2019-11-05 大司空 25347
原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯:大司空 轉載請注明出處


原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯:大司空 轉載請注明出處

1.Shawn Matthew,去過幾個歐洲和亞洲國家
China’s public infrastructure is overtaking USA’s public infrastructure like a Maglev train overtaking an Amtrak train. It is not because Chinese labor is so cheap. Rather, it’s because the Chinese have an incredible work ethic. Until about a decade ago, the world underestimated China.


When China hosted the Olympics in 2008, the entire world had its jaws dropped. For a country that was still very poor compared to the USA and Europe, the Olympics was not only an immense success for China. It was China’s way of showcasing the world it’s true potential. The opening and closing ceremony acts blew all of the previous Olympics out of the water.


A century ago, the USA had some of the best infrastructure in the world. Like China today, the USA used to have a rail system and a streetcar system that was the envy of the world. It was efficient as people lived close to businesses. In the Western USA, numerous migrants from China were building railways and roads. Their performance was so quick and efficient and they were easily outpacing the Europeans as better workers. This created some racial tension and discrimination with Chinese immigrants in the USA.


In China, high-speed rail costs are less than half of that in the US with costs averaging between $15–21 million per kilometer. Why is it cheaper in China than the US? Mostly because of the tariffs and politics. Thanks to automation and better technology, manufacturing and production costs should be lower. Unfortunately, automobile and oil corporations have heavily interfered with the politics.


2.Liang Li,居住在澳大利亞(2017年至今)
Firstly when I say unique, I am not meaning except ionalism, nor meaning it superior. It is a neutral word in Chinese phrase. Secondly I am not bragging some country or belittling any others here. I worked in Europe for 2 years, worked in Australia for 1 year, and traveled over ~15 countries. I cultivated a philosophy that everything about human need to keep evolving and innovating. Thirdly, China is still a country with GDP pp ~10,000USD, far less than developed countries.


I have been working as a designer for high speed train in China for ten years.


Labor cost is a reason but not a main one. It is more about the government stratigic plan and the power and willingness to execute the plan. It is quite unique because of China system and can''t be copied in other countries. I can list some more critical reasons here:


All the land can be expropriated by government if necessary with compensation to the property owners. I am not judging the pros or sins of the policy but definitely if without this power, no railway infrastructure can be done because there are always some residents don''t want to move for this or that reasons, some of which may very bizzar or selfish. In some extent, benefits of some individuals are sacrificed, even myself. I worked during 2013 -2018 8:00am to 9:00 pm almost everyday without overtime allowance. With this kind of sacrifice, the projects can be deployed faster and smoother. By the way, the sacrifice spirit and collective thinking is highly commended in China.


Tons of research and development investment. During 2013–2018, I designed 20 EMU and high speed projects just myself. My another colleague has done 5 more. Some of them are batch manufactured like famous “ fuxinghao”, some of them are still in prototype and may not shown to public for ever. Through those researches, massive number of engineers are cultivated and ready for new projects.


3. The development process is simpler and suppliers take infinite responsibility. List Australia for example, here if I need to fix some design, I need send to massive parties like safety, human factor, local business partner, state, Franchisee, independent reviewer, infrastructure owner, etc. Not mention the inside design team. So, every design I will get thousands of comments which I have to reply. Everyone can veto me. What is worse, if any change I made according to the comments, another loop need to be initiated and again thousands of comments flood in. It takes long, long time to make all the parties to agree. But the pros is that I don’t need to take infinite responsibility because it is agreed by everyone. In China, there are 2 or 3 consultant group to review the design, mostly it is the state and user. All the respects like performance, safety, human factor etc will be reviewed by those consultants. The process is faster and smoother but the supplier needs to take full responsibility, meaning whenever there is problem during testing, the supplier needs to revise it and fix it without additional quote or other excuses. Finally the result is like, for the first project, Australia Way takes 2 years to avoid 95% problems and then use the test to fix the remain 5%. China Way takes 1 year to avoid 90% problems and use test to fix remained 10%. So far the Australia way sound better, but, the consultant personal in China are almost fixed. They are almost the same experts for all the projects and after they get more and more experienced, the process is going faster and faster and still get bearable result. Some one may question the safety respects due to a faster process. The fact is the review quality is not depend on the time but the profession and expertise of reviewers.


4. Number of engineers. People always say China arising is due to the number of Labor. It is not precise actually. More importantly is China has huge number of engineers. one office building filled with engineers, I don''t know the exact number, maybe 1000. Yet there are tens of this engineering office building over China. During the start running of "Fuxing hao'', one company sent 200 different engineers in Beijing for after sales and emergency, I was there too. It is the dedicated, grown engineers creating the rising of China while representing the future, not only the cheap factory workers.


5. Government''s long term plan. It was initiated in 2004 and planned to 2030. Now in 2019, the plan is still being deployed in process. I say it is critical because within this blueprint, all the suppliers in the industry have the willing to plan long, like investing R&D, cultivating talents, iterating products, taking the responsibility. They don''t play short. Opportunism is the killer to a country''s future. Same to personal.



3.Matthew Hartzell,2009-2015年生活在中國
There are lots of good answers here that cover several main points already.


My answer is just an addendum to supplement those answers, since there’s one major factor that lowers the cost of high speed rail construction in China that I haven’t seen mentioned already, and that is the location of China’s high speed rail stations.


In most countries with high speed rail (e.g. Japan, France, Germany, Holland), and in the very limited high speed rail in the US (i.e. the Acela Express) or planned high speed rail in the US (i.e. California high speed rail, now effectively defunct), the stations are located in the heart of the cities they serve. In most countries with high speed rail, those high speed trains arrive and depart from the same city center train stations that for decades (or centuries) have been served by traditional rail service.

在大多數擁有高速鐵路的國家(例如日本、法國、德國、荷蘭),以及美國非常有限的高速鐵路(例如Acela Express)或美國計劃中的高速鐵路(例如加利福尼亞高速鐵路,現在實際上已經不存在了),車站都位于所服務城市的中心地帶。在大多數擁有高速鐵路的國家,這些高速列車從同一個城市中心的火車站進出,這些火車站幾十年(或幾個世紀)以來一直提供傳統的鐵路服務。

In the big cities, the remotely located high speed train stations do eventually get lixed into the city’s subway system, so people can get to them, but often times it requires a 1–2 hour subway ride to do so. It’s kind of ironic that it could take someone more time to travel 20 kilometers within the same city to get to the station than it takes to travel 400 kilometers between cities on the train.


Now, defenders of China’s decision to locate its high speed train stations far outside the cities they serve will inevitably argue that there is a method behind this madness, that this is a strategic decision. The new high speed train stations are inevitably planned as “growth poles” for new urban districts or new “development zones”. This is all well and good, and in some cases may make sense, but this strategy can only be pushed so far, and it certainly doesn’t make sense for every Chinese city and every “new district” 30 or 40 km outside the traditional city center.


There is a wealth of research in the urban economics, urban planning, and urban geography literature that tells us that there is a reason why “city centers” are where they are, and it has to do with agglomeration economies. Take New York or London for example. These two cities, two of the wealthiest in the world, have their financial capitals in the oldest developed parts of their respective urban areas (Wall Street in New York and The City of London in London). These cities have grown up and out over the centuries, but their highest value economic activity still takes place in the same location it has for ages. When governments try to create “new” central business districts from scratch, it usually doesn’t go so well. China may be an exception to that rule, but so far, in my experience having been to dozens of high speed train stations in both major and minor Chinese cities, the areas surrounding the new high speed train stations is almost always a ghost town.


By building its high speed train stations far outside its cities, China has saved billions of dollars. This has allowed China to build more kilometers of high speed rail, and serve more cities, but the tradeoff is that in each city served by high speed rail, the network and agglomeration effects of the high speed rail are diminished. If China would spend a few billion dollars more to bring its high speed rail lines into its city center, they would have huge multiplier effects on the existing economies of those cities. By locating them in the middle of nowhere, those potential multiplier effects are severely reduced.



4.Louis Vaught,土木工程學士
No, not even slightly. I’ve read a couple other answers, including one by Liang Li that’s very good, but I think they’re all missing a good deal of historical perspective that sort-of invalidates the explanations they’re trying to give.

不,完全不是。我讀過一些其他的答案,包括上面Liang Li的一個很好的答案,但是我認為他們都忽略了很多歷史的觀點,這些觀點在某種程度上否定了他們試圖給出的解釋。

Between 1870 and 1880 in the USA, 40,000 miles of railway was laid, almost doubling the size of the network:


Argentina expanded its rail network by 65% between 1900 and 1920, and expanded its passenger capacity from 18 million to 140 million riders:


The Tokaido Shinkansen in Japan was completed within 6 years of being approved:


The bottom line here is that a lot of people do crystal ball reading of a phenomenon that’s pretty murky and can have a wide variety of driving factors. It''s not that their answers are strictly wrong, it''s just that they''re too specific to the circumstances. There’s only really one thing that stays constant here:


Where there’s a will, there’s a way.



5.Xiao Yang,英文編輯(2009-至今)
China Railway No. 3 Engineering Group Corporation is laying railway tracks on Longyanghete Bridge in February 2019 , a section on the Beijing–Zhangjiakou High-Speed Railway.


A number of reasons would explain why China has enjoyed greater success building high-speed rail, while the US has failed in its efforts. American passengers can use Amtrak trains to travel to different cities by railroad, but Amtrak has earned notoriety for slow speeds, poor customer service, while train derailments do occur on a frequent basis.


Hence, few Americans are interested in taking a train. If they must travel long distance they would rather save time and fly a plane. Accordingly, there’s no real commercial need and profit-motive to construct high-speed rail in the US. Additionally, efforts to build more rail networks for train passengers would come at very high costs.


Just take a look at California, a few years ago the state government proposed and its legislature had approved building high-speed rail to connect major cities in the state. But nothing has been accomplished since the bill was signed by the state’s then-governor, Jerry Brown. And the new governor Gavin Newsom even tried to scrap the project.


California’s strategy to build hi-speed rail has turned into a massive boondoggle for the state and there’s no hope for recovery. Let’s take a closer look at Sacramento’s disastrous foray into the project. According to the latest estimates, building hi-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco would cost around US$79 billion.


So just imagine if that project was completed, how long before the State recovers costs with passengers purchasing train tickets. Due to the unpopularity of trains for Americans, it could be 100 years before there’s a full return on investment. There’s no real economic need for hi-speed rail in California or in other parts of USA unless they can cut costs and reduce delays on construction.


President Trump has lashed out at California for the project, invoking its funds in his push for money to construct a wall along the southern border.”



6.Robert Molyneux
I’m not sure if this is the entire picture.


Historically railways used a “cut and fill” approach to cut off the tops of hills and fill the intervening valleys to get the very low grades needed by the historical trains. Lots of expensive earthmoving.


I have seen videos of the special machines used by China to build viaducts across the hills and and valleys, at the very low gradients and gentle curves needed for high speed trains - which are powered by electricity, rather than by fossil fuels.


Historically railways were funded by the companies getting ownership of the rail corridor lands and using it to build new townships and valuable real estate.


I think China has recognised that using air-planes to lix its cities, relying on polluting and diminishing aviation fuel, is not a good idea in the next few decades.


It also allows for all cities to have a main terminus in the business district, rather than an airport 25 to 50 km away, for safety.


Various people have pointed out that the HSR terminals are not in the central business districts. I suggest that “for now” should be added. In other words, the rail network is expected to be followed by additional infrastructure in due course, at minimal cost.


The use of viaducts means that valuable land is not sacrificed.



7.Shawn Li,在中國出生長大。
Interestingly, among most major railways in the world history, there were all massive Chinese labors involved( Russian Trans-Siberian Railway, US transcontinental railroad, Canadian transcontinental railroad and not to mention all those long lines in south America). And since the China’s reform and open-up policy in 1978, there were also a massive labor force added into the global value chain, and hence the result of made-in-China label all over the world, and also the perception and stereotype that everything made in China is cheaper.


Labor cost is much cheaper compared to US, but it does only account a small percentage in the overall cost. It is estimated that the cost of building 1km high speed train is around 25m US dollars in China. So how does Chinese manage to lower the overall cost? I think we should attribute it to the invention and engineering effort of the Chinese engineers. They invented to use the bridges instead of acquire many pieces of land to build the high speed railway. And with this method, they can make almost all of the building blocks of the railway within factories and later assembled with a lower cost.

1956彩票-1956彩票平台-1956彩票官网 波兰好运彩-官网 极速快3-首页 纵达彩票-纵达彩票注册-纵达彩票网址 大发11选5-首页 分分11选5-首页