"In other words, HSR is fulfilling its traditional role of a nation-building talisman for a government on the electoral ropes."
There are many people on this thread that know much more about high speed passenger rail than me. I just have one question. Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?
According to Wikipedia, the company went bankrupt in July, 2006. I know that Wikipedia is not a great source, but it is hard for me to believe that they are wrong about this. This allowed Getlink to convert most of their long-term debt (namely the cost of building the tunnel into stock). There are very few capital intensive companies in the world that will not be profitable if their plant and equipment are free. My understanding of a profitable railroad is not one that must become bankrupt in order to become profitable.
Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?
And what externalities (land use, cultural land use, noise, compulsory acquisition under market, environmental) did JR not pay?
(All long distance modes have similar externalities).
I repeat my question. Can anyone name the high speed passenger lines that are profitable without a large government subsidy (large is defined as 25% of the total revenue of the line)?
Thanks. I really appreciate your answer. I recognized when I asked the question that it is more complicated than a simple one sentence question. Here in the US, most road costs are paid by the gasoline tax. So users of the highways do pay for the road with some of this gas tax being used to subsidize mass transit. In most other countries, the gasoline tax is even higher than in the US. The sense that I get is that high speed rail is intriguing to many people, but it is really only profitable in a very limited number of high population density areas. This does not mean that there are not other reasons to build high speed railroads.That's a difficult question to answer. Does profitable just mean revenue is covering operating costs and a bit more? Do you need to pay off construction costs? Do you need to pay off other indirect costs such as noise compensation?
Railways, and high speed lines these days, are always expected to be able to cover their operating costs as well as construction costs, which sounds simple enough. But it's a bit harsh if other transport mediums aren't burdened with the same demands. A quick google search finds several articles about the way that airservices in Australia is broken down, means that international flights hugely subsidise domestic flights. Likewise; do all the taxes related to cars actually fund roads - the whole constructions, maintenance, cleaning, emergency services charges, etc etc. Airports themselves are often government owned and often require subsidies for major construction/renovation works.
The end point I'm trying to make here is that very few transportation methods are clearly profitable when everything is taken in to account. On a simpler line of operationally profitable, and probably covering construction expenses (although difficult to justify due to government funding and opaque payback methods):
- Tokaido Shinkansen, and possible the rest of the Shinkansen network.
- TGV Sud-Est, although the way the network has grown makes me doubt the network as a whole is still profitable.
- Intercity under British Rail was profitable - it operated several 125mph routes so depends upon your definition of high speed.
Thanks. I really appreciate your answer. I recognized when I asked the question that it is more complicated than a simple one sentence question. Here in the US, most road costs are paid by the gasoline tax. So users of the highways do pay for the road with some of this gas tax being used to subsidize mass transit. In most other countries, the gasoline tax is even higher than in the US. The sense that I get is that high speed rail is intriguing to many people, but it is really only profitable in a very limited number of high population density areas. This does not mean that there are not other reasons to build high speed railroads.
I do not mean to offend anyone with this statement, but I have asked people about railroads in other situations than this website. It seems to me that this simple question about whether you like or dislike spending tax dollars on railroads correlates with a wide range of cultural, religious, and political beliefs. If the moderator is reading this, I promise to not make any more statements about this.