos they're not getting, since passengers and mail don't pay nearly enough to offset the costs.
1