Bullet train from Beijing to Shanghai

[bhchao]

This article discusses factors influencing Beijing's upcoming decision to award the Beijing-Shanghai bullet train contract to one of 3 countries: France, Japan, or Germany. This project is for the 2008 Summer Olympics.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FE13Ad01.html

Who should Beijing award the project to?

[confucius]

They should build a Maglev like they have at Pudong airport already. It doesn't make sense to have such a fast train go such a short distance, so a Shanghai-Beijing Maglev would be the smartest idea China has had since those electronic mosquito killing rackets.

[roddy]

Who should Beijing award the project to?

The people who build the best maglev trains, I guess. Perhaps you should ask on www.whobuildsthebestmaglevtrains?.com

Roddy

[ala]

The maglev is ideal for smaller distances, since the tracks aren't cheap.

Beijing-Shanghai will probably go to Japan.

While, maglev will be used to connect regional areas (large cities within 200km), such as the Shanghai-Hangzhou-Nanjing lower Yangtze delta triangle.

[39degN]

According to shanghai Maglev train's cost, per kilometer cost 0.3 billion RMB, the distance btw Beijing and shanghai = 1300Km, so the budget should be 390 billion RMB(47.2 billion USD), compare with this, one Boeing 747's price=0.15 billion USD, so, a Beijing-shanghai Maglev train costs 314 Boeing 747.

so sad china's airline industry is slowly developing(caused the flight ticket price is so expensive).

According to official source, the Maglev train's ticket price SB 5 times of common train's (right now the price is about 400RMB), so I don't know why ppl don't choose a flight to spend their 2000RMB(oh,my God!), just for the "fresh feeling"? BTW, the price is more expensive than today's expensive flight ticket price.

With so expensive price of ticket, some poor guys like me are impossible to afford it, so we have to choose pedestrianizing to shanghai. Then what sense does the train make?

Meanwhile, Maglev train's technology has no enough practice there, and therefore the productivity is too low, and therefore the cost is huge, and therefore if one day the market and technology are mature enough we will realize the cost is much more decreased, certainly china is the 冤大头.

Just think about that why germen themselves don't build it?

P.S. so many projects of shanghai are actually spending 全国纳税人的钱满足少数人的好大喜功的虚荣心.

[Quest]

exactly 39degN, they should jsut abort the project. The maglev track serves no real purpose. You can make a couple of aircraft carriers out of that money! and we still have none. Or better yet, spend that money to build up other places. ie. more conventional rail tracks and highways to inland areas.

[holyman]

i think the calculations is not exactly correct. the initial cost will be high but if the track goes longer it would be cheaper per kilometer, althou the total cost increase. but i do agree that the money should be spent on something much worthwhile than a facelift. not sure about railroad technology, but i think if they can increase the normal train speed to 150-200km/h(now its 120km/h i think), it would be much cheaper even if they have to rebuild the present shanghai-beijing tracks. the people on top are probably thinking, 'let the olympics atheletes travel btw both places in 3~4hrs, and show that our railroad infrastructure is as good as european countries or japan'.

[Quest]

show that our railroad infrastructure is as good as european countries or japan'.

well....nothing to be proud about when the technology is foreign.

[ala]

P.S. so many projects of shanghai are actually spending 全国纳税人的钱满足少数人的好大喜功的虚荣心.

Dude, CHECK AGAIN. 全国纳税??!!!!?? 你真无知。 1% of China's population has historically contributed an annual average of 70% of China's budget, but receives only 5% of central government expenditure. Today's Chinese military budget comes directly from Shanghai's tax revenues.

Below are excerpts from "Shanghai and the Lower Yangzi Valley". China Deconstructs : Politics, Trade and Regionalism. pgs 244-253. London ; New York Routledge, 2002.

Two systems prevail. Guangdong arranged to keep the full surplus over and above its base amount. Shanghai and Jiangsu had to pay a fixed proportion of their fiscal revenues above the base amount to the centre.

In 1991 Shanghai had local revenues of RMB yuan 16,509 million, ranking second among provincial-level units only to Guangdong, which had local revenues of RMB yuan 17,735 million.22 However, Shanghai ranked only sixteenth in local expenditure, spending only RMB yuan 7,742 million compared to Guangdong, which ranked first in expenditure, spending RMB yuan 18,248 million.23 In local revenues, Shanghai had a ‘surplus’ (revenue income less expenditure) of RMB yuan 8,767 million, which went to the central government. Thus, over half (53.10 per cent) of Shanghai’s local revenue went to the central government. No other provincial-level unit made such contributions out of local revenues (see Table 8.4).

Table 8.3 Base amounts contributed by provincial-level units to the central government (RMB yuan million):

Shanghai 10,300–16,500

Jiangsu 7,000–10,000

Zhejiang 3,000–4,000

Sichuan 1,000

Guangdong 800–1,300

Fujian 100

All other provincial units have base amounts less than 100 million RMB yuan in 1991.

In an attempt to calculate Shanghai’s total contribution to central revenues, we have calculated Shanghai’s total fiscal revenues (central and local) and subtracted Shanghai’s local expenditures. This suggests Shanghai now contributes about 17 per cent of total central revenues. Recently, Mayor Huang Ju appeared to validate this statistical method by disclosing that Shanghai delivered RMB yuan 27,000 million in tax revenues to the centre in 1992,24 a figure comparable to our calculated figure of RMB yuan 24,343 million in 1991 (Table 8.5). The statistics suggest that Shanghai contributed much larger proportions in the early 1980s (Table 8.5).

Table 8.4 ‘Surplus’ as percentage of local revenue paid to central revenue, 1991 [(Local revenue local expenditures) / local revenue×100]

Province ‘Surplus’ (%)

Shanghai 53.10 (Over half of Shanghai's entire economic revenue went to the central govt)

Zhejiang 22.04

Tianjin 18.28

Jiangsu 11.93

Beijing 11.74

Liaoning 6.19

Shandong 0.71

Table 8.5 Estimated contribution of Shanghai to central revenue:

Central revenue (RMB yuan million) Shanghai contribution to centre (RMB yuan million) Shanghai contribution (%)

1981 22,470 18,546 82.54%

1982 25,850 18,001 69.64%

1983 37,200 18,195 48.91%

1984 52,450 18,547 35.36%

1985 70,790 21,779 30.77%

1986 91,670 19,864 21.67%

1987 90,580 18,751 20.70%

1988 104,550 19,581 18.73%

1989 110,550 22,394 20.26%

1990 136,790 20,910 15.29%

1991 139,970 24,343 17.39%

Other analyses validate this conclusion. Under Mao, according to Lardy, the centre invested only 5.6 per cent of Shanghai revenues in Shanghai during 1953–57, a figure that declined to 1.9 per cent in 1958.26 Shanghai continued to contribute much more to the centre than it received in investment from 1949 to 1975. Furthermore, Shanghai contributed more than a half million skilled workers to other provinces by the early 1970s.27

Chinese statistics do suggest Shanghai clearly continues to receive a disproportionately small amount of the fixed capital investments made in state-owned units in comparison to Shanghai’s fiscal contributions in the post-Mao period as well. Shanghai received 6.44 per cent of fixed capital investment in state enterprises during 1981–85 and 6.78 per cent in 1986–90. However, these figures declined to 5.73 per cent in 1991 and 5.37 per cent in 1992.

In 1988 the centre, following representations from Shanghai leaders, agreed to allow Shanghai to move to the financial responsibility system. Shanghai agreed to provide RMB yuan 10,500 million to the Centre annually. This gave Shanghai an additional RMB yuan 1,400 million per year. While helpful, this was not a huge amount considering that it would only fund one kilometre of an underground rail transit system. The contract between the central government and Shanghai provided for no changes over a five-year period. Thus, the central government and Shanghai will negotiate in 1993 for the arrangements which will begin in 1994.

Despite the agreement between Shanghai and the central government for no change over five years, in 1992 the central government asked for a RMB yuan 400 million ‘contribution’. Shanghai’s ‘contribution’ was less than Guangdong’s RMB yuan 1,000 million ‘contribution’, but Shanghai pays much higher amounts to the centre. The central government also ‘borrows’ funds from the provinces to cover its deficits. The central government ‘borrows’ these funds in face-to-face talks with provincial officials. Although the central government promises to repay the debts when it obtains more funds, the provincial authorities clearly realise the funds will not be returned. They dare not, however, reject the centre’s requests. In early 1993, Mayor Huang Ju revealed that Shanghai forwards about 80 per cent of its tax revenues to the centre.33 This is less than the 86.8 per cent Shanghai gave the centre in 1950–83, but still only provided Shanghai with an extra RMB yuan 2,229 million in 1992.34 Furthermore, Mayor Huang Ju expects the situation to continue unchanged for the next few years.35

Field research in Shanghai does not suggest Shanghai people wish to separate from China. Rather, they wish Beijing would show more concern for Shanghai’s problems. Shanghai people have considerable confidence in their own abilities. Despite its wealth, Shanghai still faces many problems. The poor infrastructure and housing lowers the living standard of many residents.

Source: Goodman, David S. G.; Segal, Gerald. "Shanghai and the Lower Yangzi Valley". China Deconstructs : Politics, Trade and Regionalism. pgs 244-253. London ; New York Routledge, 2002.

This is why China is so afraid of federalism. Yangzi Valley, the two adjacent provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang and the municipality of Shanghai with a total population of 100 million amount to 70% of China's national coffers.

[holyman]

ala, no one is pointing fingers at shanghai, its good that things are improving but it'll be better if it's done on practical basis rather than making certain ppl on top looked smart. if u hav been to n korea u will know, they have beautiful streets and buildings esp those places opened for foreigners, but their people are dying of hunger everyday... i dont mean china is that bad, but i am pretty sure the extra money could be put into better use.

anyway ur data is 12 yrs back. guangdong seems to be the no.2 taxpayer for quite a few yrs already.

[Jack MacKelly]

Take Kosuke Takahashi's word

this is who was reported to have won the link between Beijing and Shanghai

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=4&id=288217

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=4&id=288217&display=all

over 90 commets and messages

[39degN]

haha, Mr. ala, 果然不出所料, you are always so predictable, as for you, doing something unexpected to ppl here is mission impossible.

first of all, Mr. know it all, it's "of shanghai", not "in shanghai".

Second, if you really wanna talk about the GDP, let me put things this way. No sour grape here, it really means nothing to me.

Shanghai's economy is "policy economy", things took place in shanghai may not be authorized in other cities. For example, some other cities want to build a deep water port for years, no result.

上海世博会投资预计将会达到300亿元人民币, 根据中国政府向国际展览局的承诺，中国政府将向部分参展有困难的发展中国家和需要提供帮助的国家，提供总额约１亿美元的参展援助。 <这个国家里还有哪个地方的项目国家是这么往里面砸钱的？相信这每国一亿美圆是不会划到你们的财政拨款里的，因为这是“中国政府的事”看见没有，当然收入就上海人民的事了。 这样的糊涂账比比皆是。>

Shanghai recent economy development is partly based on construction of hardware, such as transportation system and real estate. as every one knows, it caused bubble. Investing huge money on these(sure most of them from national banks, state owned enterprise, and fake private enterprises, and national finance badgets,some from real private investement are because of the owners themself are policy speculators) , and creating a huge amount of job opportunities, and getting more tax, it made a full circle of money running, seems booming, but it's not real development, and dangers. if your GDP is 160 Billion, 120Billion belong to this circle, it doesn't make sense, except a number game.

meanwhile those may attract more investors, achieve the goal of real development, but never forget that things above based on some privilege, never complaint your gov again, because their autarchy and incline policy helps to your city's economy.

Hope this wouldn't burst your bubble and hurt your sensitive and tender heart.

By the way, name calling and swearing are really kid play.

[holyman]

well....nothing to be proud about when the technology is foreign.

hmm... sometimes its for other purposes, like supporting eu selling arms to china in exchange...

[Quest]

hmm... sometimes its for other purposes, like supporting eu selling arms to china in exchange...

that's a good thing, helps china's own technology.