After compiling data on the current state of U.S. railways, American netizens lamented, 'This looks like a Fourth World country.' How should we evaluate America’s basic transportation infrastructure? What factors have led to this situation?

The United States is a 'nation on wheels'—for short-distance travel, virtually all Americans choose to drive. Even for long-distance trips, many Americans still opt for driving, thanks to an extensive and highly developed highway network that enables point-to-point travel, eliminating the hassles of renting cars or waiting for public transport. In addition, many people choose air travel for long-distance journeys. According to the U.S. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, there were 19,627 airports in 2018; the number has likely surpassed 20,000 in recent years (including private airports). Even very small cities often have their own airports, typically served by car rental services or other forms of public transport—whereas passenger railway stations are far fewer in number. Having lost most of its passenger market share to the aviation industry, passenger rail companies began collapsing one after another starting in the 1970s. According to 2021 statistics, U.S. airlines carried 610 million domestic passengers—accounting for 91% of total passenger volume—and had recovered to 75% of pre-pandemic levels. 2. Having lost its share of the passenger market, what portion of the freight market does rail actually hold? Data from 2020 shows that trucking accounted for 72.5% of total domestic freight tonnage. After aviation claims a small slice of the remaining 27.5%, what’s left goes to rail. Rail transport in the U.S. is primarily used for freight: in 2019, freight accounted for 65% of rail traffic, intermodal services for 28.3%, and passenger service for only 5%. Freight transported by rail mainly includes automobiles, coal, grain, as well as minerals, chemicals, timber, stone, and food.

Some preliminary thoughts on the Rizhao–Lanzhou Heavy-Haul Railway

A heavy-haul railway traversing Shanxi Province is also needed—one connecting to the Rizhao–Lanzhou heavy-haul railway at Sanmenxia or Weinan. Coal transportation demand from Shanxi is simply unavoidable. III. Anticipating objections such as 'It won’t be profitable, so why build it?', I’ve listed every conceivable criticism and addressed each one individually. Criticism #1: 'Heavy-haul railways can never compete with waterborne transport on cost, so building one is meaningless.' This logic is fundamentally flawed. Southern China built waterways because it has abundant rivers and lakes; northern China builds heavy-haul railways precisely because it lacks navigable waterways. The correct inference is not 'Waterways exist, so heavy-haul railways aren’t needed,' but rather 'No waterways exist, so heavy-haul railways are essential.' Cost-inefficiency relative to water transport isn’t a reason to avoid building heavy-haul railways—it’s precisely the reason to build them, since no cheaper alternative exists. Heavy-haul railways represent the best bulk-transport solution achievable in northern China. Moreover, 'less competitive' is relative. While heavy-haul railways are more expensive than water transport, they are significantly cheaper than road transport. Electrified railways cost about ¥0.15 per ton-kilometer, versus ¥0.30 for road transport; beyond 800 km, rail costs drop to one-third—or even one-quarter—of road costs. A single 10,000-ton heavy-haul train carries the equivalent cargo of 250 sixty-ton trucks, yet requires only two or three drivers—compared to 250 drivers for the trucks. Energy consumption is just one-fifth that of road transport, and carbon emissions only one-seventh. Over inland northern routes spanning over 2,000 km, this cost advantage is overwhelming. Criticism #2: 'Heavy-haul railways can only carry coal, making their cargo base too narrow to justify a 2,000+ km mainline.' This argument mistakes the status quo for an immutable conclusion. China’s existing heavy-haul railways do indeed carry mostly coal—but only because so far, only a few dedicated coal lines have been built. Look at the U.S.: over 70% of its freight rail trips involve 10,000-ton or heavier trains, carrying containerized industrial goods, auto parts, grain, chemicals, and construction materials. U.S. heavy-haul railways transport not only coal but virtually all bulk and semi-bulk commodities—and are globally recognized as the lowest-cost option. China’s narrow cargo base on heavy-haul lines reflects not inherent limitations of the technology, but rather insufficient line mileage, inconsistent technical standards, and an underdeveloped network. If northern China establishes a comprehensive heavy-haul mainline network, it can readily accommodate diversified freight demands. This proposal’s corridor already features: imported iron ore from Rizhao Port; construction materials and trade logistics from Linyi; river-transshipment cargo from Jining; industrial goods distribution from Zhengzhou; raw materials for equipment manufacturing from Luoyang; return-cargo from China–Europe freight trains in Xi’an; nonferrous metals from Jinchang; and steel plus new-energy equipment from Jiuquan—a fully integrated, multi-dimensional cargo structure encompassing bulk commodities, industrial goods, containers, and minerals—far surpassing coal-only transport. Criticism #3: 'A ¥200 billion investment is too expensive—it’ll never pay off.' First, consider the big picture. The Haoji Railway—1,813.5 km long—cost ¥200 billion. By March 2026, its cumulative freight volume had exceeded 500 million tons; per-ton freight rates were reduced by ¥12–¥18 compared to traditional modes. Assuming an annual throughput of 100 million tons, downstream enterprises save over ¥1.5 billion annually in logistics costs. The Daqin Railway handles 450 million tons annually; the Shuohuang Railway, 371 million tons; and the Wari Railway surpassed 100 million tons in 2023—all operating profitably, with none running at a loss. Now consider the numbers for this proposal: Of the 2,600 km route, roughly 1,000 km can be upgraded from existing lines; only about 1,600 km require new construction or major reconstruction.

North American Weekly Chemical Rail Traffic Strengthens YoY

Oct 17, 2026

North American weekly chemical rail traffic strengthened year-over-year during the week ended Oct. 10, according to new Association of American Railroads data. The trend tracks historical patterns while showing increased volume compared to last year.

chemweek

2026-05-02

Vital stats: Friday, May 1, 2026

2026-05-09

Vital Stats: Friday, May 8, 2026

2026-05-15

North America Weekly Chemical Rail Stabilizes Below March Peak

2026-05-21

North America Weekly Chemical Rail Shows Signs of Softening

2026-05-23

North American Chemical Rail Traffic Softens Slightly