Why do we have to consider public transport “a waste of money” when they are not being run as a business.
Because, even if it isn’t being run as a business, it is still being run as a government service. Since no country has infinite money, there is still a cost benefit ratio that should be looked into. There are a lot of government projects or there which are bad investments and should be deprioritozed over other better investments.
This ties into use. A lot of Chinese still use low speed rail because they can’t afford the high speed rail tickets. There may be some lines where it is better to fund and and expand low speed rail because the demand isn’t there for high speed.
(I just realize that the link posted by OP is a 2017 article)
Of course. I agree that cost benefit ratio needs to be considered. I also agree that in some cases low speed rail already suffice, but is it the argument they are making? I can’t read the article despite I want to because there is a paywall.
For longer lines with more than 100m passengers a year and travel times of five hours or less—such as the one between Beijing and Shanghai—the more expensive type may be justifiable.
It is less so for journeys between commuter towns, during which trains only briefly accelerate to top speeds. For longer journeys serving sparse populations—a description that fits many of the lines in western and northern China—high-speed rail is prohibitively expensive.
…
But the network expansion now under way is even bolder than Mr Liu had envisaged. China has a four-by-four grid at present: four big north-south and east-west lines. Its new plan is to construct an eight-by-eight grid by 2035. The ultimate goal is to have 45,000km of high-speed track. Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong University, who has long criticised the high-speed push, reckons that only 5,000km of this will be in areas with enough people to justify the cost. “With each new line, the losses will get bigger,” he says.
It appears to be the argument that the Economist is making. High Speed rail is a good technology that should be implemented, just not at the scale China implemented it at.
Why do we have to consider public transport “a waste of money” when they are not being run as a business???
China considers HSR a public good! They are meant to give convenient transport to everyone!
Also, do people realize road maintenance takes a lot of money too? Should governments stop doing that because they don’t make money?
FXXK this everything has to make money attitude of neoliberliasm!
Not only does it have to make money but it must make at least 10% more than last year.
Because, even if it isn’t being run as a business, it is still being run as a government service. Since no country has infinite money, there is still a cost benefit ratio that should be looked into. There are a lot of government projects or there which are bad investments and should be deprioritozed over other better investments.
This ties into use. A lot of Chinese still use low speed rail because they can’t afford the high speed rail tickets. There may be some lines where it is better to fund and and expand low speed rail because the demand isn’t there for high speed.
(I just realize that the link posted by OP is a 2017 article)
Of course. I agree that cost benefit ratio needs to be considered. I also agree that in some cases low speed rail already suffice, but is it the argument they are making? I can’t read the article despite I want to because there is a paywall.
…
It appears to be the argument that the Economist is making. High Speed rail is a good technology that should be implemented, just not at the scale China implemented it at.
Like cars and roads