“China vs US is no contest. Beijing–Nanjing 1,018 km, HSR 3 h 14 min at 350 km/h. SF–LA is shorter yet takes 5–6 hours by car. California HSR only reaches Merced–Bakersfield by 2032, full SF–LA maybe 2050.”
Classic selective framing.
They compare pure HSR station-to-station
时政
(
twitter.com
)
“China vs US is no contest. Beijing–Nanjing 1,018 km, HSR 3 h 14 min at 350 km/h. SF–LA is shorter yet takes 5–6 hours by car. California HSR only reaches Merced–Bakersfield by 2032, full SF–LA maybe 2050.”
Classic selective framing.
They compare pure HSR station-to-station time with US door-to-door car (or implied flight hassle). Do the same for China and the picture changes:
• Beijing–Nanjing HSR second class is typically 443–550 yuan for 3.5–4.5 hours point-to-point.
• Discounted flights on the same route frequently go for 210–400 yuan (with fees often ~280–500). Air time is ~1.75–2 hours.
Chinese travel sites repeatedly note that mid-week or off-peak flights undercut HSR, sometimes by a large margin. A round-trip flight can cost less than one-way HSR.
• Door-to-door for a Chinese flight still includes airport transfers (often 1+ hour each side), security, and boarding—but often than not, these posters doesn’t really talk about the hassle of riding HSR as they have to go through the same security checks comparable
China’s HSR network is large and fast on core corridors. It is also debt-heavy (railway group liabilities in the trillions of yuan), with most lines unprofitable and some stations underused.
Treating point-to-point HSR speed as proof of overall superiority while ignoring cost, utilization, and the existence of cheaper flights on the exact same route is the propaganda pattern, not a rigorous comparison.
点击图片查看原图
