Hacker News Reader

Comment by thanatos519 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

China is probably the best case scenario for high speed trains. They have high population density to support train networks, virtually no opposition from NIMBYs, and low construction costs. Yet high speed trains there operate at a loss[1], and airplanes are still competitive there. If high speed rail doesn't work there, how could you seriously claim we should switch all air travel to high speed rail?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#Profi...

the problem with comparing these things by their ticket prices is that markets don’t consider externalities. making and fueling a plane might allow me to sell tickets cheaper than a train, but only if we ignore the cost of the carbon output (since neither the flyer nor the airline pay for this, but society at large does)

i wonder how this comparison would shake out if you included a carbon tax that effectively measured the cost of these trips on the globe.

A SF -> NY round trip direct flight costs $362 and emits 554kg co2e according to google flights. The price of carbon by various emissions trading systems vary from less than $10 to almost $100 per tonne[1]. Of course, you could argue that such systems aren't fully capturing the cost of carbon, and therefore using prices for those systems would be an underestimate. Direct air capture literally extracts carbon from the air to sequester underground, which provides an upper bound on the cost of carbon. Climeworks says it only costs around $600/tonne today[2], with them and various startups claiming they can get it down to $100-$200 in the future. Taking all those numbers into account, here's how much airline fares would increase if carbon cost is factored in:

cheap ETS ($10): 1.5%

expensive ETS ($100): 15%

future DAC ($200): 31%

current DAC: ($600): 92%

Of course this doesn't factor in the cost of the electricity used to power the trains, which would at least partially be from carbon emitting sources. Given that, and the fact that building high speed rail is fraught with uncertainty and cost overruns, the highest fare increase you could plausibly argue for is the "future DAC" figure. This may be enough to advocate for banning air travel for short to medium length journeys, but I doubt long haul flights are going anywhere.

[1] https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=8...

[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/swiss-company-hoping-capture-1-g...

Why does it matter that they operate at a loss?

Does China subsidise its air industry like other countries (jet fuel is duty free in the UK)

>Why does it matter that they operate at a loss?

Because if it's massively subsidized by the state, and air travel is still competitive (at least for some journeys), I doubt high speed rail is good enough to fully supplant airlines on its merits alone.

>Does China subsidise its air industry like other countries (jet fuel is duty free in the UK)

Why is jet fuel being duty free a "subsidy"? High speed rail is powered by electricity, which as far as I know doesn't have duty applied either.

> Because if it's massively subsidized by the state, and air travel is still around, I doubt high speed rail is good enough to supplant airlines on its merits alone.

Is annihilation of the air transport sector really your bar as to whether or not HSR is good enough?

> Why is jet fuel being duty free a "subsidy"? High speed rail is powered by electricity, which as far as I know doesn't have duty applied either.

When the government taxes all other transport fuels except jet fuel, it sure looks like a subsidy. Of course, fuel duty policy is not the only way in which a state can choose to support a private industry.

> When the government taxes all other transport fuels except jet fuel, it sure looks like a subsidy.

Maybe because planes don't cause massive burden on infrastructure. Look at how much road damage buses do - you're a better off riding in an actual taxi...

>Is annihilation of the air transport sector really your bar as to whether or not HSR is good enough?

"good enough" with respect to "Air travel should be for medical emergencies only"? Yes.

>When the government taxes all other transport fuels except jet fuel, it sure looks like a subsidy. Of course, fuel duty policy is not the only way in which a state can choose to support a private industry.

high speed trains in china run on electricity. I'm not sure how fuel duties are relevant here.

> good enough" with respect to "Air travel should be for medical emergencies only"? Yes.

Seems a little extreme to me, but fine.

> high speed trains in china run on electricity. I'm not sure how fuel duties are relevant here.

Because to highlight how HSR "runs at a loss" without mentioning the enormous state subsidies that go to the aviation sector, without which air travel would also run at a loss, is a little selective.

But, as you say, this is China. I think "profit and loss" mean slightly different things there.

>Seems a little extreme to me, but fine.

Blame thanatos519, which made the claim and caused me to reply, not me.

>Because to highlight how HSR "runs at a loss" without mentioning the enormous state subsidies that go to the aviation sector

Again, I'm not disagreeing with this line of reasoning, only pointing out that it's incomplete. High speed trains most definitely received subsidies in the form of government financing, and not having to turn a profit. Your response to that is... airlines might be getting subsidies too but you you can't really point out what they are? Or are you claiming that the fact that other fuels are subject to duties, jet fuel isn't, then airlines are getting "subsidies", even if HSRs aren't taxed in the same way (ie. for electricity)?

>But, as you say, this is China. I think "profit and loss" mean slightly different things there.

???

> Blame thanatos519, which made the claim and caused me to reply, not me.

Sure. I'm just saying that I don't agree that "not making a loss" is a prerequisite for any type of measure of success. Lots of things are successful that don't turn a direct profit.

> Your response to that is... airlines might be getting subsidies too but you you can't really point out what they are? Or are you claiming that the fact that other fuels are subject to duties, jet fuel isn't, then airlines are getting "subsidies", even if HSRs aren't taxed in the same way (ie. for electricity)?

I'm saying lots in both sectors is subsidised, all the way from manufacturing through to runtime costs.

Whether or not a railway or a flight route makes a "profit" or "loss" is really down to level of state funding across the whole industry, so using it as a measure to see which mode of transport is 'better' is (I think) not very enlightening.

Because if they aren't, they are unsustainable. It's good to have self-sustainable industries rather than endless businesses (state owned or not) forever sucking on the public teet.

> It's good to have self-sustainable industries...

There's no such thing as a 'self-sustaining industry'.

They all rely on common transportation infrastructure which they use to ship their materials and goods around and get their employees to work. They all rely on a predictable and fair marketplace whose fairness is governed by the state, and they all rely on people not coming and burning their premises down because they're protected by the state!

Self sustaining means they generate enough revenues to cover their costs. Not that they are closed systems with no interaction with general society.

My point is that they don't feel their costs. Therefore by definition they're all "forever sucking on the public teet."

It doesn’t matter to me that transportation operates at a loss. It’s a good thing that people can afford to go where they need to.

Maybe a stronger argument is the fact that airlines are so popular at all. High speed rail is great but air travel is still 2-3x faster over long distances, and China is a big country. If we had high speed rail in the US, people would still probably opt for air travel a lot of the time. New York to LA would take 9+ hours.

Slow-speed trains compete with car trips, not airlines. They are profitable where people invest into trains like they invest into highways.

Focus on that instead if you want trains. High-speed trains are only useful as a value-add to an existing slow-speed train network. Not as its own thing in itself.

Is the concept of NIMBY even possible in China considering the state owns the land?

Do people in the US truly own their land? In China, you lease your land from the state for up to 70 years at a time, and the leases are based on the land value. It's functionally a land value tax by another name.

But that doesn't mean Chinese people have zero rights with regard to the land they lease.

NIMBY literally means "not in my backyard". Ownership has little to do with it. If you don't want a homeless shelter built next to where you rent, you're still a NIMBY, even if you don't own anything. Owning something might make you more inclined to object to developments, it's not a necessary factor.

Guess I wasn't clear. Yes ownership isn't essential but does make you more inclined to object to perceived negatives. In China the state owns the land, not the municipalities, nor private parties, so even if you live there you don't have much of a say. The state makes plans at such a large scale. This is why the Chinese are so efficient at building high speed rail, there aren't smaller municipalities, property owners, etc. that can object.

> In China the state owns the land, not the municipalities, nor private parties

How do you explain nail houses in China then?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...

Any chance your bold assertion is something you just pulled out of the air?

>How do you explain nail houses in China then?

A private entity trying to buy a private entity is not the same as the Chinese government taking or using the land they, the state, owns:

"According to the Constitution, land in cities is owned by the State; land in the rural and suburban areas is owned by the State or by collectives. (Constitution, art. 10.) Although individuals cannot privately own land, they may obtain transferable land-use rights for a number of years for a fee."[0]

Any chance your bold assertion is something you just pulled out of the air?

[0] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/03/chinese-law-on-private-own...

>In China the state owns the land, not the municipalities, nor private parties, so even if you live there you don't have much of a say.

You're confusing cause an effect. The reason why people there don't have much of a say isn't because they can't own land. In fact both are caused by the same common factor: the country is communist.

> Easy solution: Pivot your entire business to high speed rail so we can continue to live on this planet.

> Air travel should be for medical emergencies only.

Some nuance would be nice here. Although high-speed rail from Hawaii to Australia would be a blast.

Hawaii to Australia will use a high-speed sailboat.

Currently in Hawaii. Surfs up bruh. Mahalo.

That's a bold stance when first world countries depend on immigrants who need to take intercontinental flights to see their families every year. Let them eat rail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com