On the evening of November 4, after the National Assembly (NA) session, the NA’s Economic Committee convened for its 20th session to review the investment proposal for the North-South high-speed rail project.

Reflecting on global experiences, the committee’s Vice Chairman Nguyen Minh Son noted that, while high-speed rail contributes broadly to economic growth, most lines operating at 320–350 km/h struggle with operational profitability.

Several representatives emphasized that profitability is not a primary consideration for this project, given its strategic significance. Yet, with limited state resources allocated to major national projects, the high-speed rail initiative requires a firm commitment to see it through comprehensively.

The committee reached a consensus on the project’s necessity, scale, and high-speed design, highlighting the critical issue of funding and public debt safety. Although the project differs significantly from its previous iteration, the source of financing remains a major concern, as it did 14 years ago.

Back in 2010, Vietnam’s National Assembly held an unprecedented vote on the $56 billion high-speed rail proposal, which had a mixed response: 37% supported, 41% opposed, and the rest abstained. At that time, Vietnam’s GDP was only about $105 billion, sparking widespread debate on whether the economy could support such an investment and who would benefit from high ticket prices.

Former NA’s Economic Committee Deputy Chair Nguyen Van Phuc recalls that the National Assembly’s primary concerns centered on the economy’s capacity to shoulder the $56 billion project and whether the public would gain sufficient value from it.

Under the leadership of National Assembly Chairman Nguyen Phu Trong, three rounds of internal consultation with members, experts, and the public ultimately led to the decision to hold off on the project, opting instead for a cautious, democratic approach that won public support.

Some members of the government at that time now express regret, suggesting that starting with smaller sections, such as Hanoi–Nghe An or Ho Chi Minh City–Nha Trang, might have made approval easier. Had such incremental steps been taken, the full North-South line might already be operational today.

Instead, the last 14 years have seen the construction of several alternative North-South transport routes, including the 3,000-kilometer coastal road, the upgraded National Highway 1A, a 2,000-kilometer expressway, and the 3,000-kilometer Ho Chi Minh Highway, reflecting Vietnam’s substantial infrastructure investment in other areas.

Today, the high-speed rail proposal has strong political backing and a renewed commitment to seeing it completed. The Politburo recently concluded that the project has strategic economic, political, social, defense, and international integration significance, describing it as a national symbol. The current plan proposes a public investment model for a 350 km/h passenger railway with dual-use capacity for defense and emergency freight needs.

However, critical questions remain: Which technology should be used? Where will the required $5.6 billion in annual funding come from? How can private domestic investment be attracted if this is to be a fully state-funded project? And how will operational costs be managed if the line, like most high-speed rail lines globally, isn’t profitable?

In the spirit of moving forward, the focus will not be on whether to proceed, but on determining the most feasible approach.

Tư Giang