在中國，地鐵作為城市公共交通的骨幹，承載著緩解交通擁堵、促進綠色出行的重任。然而，一個鮮為人知的事實是：在全國54個開通地鐵的城市中，僅上海和福州的地鐵公司實現盈利，其餘城市的地鐵系統普遍處於虧損狀態。這一現象背後，折射出中國城市化進程中的深層矛盾——公共服務與商業可持續性之間的艱難平衡。

一、地鐵運營的財務困境：為何普遍虧損？

地鐵作為重資產行業，其運營成本高得驚人。一條地鐵線路的建設成本動輒數百億元，而日常運營中的電力消耗、設備維護、人力開支更是持續不斷的財務黑洞。以北京地鐵為例，儘管日均客流量超過千萬人次，但票價收入僅能覆蓋運營成本的30%左右。這種"建得起、養不起"的困境，在全國地鐵城市中普遍存在。

更深層的問題在於票價機制。中國大多數城市地鐵票價維持在2-7元的低水準，遠低於國際同類城市。倫敦地鐵單程票價折合人民幣約30元，香港地鐵平均票價也在10港元以上。這種低價策略固然惠民，卻使地鐵公司陷入"票價收入連電費都付不起"的窘境。2023年某二線城市地鐵的財報顯示，其電力支出占運營成本的42%，而票務收入僅夠支付這一項開支。

二、上海地鐵的盈利密碼

上海地鐵的盈利能力源於獨特的"軌道+物業"模式。早在2000年代，上海就借鑒香港經驗，將地鐵網站上蓋空間開發權授予地鐵公司。通過開發徐家匯、人民廣場等樞紐站的商業綜合體，上海申通地鐵獲得了穩定的租金收入。靜安寺站上蓋的晶品購物中心，年租金收入就超過3億元。這種"以商養鐵"的模式，使票務收入僅占上海地鐵總收入的45%，其餘來自物業開發、廣告等多元化經營。

福州地鐵的盈利則更具特殊性。作為二線城市中罕見的盈利案例，福州地鐵的秘訣在於極致的成本控制。其採用"小編組、高密度"的運營策略，列車編組僅為4節（上海為6-8節），大幅降低了車輛採購和能耗成本。同時，福州巧妙地將地鐵建設與新區開發綁定，通過土地增值收益反哺地鐵運營。這種"精打細算"的運營哲學，使其在客流量僅為日均60萬人次的情況下實現盈利。

三、其他城市的困局：補貼依賴症

相比之下，多數城市地鐵陷入"越建越虧"的怪圈。某新一線城市的地鐵年報顯示，其獲得的政府補貼已連續三年超過票務收入。這種補貼依賴帶來雙重壓力：一方面地方財政不堪重負，某省會城市每年地鐵補貼占財政支出的7%；另一方面，過度依賴補貼導致運營效率低下，部分城市地鐵的非票務收入占比不足15%。

更嚴峻的是客流培育難題。瀋陽地鐵9號線開通三年後，日均客流仍不足設計容量的30%。這種"超前建設"現象在三四線城市尤為突出，臨沂、蕪湖等城市的地鐵客流強度長期低於國家規定的盈利警戒線（每日每公里0.7萬人次）。當軌道交通變成"政績工程"，財務可持續性自然被犧牲。

四、破局之道：從公益到可持續

要打破這一困局，需要系統性改革。深圳地鐵的"軌道+TOD"模式值得借鑒，其通過前海樞紐等專案的土地作價出資，將地鐵建設成本轉化為優質資產。杭州地鐵則探索"地鐵+文旅"融合，將西湖文化元素植入網站商業，提升非票收入。更根本的是票價機制改革，成都實行的"動態票價"試點（高峰時段適度提價），在保持普惠性的同時改善了收支結構。

未來，隨著城鎮化速度放緩，地鐵建設將從規模擴張轉向精細運營。能否培育多元盈利模式，將決定更多城市地鐵能否走出"上海-福州"的孤立盈利圈。畢竟，公共交通的公益性不應等同於財務不可持續性，找到社會效益與市場規律的平衡點，才是新型城鎮化的應有之義。

In China, subways serve as the backbone of urban public transportation, playing a crucial role in alleviating traffic congestion and promoting green travel. However, an often-overlooked reality is that, among the 54 cities nationwide with operational metro systems, only those in Shanghai and Fuzhou have achieved profitability, while the rest generally operate at a loss. This phenomenon reflects a deep-seated contradiction in China’s urbanization process: the challenging balance between public service and commercial sustainability. 

Metro Operations’ Financial Predicament: Why the Widespread Losses?

Operating a metro system is a capital-intensive endeavor. The construction cost of a single metro line can reach several billion yuan, with ongoing expenses for electricity, equipment maintenance, and staffing forming a continuous financial drain. For instance, despite Beijing Metro’s daily ridership exceeding 10 million, ticket revenue covers only about 30% of operational costs. This “affordable but unsustainable” model is prevalent across China’s metro systems.

A significant issue lies in the fare structure. Most Chinese cities maintain metro fares between 2 to 7 yuan, which is considerably lower than international counterparts. For example, London’s single-journey fare is approximately 30 yuan, and Hong Kong’s average fare exceeds 10 Hong Kong dollars. While this low fare policy benefits the public, it leaves metro companies struggling to cover basic expenses, let alone infrastructure maintenance and debt servicing.

Shanghai Metro’s Profitability Model

Shanghai Metro’s profitability stems from its unique “rail + property” approach. Since the 2000s, Shanghai has emulated Hong Kong’s model by granting metro companies the rights to develop land above station sites. By developing commercial complexes above key stations like Xujiahui and People’s Square, Shanghai Shentong Metro has secured stable rental income. For instance, the Jingpin Shopping Center above Jing’an Temple Station generates over 300 million yuan in annual rent. This “commercializing the rails” strategy means that ticket revenue accounts for only 45% of Shanghai Metro’s total income, with the remainder coming from property development, advertising, and other diversified operations. 

Fuzhou Metro’s profitability is more exceptional. As a rare profitable case among second-tier cities, Fuzhou Metro’s success lies in meticulous cost control. It employs a “small train formation, high frequency” operational strategy, using 4-car trains (compared to Shanghai’s 6-8 cars), significantly reducing vehicle procurement and energy consumption costs. Additionally, Fuzhou cleverly integrates metro construction with new district development, using land value appreciation to support metro operations. This “cost-effective” operational philosophy allows it to achieve profitability with a daily ridership of only 600,000. 

The Predicament of Other Cities: Subsidy Dependency

In contrast, most cities’ metro systems are trapped in a “build and lose” cycle. For example, in a new first-tier city, government subsidies have exceeded ticket revenue for three consecutive years. This reliance on subsidies creates dual pressures: local finances are burdened, with some provincial capitals allocating 7% of fiscal expenditure to metro subsidies; at the same time, excessive dependence on subsidies leads to operational inefficiencies, with some cities’ non-fare revenue accounting for less than 15% of total income.

An even more severe issue is the challenge of cultivating passenger flow. After three years of operation, Shenyang Metro Line 9’s daily ridership still falls below 30% of its design capacity. This “overbuilding” phenomenon is particularly prominent in third- and fourth-tier cities, where metro ridership often remains below the national profitability warning line (7,000 passengers per kilometer per day). When metro construction becomes a “political achievement project,” financial sustainability is inevitably sacrificed.

Breaking the Impasse: From Public Welfare to Sustainability

To overcome this dilemma, systemic reform is necessary. Shenzhen Metro’s “rail + TOD” (Transit-Oriented Development) model is worth emulating. Through projects like the Qianhai Hub, Shenzhen converts metro construction costs into valuable assets by capitalizing on land value. Hangzhou Metro explores “metro + cultural tourism” integration, embedding West Lake cultural elements into station-area commerce to enhance non-fare revenue. More fundamentally, fare structure reform is essential. Chengdu’s “dynamic pricing” pilot (moderate fare increases during peak hours) improves the revenue structure while maintaining affordability.

Looking ahead, as urbanization slows, metro construction will shift from scale expansion to refined operations. The ability to cultivate diverse profit models will determine whether more cities’ metro systems can escape the isolated profitability circles of “Shanghai and Fuzhou.” After all, the public welfare nature of public transportation should not equate to financial unsustainability. Finding a balance between social benefits and market principles is the essence of new urbanization.