According to a report at Bloomberg , China plans a major investment in high-speed rail over the next five years: $503 Billion:
China plans to spend 3.5 trillion yuan ($503 billion) to expand its railway system by 2020 as it turns to investments in infrastructure to bolster growth and improve connectivity across the country.
The high-speed rail network will span more than 30,000 kilometers (18,650 miles) under the proposal, according to details released at a State Council Information Office briefing in Beijing Thursday. The distance, about 6.5 times the length of a road trip between New York and Los Angeles, will cover 80 percent of major cities in China.
The plan will see high-speed rail lines across the country expand by more than half over a five-year period, a boon to Chinese suppliers of rolling stock such as CRRC Corp. and rail construction companies including China Railway Construction Corp. and China Railway Group Ltd. Earlier this year, China turned to a private company for first time to operate an inter-city rail service on the mainland, part of President Xi Jinping's push to modernize the nation's transport network amid slowing growth in the world's second-largest economy.
China will also add 3,000 kilometers to its urban rail transit system under the plan released Thursday.
At the end of 2015, China had 121,000 kilometers of railway lines, including 19,000 kilometers of high-speed tracks, according to a transportation white paper issued Thursday. The U.S. had 228,218 kilometers of rail lines as of 2014, according to latest available data from the World Bank.
The Chinese government will invite private investment to participate in funding intercity and regional rail lines, Yang Yudong, administrator of the National Railway Administration, said at the briefing.
Compare that to what it would cost, and how long it would take, to create the same high-speed rail links between 80% of major cities in the USA. I suspect it would be considered a miracle if half the cases would make it out of the courts in five years. Think of the advancements in manufacturing that can arise when "here" and "there" are "nearby" instead of "far away".
Related Stories
China's President has pledged $124 billion for a new "Silk Road" connecting Asia, Africa, and Europe:
Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday urged major multilateral institutions to join his new Belt and Road Initiative, stressing the importance of rejecting protectionism in seeking global economic growth.
Addressing other world leaders at a summit on the initiative in Beijing, Xi said it was necessary to coordinate policies with the development goals of institutions including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), ASEAN, African Union and the European Union.
Xi pledged $124 billion on Sunday for his new Silk Road which aims to bolster China's global leadership ambitions by expanding links between Asia, Africa, Europe and beyond, as U.S. President Donald Trump promotes "America First".
No one is totally sure. At the most basic level, One Belt, One Road (OBOR) is a collection of interlinking trade deals and infrastructure projects throughout Eurasia and the Pacific, but the definition of what exactly qualifies as an OBOR project or which countries are even involved in the initiative is incredibly fuzzy. "It means everything and it means nothing at the same time," said Christopher Balding, a professor of economics at Peking University. [...] According to Chinese state media, some $1 trillion has already been invested in OBOR, with another several trillion due to be invested over the next decade.
Fuzzier story at CNN. More at Wikipedia.
Related: China Plans World's Longest Tunnel
China to Spend $182 Billion on Network Infrastructure
China Invests $45 Billion in Megacity Project
China Finances and Builds $13 Billion Railway in Kenya
China Plans $503 Billion Investment in High-Speed Rail by 2020
China's 'Belt and Road' Plan in Pakistan Takes a Military Turn
When President Trump started the new year by suspending billions of dollars of security aid to Pakistan, one theory was that it would scare the Pakistani military into cooperating better with its American allies.
The reality was that Pakistan already had a replacement sponsor lined up.
Just two weeks later, the Pakistani Air Force and Chinese officials were putting the final touches on a secret proposal to expand Pakistan's building of Chinese military jets, weaponry and other hardware. The confidential plan, reviewed by The New York Times, would also deepen the cooperation between China and Pakistan in space, a frontier the Pentagon recently said Beijing was trying to militarize after decades of playing catch-up.
All those military projects were designated as part of China's Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion chain of infrastructure development programs stretching across some 70 countries, built and financed by Beijing.
Chinese officials have repeatedly said the Belt and Road is purely an economic project with peaceful intent. But with its plan for Pakistan, China is for the first time explicitly tying a Belt and Road proposal to its military ambitions — and confirming the concerns of a host of nations who suspect the infrastructure initiative is really about helping China project armed might.
Related: China's Xi Jinping Negotiates $46bn Superhighway to Pakistan
China Plans $503 Billion Investment in High-Speed Rail by 2020
Chinese President Xi Jinping Pledges $124 Billion for One Belt, One Road Initiative
Gunmen Attack Chinese Consulate in Pakistan
Italy joins China's New Silk Road project
Italy has become the first developed economy to sign up to China's global investment programme which has raised concerns among Italy's Western allies.
A total of 29 deals amounting to €2.5bn ($2.8bn) were signed during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Rome. The project is seen as a new Silk Road which, just like the ancient trade route, aims to link China to Europe. Italy's European Union allies and the United States have expressed concern at China's growing influence.
The new Silk Road has another name - the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - and it involves a wave of Chinese funding for major infrastructure projects around the world, in a bid to speed Chinese goods to markets further afield. Critics see it as also representing a bold bid for geo-political and strategic influence.
Also at Bloomberg and The Washington Post.
Related: China's Xi Jinping Negotiates $46bn Superhighway to Pakistan
China Plans $503 Billion Investment in High-Speed Rail by 2020
Chinese President Xi Jinping Pledges $124 Billion for One Belt, One Road Initiative
China's $1 Trillion Belt and Road Project Includes Military Cooperation With Pakistan
G7 aims to raise $600 billion to counter China's Belt and Road
Group of Seven leaders on Sunday pledged to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over five years to finance needed infrastructure in developing countries and counter China's older, multitrillion-dollar Belt and Road project.
U.S. President Joe Biden and other G7 leaders relaunched the newly renamed "Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment," at their annual gathering being held this year at Schloss Elmau in southern Germany.
Biden said the United States would mobilize $200 billion in grants, federal funds and private investment over five years to support projects in low- and middle-income countries that help tackle climate change as well as improve global health, gender equity and digital infrastructure.
The Belt and Road Initiative, formerly known as One Belt One Road or OBOR for short, is a global infrastructure development strategy adopted by the Chinese government in 2013 to invest in nearly 70 countries and international organizations.
Previously:
China Plans $503 Billion Investment in High-Speed Rail by 2020
Chinese President Xi Jinping Pledges $124 Billion for One Belt, One Road Initiative
(Score: 1) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Monday January 02 2017, @10:08AM
When growth stalled in Japan, they went on a huge infrastructure buildout plan. That increased internal debt enormously.
China's going down the same path.
(Score: 4, Touché) by pe1rxq on Monday January 02 2017, @01:38PM
I still like it better than the US version: Increase your debt without any new infrastructure.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 02 2017, @02:48PM
infrastructure
Infrastructure takes maintenance.
At least theoretically a half trillion bucks of liberal arts degrees means if the kids get a windfall inheritance or lotto win then their loan gets paid off. The cost of keeping the non-performing loans on the books is minimal.
On the other hand freeway spurs can be very expensive to maintain. Or high speed rail. Or million dollar urban condos. All that stuff is worthless after enough expensive maintenance is deferred.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Monday January 02 2017, @03:41PM
Maintenance of infrastructure would seem to require U.S. local labor, acting as a stimulus for the U.S. economy, rather than spending trillions and misplacing billions in ***istan.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 03 2017, @04:05AM
They blame it on lazy liberal children just like their parents generation blamed them for their ills of society. Rinse wash repeat.
George Carlin summed it up nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdH38k0iUgI [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 02 2017, @02:33PM
Our railroad bubbles were in the late 1800s and they dang near broke the country economically. China's railroad bubble is right about now, along with everything else they do economically being in a bubble. We'll see how they do when it pops. Playing the game on the way up is pretty easy, its on the way down that life gets entertaining.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday January 02 2017, @11:16PM
Well at least they've been rock bottom before. They can always revert to that when everything comes crashing down. The smart ones have been buying up real-estate in developed countries and sending their kids and money there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @10:47AM
It just won't be good old China without the smog.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 02 2017, @08:49PM
It's funny because China was ahead of the curve in terms of its transportation infrastructure's contribution to air quality. Most people did, and still do, I believe, get around by bicycle. Beijing had an entire highway system with on/off ramps, overpasses, etc entirely for bikes. Then they decided that was a sure sign of fall-behind-ism (the fear that China has fallen behind the West technologically and in terms of geopolitical clout), and started pushing car ownership. The result was instant stand-still traffic. And air pollution got worse.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday January 02 2017, @09:00PM
The article mentions "a new airport"; that ought to provide the air pollution you apparently crave.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 02 2017, @02:44PM
Whats in the donut?
The problem with high speed rail is if you're closer than 1/2 hour by car its quicker to drive or bus or cab (or walk) so there's this minimum diameter where the train begins to make sense.
Interestingly I live inside the donut WRT Chicago, I can take a train into downtown Chicago at 100 MPH (no kidding) which is immensely faster than rush hour traffic. I'm like 4 or 5 h-bomb radii away from downtown Chicago but close enough thats its a reasonable time to sit on a train. It would be like 4 to 6 hours of rush hour traffic to drive, or even at 2am at highway speed it would still take hours to get there.
There exists an outer limit where the train is too slow (and expensive) compared to cheaper barely subsonic aircraft. Arguably burning an overnight+ to take a medium speed train to NYC doesn't make sense although I've done it. It would be silly to burn a day or more to get to FL or the left coast on a train, even a high speed train. Now cost and maximum range go up with exponential costs because that tech isn't cheap.
The point is the "donut" in the USA has packed cities and rich suburbs and recreational areas that rich people like, and it STILL doesn't make economic sense here.
In China its gonna be even worse. Now you'll have ghost cities that are empty linked by high speed trains that'll be empty that could take poor rice farmers into town, if they had the reason, and the money, but they don't have either...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @05:05PM
in China, the decisions where to put stations are made, and thsts that. In the US, decisions where to put stations are made. then there are lawsuits because town X got left out. there will be lawsuits because the line goes by some roch area, and the rich folk would rather see it go through the poor areas. and then lawsuits because their station isnt as good as the poor area station. or that the train will just be a pipeline for the criminal elements into their town. there will be lawsuits because it goes through poor areas. there will be lawsuits because there arent enough stations in the poor areas, and that the stations suck. Or that the train stations will lead to gentrification.there will be lawsuits because a property owner doesnt think he's being paid enough. There'll be lawsuits because it goes by a farm and the animals might be disturbed or something. In the US, if you can imagine it you can probably lawsuit [sic] it...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:29AM
We really need to be treating passenger rail like flights, complete with flight numbers in the normal air travel ticketing systems. The stations need to be inside the secured area, and the baggage needs to be handled as normal for flights. Connect each airport to the near-by neighbors. This lets you route a "flight" right through.
For example, the three airports in the Bay Area (San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland) could be connected. The three airports around New York City could be connected. The two airports near Dallas could be connected. The two airports near DC could be connected.
So next time a 747 hits the sea wall at San Francisco and shuts down air traffic, people and planes just get routed through Oakland and San Jose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @03:19PM
US railways are profitable. Europe's are a money pit. I'm guessing they are a jobs program for Chinese central planners.
(Score: 1) by slap on Monday January 02 2017, @08:33PM
Amtrak always posts large losses.
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:56AM
Deutsche bahn (the German railroads) had an operating profit [ajot.com] of 2.1 billion euro in 2014 -- 5 percent lower than in 2013 -- on revenues of 39.7 billion euro (+1.5% compared to 2013). The operating profit [railjournal.com] of SNCF (the French railways) was 1 billion euro in 2013, down 333 million euro compared to the year before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @03:27PM
It's looking like the Chinese gov't owns their rails (?)
In USA, the rails are mostly privately owned, mostly by freight railroads and the passenger trains are mostly gov't owned (Amtrak). The rail owners have no incentive to improve the tracks for higher speeds, all they care about is getting the freight through at lowest cost.
Just imagine what the difference would be in USA if the rails were owned and maintained by the gov't, same as the highways. Then the train companies could compete with common infrastructure. We got this right (for some values of "right") with gov't owned highways, maintained by taxes and fees. The few examples of privately owned roads haven't been (to my knowledge) very successful.
I'd say that our ancestors missed it when they gave the railroads the right of way forever in exchange for building out the tracks. A 50 or 100 year lease would have been just as effective in terms of attracting private investment back then.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday January 02 2017, @09:36PM
in The UK's rail infrastructure has been in government hands for 70 years. For the first 50, train services were also nationalised. The network was expected to run at a profit even as car ownership took off, and when it became clear (for several reasons) that wasn't happening it was savagely cut back to try to break even. In later years, it was run on a shoestring to reduce subsidy, but expenditure still had to be approved on an annual basis by the government of the day.
For the last two decades passenger and freight services have been privatised and operated as franchises. (Track maintainance was privatised, but was a horrid failure due to excessive cost-cutting, and is back in public hands.) Passenger numbers have grown unexpectedly well, but government subsidy has skyrocketed, and ticket prices have increased above inflation rates for at least a decade. In this system, train operators have little incentive to contribute to infrastructure upgrades, as they will see little return on their investment during their short (7 to 15 year) franchise. Much like the situation you bemoan in the US.
On the high speed rail front, we're slowly working towards building our first stretch of HSR since a short line linking London to the Channel Tunnel. This new line is really needed as a relief line for the overcrowded West Coast Main Line between London and Birmingham, but as a new line is needed, it may aal:2009. Construction starts: 2017. First phase (140 miles to Birmingham) complete: 2026!
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday January 02 2017, @09:41PM
Backspace ate some of the last paragraph:
As a new line is needed, it may as well be built as a high speed line, and extended to serve other areas of the UK. Compared to China, progress is glacial. First proposal 2009, construction starts 2017, first 140 miles to Birmingham completed by 2026!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday January 02 2017, @03:39PM
In Washington, DC, USA, a complex of three buildings behind the US Capitol, collectively known as the "Library of Congress", is served by one metrorail station just north of, and one just south of, the complex, which itself is situated between the Folger Shakespeare Library and St. Peter's Cathedral (a span of about 1/3 of a mile, or "one linear library of congress").
... or about 55,950 linear LoC's ...