為什么中國的客運鐵路系統(tǒng)比美國的先進得多？
Why is the passenger rail system in China much more advanced than the one in the U.S.?
譯文簡介
建設(shè)高鐵網(wǎng)絡(luò)更多的是為了協(xié)調(diào)，而不是為了解決任何潛在的技術(shù)問題：
正文翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：阿煌看什么 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
圖
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
Building high-speed rail networks is more about coordination than any sort of underlying technology issues:
* The software and signaling systems used to coordinate hundreds of trains in a rail network are less sophisticated than systems used to coordinate the thousands of planes that are flying in the air at any given moment.
* The technology to accelerate a passenger train using electricity to over 200 mph has been around for a long time. But to do it safely means building very straight tracks.
* The largest cost item in most high-speed rail projects is a result of the need to cut these straight lines through populated areas. Reducing land acquisition costs is all about coordination with local communities along the right-of-way.
* Providing a good transit experience for commuters is about reducing intermodal friction costs. In other words, making the hand-off from long-haul inter-city rail to local transit networks (bus, subway, auto) as seamless as possible. Once again, this involves coordination between state and local officials.
Thus, the decision to invest a massive amount of effort and coordinate resources is really a question of economics: Do the incremental economic benefits of going through this coordination exercise outweigh the costs? And to put it bluntly, the economics of high-speed rail work in China and they don’t work as well in the U.S.
This could change in the future with technology advancements in related areas (e.g. autonomous vehicle technology, proliferation of electric vehicles) but under the current situation, this is the reality that prevails.
In the United States, it costs a lot to build high-speed rail[2]:
* It is expensive and time-consuming to acquire land — that is the price you pay for strong property rights.
* Construction costs are high — that’s the price you pay for being an advanced economy with developed safety laws and regulations.
* Topography may also play a role, depending on the region.
* Cost is not just about money, it is time as well. Authorities are projecting Phase I of the California HSR project to be completed in 2033. Because it takes so long to complete, you have to contend with the double-whammy of delaying the benefits well into the future while dealing with living next to a construction zone for many, many years.
Assuming you can overcome these obstacles and get the rail network built, you then need to contend with the risk of low capacity utilization or ridership:
* Population density is relatively low and even in developed areas, families seem to favor living in low-density “suburban sprawl” type development. Train station design is very different in high-density vs. low-density environments. For example, the amount of space dedicated to parking is significantly higher in suburban environments vs. urban environments.
* The most heavily trafficked and populated corridors in the U.S. are point-to-point vs. web-like networks. Think San Francisco to Los Angeles or Boston to Washington, D.C. Furthermore, the heavily populated coastal regions are separated from each other by thousands of miles of relatively sparsely populated interior. The time savings of high-speed rail tend to get overtaken by air travel around the 400 to 500-mile mark — this is why it doesn’t make much sense to build high-speed rail in Australia either[3].
* Transportation alternatives are well-developed. The incremental time and convenience benefit of HSR in many situations is not that much better than the alternative.
Some of these factors can be solved by time and technology advancement. For example, construction techniques may improve so that it becomes easier to lay track. The country has strong demographics and robust inbound immigration and population density is rising faster than other advanced economies.
But some things are structural in nature: Strong property rights and labor laws are good characteristics that should not be materially changed, in my view.
In China, it is inexpensive to build high-speed rail:
* Land acquisition is easy under China’s authoritarian system. In China, land is ultimately owned by the State and individuals only own “l(fā)and use rights”. For everyday situations, this is not unlike property ownership but if the government needs your land, you have fewer protections — you may get some form of compensation but probably nothing compared to what you would get if you owned the property outright. Your ability to hold up the process will be limited.
* Construction costs are low — China has a large blue-collar labor pool and can leverage economies of scale — like a massive beam-launching machine that was invented for the sole purpose of laying high-speed rail track[4].
* Topography is fairly mild in the places Chinese people have historically tended to congregate and live. This means fewer expensive bridges and tunnels that need to be built (even then, China has still had to build a massive number of these).
* China can move fast. In the time it is projected to build out the 800-km line from San Francisco to Los Angeles, China is planning to complete an entire “8x8” high-speed rail network totaling over 30,000 kilometers that connects nearly every major Chinese city to the grid[5]. Typical lines are completed and operational within 4–5 years of initial planning. In other words, Chinese are able to realize the economic benefits of their construction efforts much, much sooner.
Once Chinese high-speed rail lines were built, they were heavily utilized:
* Population density is high, especially if you exclude two-thirds of the country out west in areas that are mostly desert and mountains and thus, sparsely populated[6].
* Chinese urban development tended to develop in a more web-like design. Web-like rail networks tend to be used more intensively, as it allows for incremental transit traffic to supplement traditional point-to-point traffic. For example, as you can see (if you squint) in the map below, Changsha has become a major transit center as it carries both North-South traffic (Guangzhou to Wuhan) and East-West traffic (to Shanghai).
* Transportation alternatives are less well-developed in still-developing China[7]. For one, fewer people own their own cars. Fewer people can afford air travel. So the cost-value proposition of high-speed rail over the closest long-haul options (e.g. bus, regular trains) is superior in many cases.
* Intermodal friction costs are lower in China. In almost every instance, high-speed rail, local metro and local bus stations are all in the same place. I will note the huge contrast in my first experience taking a Chinese high-speed train and switching to the subway in Nanjing[8] with the experience I have trying to transfer from the NYC Subway to the Airtrain to John F. Kennedy Airport.
Since high-speed rail made economic sense in China — which we are starting to see in the financials of the main company involved in running these networks[9] — it made sense to build a lot of high-speed rail lines and absorb all of the related technologies and know-how that are required to implement it efficiently. People and companies learn through repetition[10] and so it should be entirely unsurprising that Chinese firms developed core capabilities in building and implementing high-speed rail networks.
The net result of these structural differences is that usage of passenger rail (all types, including non-HSR) in China is around 21x that of the United States (1,346 billion[11] passenger-km compared to 63 billion[12]). Adjusting for population, use of passenger rail is still 5x more prent.
I would love to see high-speed rail happen in the U.S. but it has to make economic sense. We have to remember that resources are limited, and allocating resources to one area has an opportunity cost.
For example, perhaps a better use of economic resources is figuring out autonomous driving technology or taking the lead on electric vehicle technology — both of which could solve some of the issues of low-density suburban sprawl.
Perhaps once we solve autonomous driving and/or shift to a more sustainable energy strategy (solar/battery + electric vehicles), the economics of high-speed rail change such that it becomes an attractive option at that point.
And maybe it is not even technology-related change that impacts the economics of high-speed rail. For example, there seems to be a growing trend to live in walkable (i.e. “higher density”) neighborhoods instead of traditional “suburban sprawl” type environments. But these changes happen gradually and take many decades to really play out.
Once the economics of high-speed rail make sense where we can deploy high-speed rail networks at scale, figuring out how to build it will be easy. The underlying technology isn’t rocket science. I have faith we can figure it out out after a few reps.
So just because high-speed rail doesn’t make economic sense today does not mean that it won’t in the future.
在中國投資
建設(shè)高鐵網(wǎng)絡(luò)更多的是為了協(xié)調(diào)，而不是為了解決任何潛在的技術(shù)問題：
* 用于協(xié)調(diào)鐵路網(wǎng)中數(shù)百列車的軟件和信號系統(tǒng)，不如用于協(xié)調(diào)任何時間在空中飛行的數(shù)千架飛機的系統(tǒng)復(fù)雜。
* 利用電力將列車加速到每小時200英里以上的技術(shù)已經(jīng)存在很長時間了。但為了安全起見，這意味著要建造非常直的軌道。
* 在大多數(shù)高鐵項目中，成本最高的項目是需要橫穿人口密集地區(qū)的直線鐵路。降低土地購置成本完全取決于與沿線的當?shù)厣鐓^(qū)進行協(xié)調(diào)。
* 為通勤者提供良好的交通體驗是為了減少多式聯(lián)運的摩擦成本。換句話說，就是使長途城際鐵路與地方交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)(公共汽車、地鐵、汽車)盡可能無縫切換。這又一次涉及到國家和地方官員之間的協(xié)調(diào)。因此，投入大量精力和協(xié)調(diào)資源的決定，實際上是一個經(jīng)濟學問題：通過這種協(xié)調(diào)工作，增加的經(jīng)濟效益是否超過成本？坦率地說，中國高鐵的經(jīng)濟效益很好，而美國卻不太好。
未來，隨著相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的技術(shù)進步(如無人機技術(shù)、電動汽車的普及) ，這種情況可能會發(fā)生改變，但在當前形勢下，這是一個普遍存在的現(xiàn)實。
在美國，修建高鐵的成本很高：
* 購置土地既昂貴又費時——這是你為強有力的產(chǎn)權(quán)，所付出的代價。
* 建造成本高昂——這是發(fā)達經(jīng)濟體擁有成熟的安全法律法規(guī)，所付出的代價。
* 視地區(qū)而定，地形也可能會有一定的影響。
* 成本不只是在金錢方面，還有時間。當局預(yù)計加州高鐵項目的第一階段將于2033年完工。 由于這項工程需要很長時間才能完成，你不得不面對雙重打擊，一方面要把高鐵帶來的福利延遲到未來，另一方面又要在一個建筑工地附近生活很多很多年。
假設(shè)你能克服這些障礙并建成鐵路網(wǎng)絡(luò)，那么你就需要面對產(chǎn)能利用率或客流量低的風險：
* 美國人口密度較低，即使在發(fā)達地區(qū)，家庭似乎也傾向于生活在低密度的地區(qū)，“郊區(qū)蔓延”式正在發(fā)展中?；疖囌镜脑O(shè)計在高密度和低密度的環(huán)境中是非常不同的。例如，在郊區(qū)環(huán)境中專門用于停車的空間明顯大于城市環(huán)境。
* 美國交通最繁忙、人口最密集的走廊是點對點和網(wǎng)絡(luò)的形式。想想從舊金山到洛杉磯，或者從波士頓到華盛頓特區(qū)。此外，人口密集的沿海地區(qū)與相對人口稀少的內(nèi)陸地區(qū)，相隔了數(shù)千英里。 在400到500英里的范圍內(nèi)，高速鐵路節(jié)省的時間比不上航空旅行的時間，這就是為什么在澳大利亞修建高速鐵路也沒有多大意義的原因。
* 美國各種交通工具發(fā)展良好。在許多情況下，高鐵節(jié)省的時間和便利性并不比其他交通工具好多少。其中一些因素可以通過時間和技術(shù)的進步來解決。例如，施工技術(shù)可以得到改進，使鋪設(shè)軌道變得更加容易。中國擁有強大的人口結(jié)構(gòu)、強勁的入境移民和人口密度的增長速度快于其它發(fā)達經(jīng)濟體。但是有些事情是結(jié)構(gòu)性的：在我看來，強有力的產(chǎn)權(quán)和勞動法是積極的特征，不應(yīng)該有實質(zhì)性的改變。
在中國，修建高鐵并不昂貴：
* 在中國的威權(quán)體制下，征地很容易。在中國，土地歸國家所有，個人只擁有“土地使用權(quán)”。 在日常情況下，這與財產(chǎn)所有權(quán)沒什么不同，但如果政府需要你的土地，你得到的保護就少了——你可能會得到某種形式的補償，但與你完全擁有這些財產(chǎn)相比，可能什么都得不到。
* 建造成本低。中國擁有龐大的藍領(lǐng)勞動力資源，可以發(fā)揮規(guī)模經(jīng)濟效益，就像發(fā)明了一臺巨大的梁式起重機，專門用于鋪設(shè)高速鐵路軌道。
* 中國人歷來喜歡聚集和生活地形溫和的地方。這意味著需要修建的昂貴橋梁和隧道將會減少(即便如此，中國仍然不得不修建大量這樣的橋梁和隧道)。
* 中國可以迅速行動。按照計劃，在美國修建從舊金山到洛杉磯的800公里高鐵線路的同時，中國正計劃完成一個總長度超過3萬公里的“8x8”高鐵網(wǎng)絡(luò)，該網(wǎng)絡(luò)幾乎將中國所有主要城市與電網(wǎng)連接起來。典型的鐵路線在最初規(guī)劃的4-5年內(nèi)就能完工并投入運營。換句話說，中國人能夠更快地認識到他們的建設(shè)努力帶來的經(jīng)濟效益。
中國的高鐵線路一旦建成，就得到了廣泛的利用：
* 中國人口密度很高，特別是如果你把國家西部三分之二的地區(qū)排除在外，這些地區(qū)大部分是沙漠和山區(qū)，因此人口稀少。
* 中國城市發(fā)展趨向網(wǎng)狀設(shè)計。類似網(wǎng)絡(luò)的鐵路網(wǎng)往往使用得更加頻繁，因為它允許增加過境交通，以補充傳統(tǒng)的點對點交通。例如，你可以在地圖上看到(如果你瞇著眼睛仔細看的話) ，長沙已經(jīng)成為一個主要的中轉(zhuǎn)中心，因為它承載著南北交通(廣州至武漢)和東西交通(至上海)。
* 在仍處于發(fā)展階段的中國，交通工具的替代品還不夠發(fā)達。首先，擁有自己汽車的人較少。能夠負擔得起飛機旅行的人也少。因此，在許多情況下，高速鐵路的成本價值優(yōu)于其他長途運輸選擇(例如公共汽車、普通火車)。
* 中國的多式聯(lián)運成本較低。在幾乎所有的情況下，高速鐵路、當?shù)氐罔F和當?shù)毓卉囌径荚谕粋€地方。我記得我第一次乘坐中國的高速列車在南京轉(zhuǎn)乘地鐵的經(jīng)歷，與我試圖從紐約地鐵轉(zhuǎn)乘飛機列車到肯尼迪機場的經(jīng)歷之間存在巨大的反差。
由于高鐵在中國具有經(jīng)濟意義(我們開始從運營這些鐵路網(wǎng)的主要公司的財務(wù)狀況中看到了這一點) ，因此建設(shè)大量高鐵線路、吸收高效實施所需的所有相關(guān)技術(shù)和經(jīng)驗是有意義的。個人和公司通過學習，因此中國公司在建設(shè)高速鐵路網(wǎng)絡(luò)方面，發(fā)展出核心能力，也就不足為奇了。
這些結(jié)構(gòu)性差異的最終結(jié)果是，中國客運鐵路(包括非高鐵)的使用量約為美國的21倍?？紤]到人口因素，客運鐵路的使用仍然是普通鐵路的5倍。
我很樂意看到高速鐵路在美國建成，但它必須具有經(jīng)濟意義。我們必須記住，資源是有限的，將資源分配到某個領(lǐng)域是有成本的。例如，或許更好地利用經(jīng)濟資源來研究出自動駕駛技術(shù)，或者率先發(fā)展電動汽車技術(shù)——這兩者都可以解決一些低密度郊區(qū)擴張的問題。
也許一旦我們解決了自動駕駛或轉(zhuǎn)向更可持續(xù)的能源戰(zhàn)略(太陽能 / 電池 + 電動汽車) ，高速鐵路的經(jīng)濟性就會發(fā)生變化，從而成為一個有吸引力的選擇。
也許影響高鐵經(jīng)濟的甚至不是與技術(shù)相關(guān)的變化。例如，似乎越來越多的人選擇住在適于步行(即“高人口密度”)的社區(qū)，而不是傳統(tǒng)的“郊區(qū)蔓延”式的環(huán)境。但這些變化是逐漸發(fā)生的，需要幾十年的時間才能真正實現(xiàn)。
一旦高速鐵路的經(jīng)濟效益說得通了，我們就可以大規(guī)模地部署高速鐵路網(wǎng)絡(luò)，弄清楚如何建設(shè)它將會變得更容易?；A(chǔ)技術(shù)并不是火箭科學。我相信我們可以在實施幾次之后找到答案。
因此，僅僅因為高速鐵路在今天沒有經(jīng)濟意義，并不意味著它在未來也不會有。
You can immediately detect an American from his/her answer to this question: he/she will play down the achievement: “it’s nothing”, etc.
Laying out detailed maps of China and talk of “straight runs of track” conceals the fact that China is a big exporter of high-speed rail (along with other kinds of railway rolling stock), and competes with Japan.
The point is, some sensible Americans are wondering, too: Is having the know-how for stealth aircraft and advanced nuclear weapons enough?
It is true that their automobile-obsessed society killed the passenger train in the past (air travel also played a big role); Amtrak was formed in 1971 with government funding to have at least one long-distance passenger rail operating in the US. All the private players had walked away.
And Amtrak, even today, remains the ONLY long-distance passenger rail service connecting almost all of America.
在印度航空工作(1971-2006)
你可以從一個美國人對這個問題的回答中，馬上看出他/她的態(tài)度：他/她會貶低這項成就說著“這沒什么”等等。攤開詳細的中國地圖，談?wù)摗爸本€軌道”，這就掩蓋了一個事實，即中國是高速鐵路(以及其它類型的鐵路車輛)的出口大國，并與日本展開競爭。
關(guān)鍵是，一些明智的美國人也在思考：擁有隱形飛機和先進核武器的技術(shù)就足夠了嗎？
的確，他們這個癡迷汽車的社會在過去扼殺了客運列車(航空旅行也發(fā)揮了很大作用) ; 美國鐵路公司(Amtrak)成立于1971年，由政府資助，在美國至少運營一條長途客運鐵路。所有的私人公司都離開了。
即使在今天，美國鐵路公司仍然是連接美國幾乎所有地區(qū)的唯一長途客運鐵路服務(wù)。既然鐵路旅行如此不受重視，誰會投資高鐵呢？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Because in the USA everyone has access to a car, and there is no need for an antiquated concept like Railroad. In China only 64 out of 1000 own a car. They need to put up with the inconvenience of rail travel, long trips just going to the stations, waiting in crowded terminals and trains, and emerging at your final station still many miles from your actual destination.
It doesn’t matter how fast or efficient you make the forgotten old choo choo move, no one in America wants to ride the crappy transportation system that their great grandfather abandoned when he got his first car in the 1920’s.
Why would anyone in America want to go back to choo choo trains. No one in China would willingly ride those crowded trains if they could simply drive door to door like an American can.
美國空軍士官，教師，司機 & 現(xiàn)已退休
因為在美國，每個人都使用汽車，不需要像鐵路這樣過時的概念。在中國，每1000人中只有64人擁有汽車。他們需要忍受鐵路旅行帶來的不便，長途旅行只能去車站，在擁擠的終點站和火車上等待，在離你真正的目的地還有許多英里。
不管你把這種被遺忘的老式火車開得多快多高效，在美國沒有人愿意乘坐他們的老古董，在20世紀20年代美國得到了第一輛汽車時，就拋棄了蹩腳的交通系統(tǒng)。
為什么美國人會想回到火車上。如果中國人可以像美國人那樣每家每戶都有汽車，沒有人會愿意乘坐那些擁擠的火車。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I think that it’s from differences in political will. Looking at construction of high-speed-rail and urban-rail lines over the last half-century, I find that it is very patchy. In US urban rail, some cities built new lines a few decades before similar-sized neighboring cities did.I think that it is largely due to the capital expense of construction. Good high-speed lines are expensive. The necessity of acquiring land may also be a factor, since high-speed lines have to be very straight.
As to why the US might be lacking the necessary political will, I can only speculate. Despite a lot of talk about high-speed trains, the most that the US has to show for it is the Northeast Corridor and the first stages of a line in California. I think that part of the problem is Republicans disliking something that Democrats like, something very evident after the 2010 elections. But recent passenger-rail developments in Florida and Texas suggests that there may be ways of making high-speed trains ideologically acceptable to Republicans.
康奈爾大學天文學博士(1988)
我認為這是因為政治意愿的不同。回顧過去半個世紀高速鐵路和城市軌道交通線的建設(shè)，我發(fā)現(xiàn)它們非常零散。在美國城市軌道交通方面，一些城市比規(guī)模相當?shù)泥徑鞘性鐜资杲ㄔ炝诵碌木€路。我認為主要是由于建設(shè)的資本費用。好的高速鐵路價格昂貴。獲取必要的土地也可能是一個因素，因為高速鐵路必須非常直。
至于美國為何缺乏必要的政治意愿，我只能推測。盡管有很多關(guān)于高速列車的討論，但美國展示的最多的是東北走廊和加利福尼亞州一條線路的第一階段。我認為部分問題在于共和黨人不喜歡民主黨人喜歡的東西，這在2010年大選后非常明顯。 但最近佛羅里達州和德克薩斯州的客運鐵路發(fā)展表明，可能有辦法讓高鐵在意識形態(tài)上為共和黨所接受。
China and the USA are almost the exact same size geographically at 3.7 million square miles.
The HUGE issue is the distribution of the respective populations. The USA has 2 coasts - China one. Look at the two maps below of the respective distribution of population.
Where are the less dense areas? Chinas western provinces. Their rail service does NOT serve that area. Look at the US. Our less dense population is right smack dab in the middle of the country.
To connect our two coasts involves MASSIVE land acquisition that China does not have to deal with.
To answer your question directly and simply - COST.
會計與計算機科學，圣母大學1981年
中國和美國在領(lǐng)土面積上幾乎是一樣大的，有370萬平方英里。
最大的問題是各自人口的分布。美國有兩個海岸——中國有一個。中國西部省份是密度較小的區(qū)域。他們的鐵路并不服務(wù)那個地區(qū)?？纯疵绹?，我們?nèi)丝谳^少的地區(qū)恰好位于這個國家的中部。
這兩者有很大的不同。 連接我們兩個海岸需要大量征用土地，而中國不必處理這些問題。
直接而簡單地回答你的問題——成本。
Andy Duffell , Armourer, engineer?軍械工程師
The question should really be asking why, amongst other wealthy developed nations, does the US neglect it''''s railways so badly? That''''s a fair question, the state of the railways is pretty poor in the US. Outside of a few spots in the northeast US railways are way behind what''''s seen overseas. Technology is old, there''''s little appetite for improvement and generally the whole thing looks like a mid-20th century railway.
Part of the problem is low population density in much of the country, but even on the west and east coast progress is slow. Incentivisation from federal or state government is weak or non-existant, and as a result programmes are unambitious. Investing in rail infrastructure may not be sexy, but it does pay off. More centrally-planned economies seem to get that, the US, not so much.
把中國單獨挑出來說它特別好，是很奇怪的。歐洲其他許多國家也有廣泛的高速網(wǎng)絡(luò)。
我們真正應(yīng)該問的問題是，為什么在其他富裕的發(fā)達國家中，美國如此嚴重地忽視了它的鐵路？ 這是一個公平的問題，美國的鐵路狀況相當糟糕。除了美國東北部的一些鐵路點，其他地方的鐵路遠遠落后于國外。技術(shù)已經(jīng)過時，沒有改進的欲望，所有的看起來就像20世紀中期的鐵路。
部分原因是美國大部分地區(qū)人口密度低，即使在西部和東部沿海地區(qū)，進展也很緩慢。 來自聯(lián)邦或州政府的激勵措施很少，或根本不存在，因此各項計劃也就沒有什么雄心壯志。投資鐵路基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施可能并不吸引人，但它確實帶來了回報。中央計劃經(jīng)濟國家似乎更明白這一點，而美國則不明白。
Passenger rail is pretty inefficient anywhere. It’s usually less efficient than cars or buses for short trips, and it’s almost always less efficient than airplanes for long trips.
HSR fans will swear up and down that this isn’t true, but the numbers don’t lie. HSR cannot operate profitably without heavy government subsidy after financing charges are taken into account. It’s an extraordinarily capital intensive option.
However the higher the population density is the closer it comes to effectiveness. Outside of the NorthEast Corridor, America has incredibly low population density. Rail is just a dumb proposal for the rest of the country. The cost doesn’t come close to meeting the potential usage of it. Passenger rail is really a technology that was obsolete by the 1950s with the development of the interstate highway system and jet powered airliners.
China has areas with much higher population density, and so HSR comes closer to operating efficiently.
However the main difference is that China is an autocratic country with a command economy that has no concern for profitability or efficiency.
China’s rail “works” because it is built by the government who is happy to lose 130 billion per year subsidizing it. Rail subsidies - Wikipedia That sort of subsidy is not a good sign that you have a viable efficient plan.
任何地方的客運鐵路效率都相當?shù)?。短途旅行的效率通常低于汽車或公共汽車，長途旅行的效率幾乎都低于飛機。高鐵粉絲們會發(fā)誓這不是真的，但是數(shù)據(jù)不會說謊?？紤]到融資費用后，如果沒有大量的政府補貼，高鐵就無法盈利。這是一個非常資本密集型的選擇。
然而，人口密度越高，效果會更好。在美國東北走廊以外，人口密度低得令人難以置信。對于全國其他地方來說，鐵路是一個愚蠢的提議。成本遠遠不能滿足它的潛在用途。20世紀50年代，隨著州際公路系統(tǒng)和噴氣式客機的發(fā)展，客運鐵路實際上已經(jīng)過時了。
中國有一些人口密度高得多的地區(qū)，因此高鐵更能相對高效運營。
然而，主要的區(qū)別在于，中國是一個專制國家，實行計劃經(jīng)濟，不關(guān)心盈利或效率。
中國的鐵路之所以“有效” ，是因為它是由政府建設(shè)的，政府樂于每年為此補貼1300億美元。這種補貼不是表明你有可行的高效率計劃的一個好跡象。
Because they can basically make a decision to start infrastructure projects without being blocked by an opposing party, provincial government or their own citizens. When Obama tried to build it in America you Florida and Ohio turned down the money to spite Obama.
China can also take property much easier than you can in the US and I think they actually compensate property owners will above market rate. They obviously don''''t spend as much time on environmental reviews. They don''''t have any issues with frivolous lawsuits in their infrastracture projects (Maryland Purple Line and Beverly Hills Metro Rail subway)。
But the most important reason is that China made it National Effort. They invested hundreds of billions hell it''''ll probably be trillions before it''''s over. They put their money where their mouth is. If you see my post I will criticize the hell out of China . But they actually made a national effort to invest in HSR. From inviting Japanese, French, and German corporations to build (and agreeing to tech transfer) or planning lines all across their entire country. They made it a priority that''''s, why they are better and they are pretty good at building infrastructure too.
The last thing I''''ll say is the old population density thing. China is incredibly densely populated on its East Coast so that''''s makes it easier. But forget that California will soon have 40 million people, The midwest maybe has 65 million, Texas will soon have 30 million, The, eastern seaboard has over 100 million, a few states in the south could be lixed to the midwest, Texas, or East Coast and there you have HSR for 250 million people.This is why China will beat us because in these sectors we don''''t even compete.
因為他們基本上可以決定何時啟動基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項目，而不會受到反對黨、州政府或自己公民的阻撓。當奧巴馬試圖在美國建立高鐵的時候，你們佛羅里達州和俄亥俄州拒絕了這筆錢，來刁難奧巴馬。
中國也可以比美國更容易得到土地，我認為他們實際上補償業(yè)主的損失將高于市場價格。他們顯然不會花那么多時間在環(huán)境評估上。在他們的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項目中，他們沒有任何瑣碎的訴訟問題。
但最重要的原因是中國付出了舉國上下的努力。他們投資了數(shù)千億美元，在完成之前可能是數(shù)萬億美元，他們言出必行。如果你看到我的帖子，我曾批評中國。但是他們實際上為高鐵的投資舉全國之力做出了的努力。從邀請日本、法國和德國公司建設(shè)(并同意技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓)或規(guī)劃他們整個國家的所有線路。他們優(yōu)先考慮這個問題，這就是為什么他們做得更好，他們也非常擅長基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)。
我要說的最后一件事是人口密度問題。中國東海岸的人口密度高得令人難以置信，所以這樣做更容易。但是別忘了加利福尼亞很快就會有4000萬人口，中西部可能有6500萬，德克薩斯州很快就會有3000萬，美國東岸有超過1億的人口，南部的一些州可以連接到中西部，德克薩斯州，或者東海岸，在那里高鐵可以服務(wù)2.5億人口。這就是為什么中國會打敗我們，因為在這些領(lǐng)域我們甚至沒有競爭力。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Because the US is currently not interested in investing in its people and their futures. From health care to education to infrastructure. The US currently sees that spending as socialism yadda yadda. So the US is currently stewing in its own ignorance as it slips backwards on all development index criteria. Life expectancy is falling and so are standards and international indexes in education, freedom, happiness and opportunity. The US once had reason to claim to be the greatest country in the world but those days are a long time gone. They don''''t look like returning any time soon either with the current political situation. Neither side of the divide can accomplish anything ambitious or life changing for its people. They see the defeat of political opponents as more important than making progress to catch up with the rest of the developed world on the many issues they have been left behind.
因為美國目前對投資本國人民和他們的未來不感興趣。 從醫(yī)療保健到教育再到基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。 美國目前認為這些類型的支出，是社會主義之類的東西。因此，美國目前正為自己的無知而煩惱，因為它在所有發(fā)展指數(shù)標準上都出現(xiàn)了倒退。預(yù)期壽命正在下降，教育、自由、幸福和機會方面的標準和國際指數(shù)也在下降。美國曾經(jīng)有理由宣稱自己是世界上最偉大的國家，但那些日子已經(jīng)一去不復(fù)返了。在目前的政治形勢下，他們看起來也不會很快回到正軌。帶有分歧的任何一方都不能為人民實現(xiàn)任何雄心壯志或改變生活的目標。他們認為擊敗政治對手，比在許多問題上趕上其他發(fā)達國家更為重要。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Because most people here have cars, and our infrastructure is designed to reflect that.
Has nothing to do with being good at it and everything to do with the overall design we’re shooting for. You get people out of their cars and into trains and you’re crippling a huge portion of the US economy that revolves around people in cars stopping for food or gas.
In contrast, the primary method of transportation in China for most of the 20th century was a bicycle. Good to zip around short distances but terrible at intercity transit. So creating a simple way to go from Beijing to Shanghai was in the national interest.
We already have a simple way to go from New York to LA; airplane.
And to top it all off? Our auto industry was an absolute monolith. So much so that it owned enough of the government to essentially murder public transportation systems. They’d do crazy shit like buy the trolley company and then dismantle it overnight and leave people in cities with little choice but to buy a new Model T. That kind of thing has lasting societal impact and it’s why we have a culture of ‘you ain’t nothing if you don’t have a shiny new car’ here.
美國陸軍前裝甲兵(2003-2008)
因為這里的大多數(shù)人都有汽車，我們的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施就是為此而設(shè)計的。
這與我們是否擅長無關(guān)，而是與我們所追求的整體設(shè)計有關(guān)。你把人們從汽車里拉出來，讓他們坐上火車，這就削弱了美國經(jīng)濟的很大一部分，這部分經(jīng)濟以人們在停車后吃飯或加油為中心。
相比之下，在20世紀的大部分時間里，中國的主要交通工具是自行車。短距離的時候很好，但城際交通就很糟糕了。因此，創(chuàng)造一種從北京到上海的簡單方式符合國家利益。
從紐約到洛杉磯，我們已經(jīng)有了一條簡單的線路：飛機。
最重要的是什么呢？我們美國的汽車工業(yè)是一個龐然大物。以至于它擁有足夠多的相關(guān)政府部門，從根本上扼殺了公共交通系統(tǒng)。他們會做一些瘋狂的事情，比如買下電車公司，然后一夜之間把它拆掉，讓城市里的人別無選擇，只能買一輛新的T型車。這種事情有著持久的社會影響，這就是為什么我們有這樣一種文化，“如果你沒有一輛锃亮的新車，你就什么也不是”。
USA (and Canada) have governments that would rather have each and every citizen spend tons of their own money buying private vehicles, repairing/maintaining/replacing them, paying for petrol, and paying for mandatory vehicle insurance and licensing than develop good public transportation systems that can transport people to places reliably, frequently, efficiently, and affordably, as is the case in Asian countries like Korea, Japan, and China.
This dependence on private transportation results in extra pollution, oil dependence, sprawl, traffic jams, increased rates of obesity, and prohibitively expensive barriers to entry for those who want to start working (but don’t yet have a personal vehicle or can’t afford all the associated costs of using one).
On the plus side, people don’t need to depend on the government if they can afford not to. If the government is doing a shitty job of giving people trans-city and trans-state/provincial means of transport (as most North American cities have been doing), driving is less expensive than it is in places where there is excellent public transit.
In Canada, I drove because it was a necessary evil. That’s because although each city has its own bus system, the buses are unreliable (most bus routes only see a bus come once every 45 minutes, and they are prone to arriving early and late), don’t go to where any jobs are, don’t operate early or late enough, and are too damned expensive.
In Asia, I save so much money because I don’t need a vehicle. Public transit is super reliable, frequent, affordable, and much safer than driving. I am subsidizing the networks with the taxes I pay, but unlike North American governments, the taxes are actually being put to good use instead of wasted on welfare programs and pointless make-work jobs.
在中國各地工作了幾年
美國(和加拿大)的政府寧愿讓每個公民花費大量的錢購買私家車，然后修理 / 維護 / 更換它們，支付油錢，支付強制性車輛保險和許可證費用，而不是發(fā)展良好的公共交通系統(tǒng)，能夠可靠、頻繁、高效、經(jīng)濟地將人們運送到各地，就像韓國、日本和中國這樣的亞洲國家。
這種對私人交通工具的依賴導(dǎo)致了額外的污染、對石油的依賴、無序擴張、交通堵塞、肥胖率上升，以及對那些想要開始工作(但尚未擁有私家車或無法承擔私家車的所有相關(guān)費用)的人來說，昂貴的門檻令人望而卻步。
從好的方面來說，如果人們能夠承受壓力不依賴政府。如果政府在為人們提供跨城和跨州 / 省級交通工具方面做得很糟糕(就像大多數(shù)北美城市那樣)，那么開車的成本就要低于那些公共交通條件優(yōu)越的地方。
在加拿大，我開車是因為這是一種無奈的舉措。因為，盡管加拿大每個城市都有自己的公交系統(tǒng)，但公交車并不可靠(大多數(shù)公交路線每45分鐘才能看到一輛公交車開來，而且公交車很容易早到晚到)，去不了工作的地方，而且太貴了。
在亞洲，我存了很多錢，因為我不需要汽車。公共交通超級可靠，頻繁，負擔得起，而且比開車安全得多。我用我繳納的稅款補貼網(wǎng)絡(luò)，但與北美政府不同的是，在亞洲這些稅款實際上被用在了正確的用途上，而不是浪費在福利項目和毫無意義的東西上。
Deepak Bhimaraju , New immigrant to Canada加拿大移民
The real comparison should be between China and India. India has a pretty consistent population density as well as a demand for better public transport. I do not think any technology used in a bullet train is impossible to build in India either.
As public transport is a usually a money losing business, the will power is lacking in both the public and private sectors. It is to be seen who will bite the bullet and take the first step.
由于社會行為的巨大差異(比如，美國的個人主義和中國的集體主義) ，以及人口密度的差異，這是一個蘋果和橙子的比較。
真正的比較應(yīng)該是中國和印度之間。印度的人口密度相當穩(wěn)定，同時也需要更好的公共交通。我也不認為印度建造不了任何子彈頭列車的技術(shù)。
由于公共交通通常是一項賠錢的生意，公共和私營部門都缺乏意志力。誰愿意咬緊牙關(guān)邁出第一步，這是可以看出來的。
to start with all of china is government land so there is not the price jacking that occurs in america whne deciding where rail goes
Next the chinese government is capable of running a rail business profitably where the american government doesn’t want to be involved in running a busiuness
Lastly it is a culture problem, in that americans are in love with the idea of owning a car and polluting the environment where the chinese have to be some where fast and high speed rail beats cars hands down
Japan is running high speed rail profitably as is France and Italy
澳大利亞皇家空軍前機械運輸裝配工(1962-1973)
首先，整個中國都是政府土地，所以不會像美國那樣決定鐵路的走向時，價格上漲。
然后，中國有能力在美國政府不想?yún)⑴c經(jīng)營的領(lǐng)域，經(jīng)營一家有利可圖的鐵路企業(yè)。
最后，這是一個文化問題，因為美國人熱衷于擁有一輛汽車并污染環(huán)境，而中國人必須在快速和高速的鐵路上擊敗汽車。日本、法國、意大利也一樣，正在運營高速鐵路并且都盈利。
Why are high-speed trains working well in China but not in the US?
Because of the popularity of personal vehicles, the US is ideologically committed to a 19th century railroad system powered by 1950’s technology.
為什么高鐵在中國發(fā)展良好，而在美國卻不行？
由于美國私家車的流行，美國在意識形態(tài)上，致力于建設(shè)用上世紀50年代技術(shù)為動力的19世紀鐵路系統(tǒng)。
Besides the population density, most US rail crossings are level crossings, so the rail is not electrified. Increasing speed would replace all those crossings which is too expensive.
That being said, there is no extraordinary hardship for US to build commute railways around big cities, or a higher speed railway on the Eastern seaboard. The problem is that the commuter railway is still too slow. (and it charges no less than Chinese HSR)
The fastest train route in US: DC->New York->Boston, is on par with Chinese T level express train, slower than the HSR of Japan, France and China.
就職于印第安納大學-普渡大學印第安納波利斯分校
除了人口密度，大多數(shù)美國鐵路交叉口是平交道口，所以鐵路沒有通電。提高速度的話，將取代所有那些交叉口，過于昂貴。
話雖如此，對于美國來說，在大城市周圍修建通勤鐵路或者在美國東岸修建高速鐵路并沒有什么特別的困難。問題是通勤鐵路仍然太慢。(它的收費不低于中國的高鐵)
美國最快的列車線路：華盛頓——紐約——波士頓，與中國的T級特快列車相當，比日本、法國和中國的高鐵慢。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
It''''s not that we can''''t, but more that we don''''t want to. America has a staunch anti government stance that tends to impede too many major interstate developments. Many Americans own automobiles, unlike in China. Couple that with the interests of the car manufacturing, petroleum industries, the airlines, and the constant financial drain of Amtrak.
不是我們不能，而是我們不想這樣做。 美國有一個堅定的反政府立場，往往會阻礙發(fā)展。與中國不同，許多美國人擁有汽車。再加上汽車制造業(yè)、石油工業(yè)、航空公司的利益，以及美國鐵路公司不斷的資金流失。
How would you know whether the US is “good at” building high-speed rail systems, when it hasn’t actually built any yet? I’m sure that, if we ever actually decided to build any true high-speed rail, we could do it as well as anyone else.
理工大學計算機科學學士(1991)
你怎么知道美國是否“擅長”建設(shè)高鐵系統(tǒng)，而實際上它還沒有建設(shè)任何高鐵系統(tǒng)呢？ 我相信，如果我們真的決定建造任何真正的高速鐵路，我們可以做得和其他人一樣好。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Same reason they can build the three gorges dam. They can tell people what to do. In the US every time someone wants to do something a bunch of people protest and sue to stop it. New Highways, not in my neighborhood. New pipeline ,not through the wilderness.
People here want progress but they only want it if it’s convenient for them. In China they don’t care about people’s feelings they just say so and it is done.
同樣的原因，中國可以建造長江三峽水利樞紐工程。他們可以告訴人們該做什么。而在美國，每當有人想做某件事時，一群人就會抗議并起訴以阻止這件事。新高速公路，不能穿過我家附近。 新的管道，不能穿越荒野。
這里的人們想要進步，但只有對他們來說方便的時候他們才想要。在中國，他們不在意人們的感受，他們只是說出來，然后就做了。