【下】人們說中國可以快速建設高速鐵路,而美國甚至還不能建設,是因為中國的勞動力很便宜。請問這是主要原因嗎?
2019-11-05 大司空 14456
原文地址
原文地址:https://www.quora.com/
正文翻譯
原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯:大司空 轉載請注明出處

龍騰有類似文章,但本文都是最新回答,且保證為原創翻譯,請知悉!


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

8.Harinder Jadwani
The main reason is the super rich in the US who make key decisions don’t want it. They are wedded to fossil fuel to the point that they have buried a virtual scientific consensus that the planet is facing catastrophe from global warming.

主要原因是美國的超級富豪做出了并不想擁有它的關鍵決策。他們執著于使用化石燃料,以至于他們掩蓋了一個科學共識,即地球正面臨著全球變暖的災難。

Not only that they proudly boast that the US is again the world’s largest oil and gas producer; a feat accomplished through fracking which has greatly increased the frequency and severity of earthquakes, creating a brand new problem - sinkholes - that one hardly heard about a couple of decades ago.

他們不僅自豪地吹噓美國再次成為全球最大的石油和天然氣生產國,而且通過水力壓裂技術實現了這一壯舉,但這些也大大增加了地震的頻率和嚴重程度,造成了一個幾十年前幾乎聞所未聞的全新問題——天坑。



-------------------------------

9.Roger Williams,現居美國(1972年至今)
No. The big reason is that the Chinese government not only loves big, enormously expensive infrastructure projects, it loves to build them even when there’s no actual demand for some of it. What’s more, in a top heavy political system like China’s, there’s no messy state or local laws that get in the way of what Beijing wants in some other province.

不是。最主要的原因是,中國政府不僅熱愛龐大、耗資巨大的基礎設施項目,甚至在一些項目沒有實際需求的情況下,也熱衷于建設這些項目。更重要的是,在中國這樣一個頭重腳輕的政治體系中,沒有任何凌亂的州法或地方法律可以阻擋中央在其他省份想要實現的目標。

There is nothing so complex about building high speed trains that somehow baffles Americans. Labor is expensive here, but the US government is perfectly capable of throwing astounding sums of money at projects if it really wants to, as well as any nation in the world.

建造高鐵并沒有什么復雜的技術,不至于讓美國人感到困惑。美國的勞動力是昂貴的,但是如果它真的想建造高鐵的話,美國政府也完全有能力在項目上投入驚人的資金,就像世界上任何一個國家一樣。

The US doesn’t have high speed rail because there’s really only one, fairly small part of the country with enough passenger train traffic to justify the cost: a rail corridor of the northeast connecting Boston to Washington DC. The biggest obstacle has nothing to do with what a lot of the people here seem to think. There’s no conspiracy, the reasons are more practical: true high speed trains require true high speed rails to move them on. To build them in the northeast corridor, you would either have to replace the existing rails (not going to happen) or make an enormous number of eminent domain seizures in some very densely populated places to get the land to lay down rail. This was hard enough to do when the interstate highways were being built, to try and do this solely for the purpose of having an American shinkansen type train. It’s just not worth it in the big picture.

美國沒有高速鐵路,因為實際上只有一個相當小的地區有足夠的客流量來支付成本:那就是東北部連接波士頓和華盛頓特區的鐵路線。最大的障礙與這里許多人的想法無關。沒有什么陰謀,原因其實更實際:真正的高速列車需要真正的高速鐵路才能運行。要在東北鐵路線運行它們,你要么必須更換現有的鐵路(這是不可能的),要么在一些人口稠密的地方征用大量土地來鋪設新鐵路。而這在州際高速公路建設的時候就已經被證明是很難做到的了。僅僅為了擁有一輛美國新干線類型的火車而去嘗試和做這件事。從大局來看,是不值得的。

Even California doesn’t have a population density that can justify the economics of high speed rail. That didn’t stop them from spending a fortune on it anyway, but that’s another story.

甚至加州的人口密度也不足以讓高速鐵路產生經濟效益。這并沒有阻止他們在這上面花一大筆錢,但那是另外一回事了。

-------------------------------

10.Aaron Lowe
No, it’s not the main reason, and I’m sure others will answer this much better than me, but here’s my two cents that might corroborate other answers:

不,這不是主要原因,我相信其他人會比我更好地回答這個問題,但是我的兩點意見可能會證實其他的答案:



The West do this a lot. Claiming that theirs is the best in the world, where in truth, what they mean is, the best in the West. They often make the working assumption that the world is only made up of the West and nothing else outside it exists. The perfect Solipsists bubble.

西方國家經常這樣做。聲稱他們的產品是世界上最好的,事實上,他們的意思是在西方是最好的。他們經常做出這樣的假設:世界只是由西方組成的,除此之外沒有其他存在的東西。完美的唯我主義泡沫。

China dug a tunnel over 1000km long from a water reserve to Beijing. Big enough to also support two smaller service tunnels with rails. I’ve seen it and to my eye it looks as big (not length) as the Euro Tunnel from the UK to France. And that set of three tunnels only serves 1/3rd of Beijing’s current water needs, so they need to build another two. Very few people even know these exist because the Chinese government sees no need to boast about it. They just did it without anyone noticing.

中國挖掘了一條長達1000多公里的從一個水源地到通往北京的隧道。非常大,還有兩條較小的帶鐵軌的服務型隧道。我見過它,在我看來,它看起來像從英國到法國的歐洲隧道一樣大(不是長度)。而且這三條隧道只能滿足北京目前三分之一的用水需求,所以他們還需要再建兩條。很少有人知道它們的存在,因為中國政府認為沒有必要吹噓它們。他們只是在沒有人注意的情況下做了這件事。

-------------------------------

11.Adam Perrone
The US can’t build a large network of high speed rail because most of our cities are too small and too far apart.

美國無法建設一個龐大的高鐵網絡,因為我們的大多數城市都太小,距離太遠。

Beijing is a city of 21 million people. 60 miles away is Tianjin, a city of 15 million people. 230 miles south is Jinan, a city of 7 million people. 200 miles further south is Xushou, a cit of 8.5 million people. 130 further south is Bengbu, a city of 3 million people. Another 130 miles south in Nanjing, a city of 8 million. And then another 190 miles west in Shanghei, a city of 26 million.

北京是一個擁有2100萬人口的城市。60英里外是天津,一個擁有1500萬人口的城市。往南230英里是濟南,一個擁有700萬人口的城市。再往南200英里是徐州,人口850萬。再往南130英里就是蚌埠,一座擁有300萬人口的城市。另一個130英里以南就是南京,一個800萬人口的城市。再往西190英里就是上海,一個擁有2600萬人口的城市。

So with a total track length of about 950 miles you can connect upwards of 90 million people.

因此,在總長度約為950英里的軌道上,你可以連接超過9000萬人。

Track length is expense: the longer the distance, the more expensive. Population is revenue. The more population, the more revenue.

軌道長度和成本成正比:距離越長,成本就越高。而人口就是收入。人口越多,收入就越多。

The problem with the US should be obvious: Boston to Washington DC is about 450 miles and along the route you’d be connecting only about 17 million people. China has 3 times the population per mile of track. That’s 3 times the revenue potential per mile of expense. And, Boston to Washington DC is one of the only places in the entire country that can possibly connect that many people in that short a distance.

美國的問題是顯而易見的:從波士頓到華盛頓特區大約有450英里,沿著這條線路你只能連接大約1700萬人。中國每英里鐵路的人口是美國的3倍。潛在收入也會是美國的3倍。而且,波士頓到華盛頓特區是美國唯一一個可以連接那么多人的線路。

So, essentially, our best opportunity of high speed rail is limited to one spot in the entire country that’s still only 1/3 rd as promising as just one route among many you could possibly create in China.

因此,從本質上講,我們建設高鐵的最佳位置僅限于全國范圍內的這一條線路,而這個線路的收入仍然只有中國許多可能建設的線路中的一條的1/3。

-------------------------------

12.Yao Zhan
No, it is because of a lack of government and public will power.

不,這是因為美國缺乏政府和公眾意愿的力量。

As an example, let me illustrate it with a story about American aircraft carriers.

,讓我用一個關于美國航空母艦的故事作為一個例子來說明。



-------------------------------

13.Vince Gregory
People seem to ignore the actual reason why China''s high speed is more developed than the US:China has a blank canvas to work with. The US does not.

人們似乎忽視了中國高鐵比美國更發達的真正原因:那就是中國有一塊空白的畫布可以利用。而美國不行。

The us already has a rail system that services both passenger and commercial rail of various types. The rail system in the US is already being used for multiple things. Everything from cars, oil/gas, to consumer goods are travel by rail. Any change has a cascading effect across the country and across industries.

美國已經有了一個鐵路系統,為客運和各種類型的商業運輸提供服務。美國的鐵路系統已經被用于多種用途。從汽車、石油/天然氣到消費品,一切都是通過鐵路運輸。任何變化都會在全國各行各業產生連鎖反應。

Unless you plan on kicking people out of their houses to widen the rail network and build a modern system next to the old, the current system will have to be torn up. This would cause disruption across the country.

除非你打算把人們趕出家門,擴大鐵路網絡,在舊鐵路旁建設一個現代化的鐵路系統,否則現有的鐵路系統將不得不被拆除。這將在全國范圍內造成混亂。

It can be done surely the US has the capability, but considering most americans have a car and most of those who don''t live on the east coast where public transportation can get you pretty much anywhere you want, no companies want to spend money on an upgraded system.

美國當然有能力做到這一點,但考慮到大多數美國人都有車,而且大多數人不住在東海岸,那里的公共交通基本上可以讓你去任何你想去的地方,沒有公司愿意花錢升級系統。

Personally,If they can manage 200+mph for the duration of the trip, high speed rail, although slower, who be a more comfortable and affordable experience.

就我個人而言,如果他們能夠在整個行程中保持200多英里/小時的時速,那么高速鐵路雖然速度較慢,但卻是一種更加舒適和負擔得起的體驗。

When I was in Japan I absolutely loved the bullet trains. Even the coach class was leagues above the best seating on Amtrak. US rail could get million more people on trains if they only realized the potential.

當我在日本的時候,我非常喜歡子彈頭列車。甚至連車廂都比美國鐵路公司最好的座位高出好幾個檔次。如果美國鐵路公司能夠認識到這一潛力的話,他們可以讓更多的人乘坐火車。

-------------------------------

14.Alan Williams
One day the west (read USA) will stop and think about how China has made massive improvements in everything, end result, massive numbers of Chinese now have a quite good quality of life.

總有一天,西方(也就是美國)會停下來思考中國是如何在所有的領域都取得巨大進步的,大量的中國人現在擁有了相當好的生活質量。

The Chinese were always good engineers and have become even better, they are also good at planning and organizing, and they have a long-term big picture approach to economics and infrastructure development.

中國人一直是優秀的工程師,他們甚至在變得更加優秀,他們也擅長規劃和組織,他們對經濟和基礎設施發展有著長期的宏觀視角。

It made me laugh a few months ago a US lady asked a question ‘Can you buy canned foods in China?’ (she was afraid to eat any fresh food because she was convinced she would die), and she also asked ‘can you nowadays buy can openers in China?’ Such arrogance and ignorance.

幾個月前,一位美國女士問了我一個問題:你能在中國買到罐頭食品嗎(她不敢吃任何新鮮食物,因為她確信自己吃了會死),她還問“現在你能在中國買開罐器嗎?”多么的傲慢和無知。

-------------------------------



This means that a high-speed rail network in China immediately benefits from the “network effect”. The number of riders available in a Chinese network is vastly greater than that in the United States. This lowers the cost per ride by an order of magnitude, as well as reducing empty trips, which incur a cost while returning no income. Add to this that there is already an efficient network of highways connecting American cities, and an efficient air travel network, and the incentive to create high speed rail is even further diminished.

這意味著中國的高鐵網絡可以立即受益于“網絡效應”。中國網絡的乘客數量遠遠超過美國。這樣就將每次運行的成本降低了一個數量級,同時也減少了空車次數,因為空車次數會增加成本,而且不會帶來任何收入。除此之外,連接美國各城市的高速公路網絡和高效的航空網絡已經形成,建設高速鐵路的動力進一步減弱。

The other salient difference is the distrubution of the population. In China, many very large urban centers are concentrated in a relatively small land area. In the United States, although the population is increasingly concentrated in urban areas, those urban areas are separated by vast distances. This makes air travel more efficient than any form of rail.

另一個明顯的區別是人口的分布。在中國,許多非常大的城市中心集中在一個相對較小的土地面積。在美國,雖然人口越來越集中在城市地區,但這些城市地區相距甚遠。這使得空中旅行比任何形式的鐵路都更有效率。

The answer, therefore, is not that the United States cannot build high-speed rail comparable to that in China: it is that there is no economic reason to do so.

因此,答案不是美國不能建設與中國相當的高鐵:而是沒有經濟上的理由這樣做。

-------------------------------

16.Morgan Folland
When it comes to making virtually everything, China has a significant advantage due to lower labor costs than the US and Europe.

在幾乎所有產品的生產方面,中國都具有顯著的優勢,因為中國的勞動力成本低于美國和歐洲。

Is it only about labor? No. Cost of land acquisition is lower in China. Environmental review is easier to complete. People have much less power so a train between two major cities does not need to travel out of its way to some small town to get an elected official on board with the project.

僅僅是勞動力成本嗎?不是。中國的土地征用成本較低。環境審查更容易完成。人們擁有的權力要小得多,所以兩個主要城市之間的火車不需要特地去某個小鎮請求一個當地官員的同意。

But labor is king.

但是勞動力才是王道。

A report for the World Bank in 2014 estimated that the cost of high speed rail per kilometer was US$17–21 million in China. For Europe, the estimate was US$25–39 million per kilometer. What was the cost estimate for California? US$52 million per kilometer. This estimate excludes cost of land acquisition, rolling stock (the trains themselves), and interest incurred during construction. Building a rail line in the US is almost three times more expensive than in China. Again, this is ignoring the more difficult and expensive process to acquire land outside of China.

世界銀行2014年的一份報告估算,中國每公里高速鐵路的成本為1700萬至2100萬美元。對歐洲高鐵的成本的估算是每公里2500萬至3900萬美元。對加利福尼亞高鐵的成本的估算是多少?每公里5200萬美元。這個估算不包括土地收購成本,鐵路車輛(火車本身),以及在建設過程中發生的利息。在美國修建鐵路的成本幾乎是中國的三倍。同樣,這也忽略了在中國以外獲得土地更加困難和昂貴的因素。

China’s top down approach saves money and labor. Where high speed rail in the US is a number of unrelated projects using different technologies, China’s project takes a top down approach. The entirety of high speed rail can thus be standardized.

中國的自上而下的方式節省了金錢和勞動力。在美國,高鐵是一系列使用不同技術的互不相關的項目,而中國的項目則采取了自上而下的方式。因此,整個高速鐵路可以標準化建造。

This is not to say that other factors do not help China’s lower costs. It is much cheaper to take someone from their home in China and put them somewhere else. A person who holds out sale in the US or Europe must be properly compensated after a likely legal battle. China does not have that worry. However, these benefits are very small. Even with comparable costs in these areas, China would have significant advantage over US and Europe when it comes to major transportation projects.

這并不是說其他因素不能幫助中國來降低成本。讓一個人從他在中國的家里遷移到別的地方也要便宜得多。在美國或歐洲拒絕出售房產和地產的人,在可能發生的法律糾紛之后,必須得到適當的補償。而在中國沒有這種擔憂。然而這些優勢所起到的作用是非常小的。即使在這些領域的成本差不多,中國在大型交通項目上也會比美國和歐洲有明顯的優勢。

-------------------------------

17.Robin Matthews
low labour costs are one reason. When the UK was a developing country in the 1800s we built a lot of railways. We had the capital and we had cheap labour - a bit like china today. China also doesn’t worry too much about health & safety - which adds significant costs to projects - in china worker’s work long shifts - workers will work through the night if necessary - and if a worker gets injured then he can be compensated cheaply and it’s unlikely to hit the newspapers. In the US none of that would be true.

低廉的勞動力成本是其中一個原因。19世紀英國還是個發展中國家的時候,我們也修建了很多鐵路。我們當時有資本,也有廉價勞動力,有點像今天的中國。中國也不用太擔心健康和安全問題,這些會給項目增加巨大的成本。中國工人會長時間倒班工作,如果必要的話,甚至可以通宵工作。如果工人受傷了,他只可以得到廉價的補償,而且不太可能上報紙。在美國,這些都無法實現。



China has one distinct advantage when it comes to constructing railways: government authority. Technically, no Chinese citizen owns real estate in China, since the country, being Communist, sees land as belonging to the people (i.e. the state) and not to individual landowners. Thus, the government owns the titles to the land, which it then leases to individual citizens for a certain number of decades. This also means that, though the government couldn’t necessarily just come in and take swaths of land, it faces far less red tape than a country with private ownership laws such as the United States.

在鐵路建設方面,中國有一個明顯的優勢:那就是政府權威。從技術上講,沒有中國公民在中國擁有房地產,因為中國是一個共產主義國家,認為土地屬于人民(即國家),而不是個人土地所有者。因此,政府擁有土地所有權,然后將土地租賃給個人公民,租期為幾十年。這也意味著,盡管政府不一定會隨便直接拿走大片土地,但它需要的程序肯定遠遠少于像美國這樣有私有制法律的國家。

The United States federal government and state governments can forcibly take land from individual landowners (i.e. “eminent domain”), but with several caveats. One, the government has to pay the landowner a reasonable sum for the land. Two, it has to prove in court that its reasons for taking the land are in the public interests (e.g. a new highway to ease traffic). And three, it has to provide any residents of the land/buildings taken with alternative residences and adequate time to move. This whole process is not unique to the U.S., of course. China also has corresponding legal procedures, but eminent domain laws are much stricter and stiffer in the U.S. This makes massive infrastructure projects such as railways quite a legal headache, despite having good engineering and the economic rationale behind it.

美國聯邦政府和州政府可以強行從個別土地所有者手中征用土地(即“征用權”),但有幾點需要注意。第一,政府必須為土地所有者支付一筆合理的數額。第二,須向法庭證明其征用土地的理由符合公眾利益(例如興建新公路以疏導交通)。第三,它必須為所占用土地/建筑物的居民提供替代住所和足夠的搬遷時間。當然,這整個過程并不是美國獨有的。中國也有相應的法律程序,但是征用權法律在美國要嚴格得多。這使得像鐵路這樣的大型基礎設施項目在法律上相當頭疼,這些項目有良好的工程設計和背后的經濟原理。

That said, China’s emphasis on railways does not stem solely on advantages. If anything, China’s railway boom was a solution to a problem: strictly regulated airspace. The Chinese government restricts private airlines to specific routes and times in its airspace, which contributes to the country’s relatively high rate of flight delays and low supply of flights for willing fliers. Thus, the country had no choice but to invest in high-speed passenger trains to connect faraway cities across its vast land. After all, China is the third-largest country in terms of land area, so it needs its trains to be as fast as possible.

盡管如此,中國對鐵路的重視并不僅僅源于其優勢。如果說有什么區別的話,那就是中國鐵路的繁榮發展解決了一個問題:嚴格管制的空域。中國政府限制民營航空公司在其領空的具體航線和時間,這導致了中國航班的延誤率相對較高,愿意乘坐飛機的人也相對較少。因此,中國別無選擇,只能投資建設高速客運列車,穿越廣闊的土地,連接遙遠的城市。畢竟,中國是土地面積第三大的國家,所以它需要火車盡可能快。

Meanwhile, the U.S.’s airspace is relatively open to airlines. This means domestic flights are relatively cheaper, relatively abundant, and relatively common. This is key because conventional flying is much faster than any high-speed bullet train and just about as comfortable and convenient. So, flying beat rail as the preferred mode of transportation across long-distances. Because of this, there’s simply little demand, desire, or need to build a vast network of fast passenger trains.

與此同時,美國的領空對航空公司相對開放。這意味著國內航班相對便宜,班次也相對充足。最關鍵的是,常規的飛行也要比任何高速子彈頭列車都要快得多,而且幾乎一樣舒適和方便。因此,飛機取代了鐵路成為首選的長途運輸方式。正因為如此,建設一個龐大的快速客運網絡的愿望和需求都變得微乎其微。

Now, contrary to common belief among non-Americans, the U.S. is not completely devoid of railroads. There are plenty railroads criss-crossing the nation. The only difference is that these railroads are used almost exclusively to transport cargo. Flying itty-bitty humans is not hard, considering you can fit hundreds of humans on a single plane, but when it comes to cargo, especially cargo such as oil, coal, or lumber, planes just don’t cut it. So, the railroads are mostly reserved to transport cargo, keeping passenger trains off to avoid causing unnecessary traffic.

與非美國人的普遍看法相反,美國并非完全沒有鐵路。這個國家有許多縱橫交錯的鐵路。唯一的區別是,這些鐵路幾乎完全用于運輸貨物。你可以在一架飛機上搭載數百名乘客,但當涉及到貨物,尤其是像石油、煤炭或木材這樣的貨物時,飛機就不行了。因此,鐵路大部分是用來運輸貨物的,這樣就可以避免客運列車進站,以免造成不必要的交通堵塞。

So, China’s success in rail is great, and bullet trains are sexy. But one shouldn’t assume that China’s impressive progress in rail development and construction and the U.S.’s lack thereof is solely because of China’s superiority.

因此中國在鐵路方面的成就是偉大的,而且子彈頭列車也很漂亮。但是我們不應該認為中國在鐵路發展和建設方面取得了令人矚目的進步,美國在這方面的不足僅僅是因為中國有在這方面的優勢罷了。

-------------------------------

19.Roberto Santocho,高級計算機安全顧問(1995年至今)
Its not a labor cost issue

這不是勞動力成本的問題

The US has a very well developed rail system that dates back to the 19th Century

美國有一個非常發達的鐵路系統,可以追溯到19世紀

The US has been contemplating the installation of a high speed rail but one of the biggest problems, that I know of personally, is that we don''t was a high speed train zooming past our back yards. All the good pathways in the US are highly developed so you would have to run the tracks though a neighborhood or right behind it and we don''t like that. In China the government does whatever it feels like it and the people simple are pushed out of the way, it’s a huge difference in mindset.

美國一直在考慮建設高速鐵路,但據我個人所知,最大的問題之一是,我們不能讓一列高速列車從我們的后院疾馳而過。在美國,所有的道路都很好,而且高度發達,所以如果你要建高鐵,你就必須讓鐵軌穿過一個社區或者就建在它的后面,我們不喜歡這樣。而在中國,政府想做什么就做什么,而普通民眾的想法被拋到一邊,這是思維方式上的巨大差異。

In my area there was nowhere to put the high speed tracks so the high speed trains had to run on the old tracks for traditional trains. This is true for so many miles of track that we essentially would not receive any benefit from having a high speed rail so most people n my area voted against it

在我所在的地區,沒有地方可以鋪設高速鐵軌,所以高速列車不得不在舊鐵軌上運行,以滿足傳統列車的需要。說真的,要鋪設這么多英里的鐵軌,而且我們基本上不會從高速鐵路中得到任何好處,所以我所在地區的大多數人都投了反對票

The US has a massive, well developed and well maintained InterState highway system that the trucking industry has taken advantage of to push the use of trucks for transportation instead of using freight trains, so the average person just don''t have the rail system on their mind

美國有一個龐大的、發達的、維護良好的州際公路系統,卡車運輸業已經利用這個優勢來推動使用卡車運輸,而不是貨運列車,所以普通人根本沒有考慮這個鐵路系統。

-------------------------------



-------------------------------

21.Sukhvarsh Jerath,北達科他大學土木工程學院名譽教授(1985-2019)
The discussion has gone off track. U.S. is the most suitable country to build high speed rail. it is a vast country so the distances are long, plus it is high tech country with lot of knowledge in the field. Then why U.S. is not in the high speed rail business? It is the same reason as is for not having good public transportation. U.S. has some form of democracy but really speaking the control of decision making in the Government is in the hands of corporations. I have heard this a lot that auto companies did not allow our country to develop rail transportation. I have a feeling, now the airplane companies may be influencing not to have high speed rail. Unfortunately, airplane is not suitable as a mass transit. It is politics than any other reason.

一些討論偏離了正軌。美國是最適合建設高速鐵路的國家。這是一個幅員遼闊的國家,人們之間的距離很遠,再加上它是一個高科技國家,在這個領域有很多知識。那么,為什么美國不建設高鐵呢?這和沒有良好的公共交通是一樣的道理。美國有某種形式的民主,但實際上,政府決策的控制權掌握在企業手中。我聽說很多汽車公司不允許我們國家發展鐵路運輸。我有一種感覺,現在飛機制造公司可能也在對高鐵建設進行阻撓。遺憾的是,飛機不適合作為公共交通工具。所以不建設高鐵是因為政治,而不是其他的任何原因。

-------------------------------

22.Ron Ih,網絡安全業務發展處處長(2016年至今)
I havent gone through all the responses, but the political system is also a big factor.

我還沒有看過所有的答案,但政治體制也是一個重要因素。

*Anytime* a major construction project happens in the the US, there are environmental studies, lawsuits, counter-suits, etc. It can take a decade and tens of millions of dollars just to get through all the legal red tape.

*任何時候*美國要開展重大建設項目,都會有環境研究、訴訟、反訴訟等步驟。僅僅是要完成所有的法律手續,就可能需要花費十年時間和數千萬美元。

China is not a democracy. If the central government wants to build a rail line and your house is in the way. You''re outa there. You have no say. “We built you a new house several miles away. You have two months to leave. Good day.”

中國不是一個mz國家。如果政府想要修建一條鐵路,而你的房子擋在中間。你要搬走。你沒有發言權。“我們在幾英里外給你建了一座新房子。你還有兩個月的時間搬家。再見。”

It''s far easier to build things when you don’t have to worry about asking people for permission.

當你不必擔心征求別人的許可時,建造東西就會容易得多。

-------------------------------

23.Ashley Riggs
The thing is the US government doesn’t build railroads. It’s the railroad companies who do that. Railroad companies aren’t building high speed rail in the US because it’s not profitable.

問題是美國政府沒有修建鐵路。但這是鐵路公司的事情。鐵路公司沒有在美國建設高速鐵路,因為它不能盈利。

Speed. Flying across the US is much faster than high speed rail.

論速度,坐飛機比坐高鐵要快得多。



Air travel is very reliable compared to China. The US invested a lot in air traffic control because airline companies wants reliability and capacity so they can make more money.

與中國相比,航空旅行是非常可靠的。美國在空中交通管制方面投入了大量資金,因為航空公司需要可靠性和運載力,這樣他們才能賺更多的錢。

Short distance travel is covered by cars. Medium distance travel is covered by cars, regular railroad and planes. Long distance travel is covered by planes. There’s not much room for high speed rail in the US.

短途旅行由汽車代步。中長途旅行包括乘坐汽車、普通鐵路和飛機。長途旅行由飛機承擔。在美國,高速鐵路沒有多少發展空間。

-------------------------------

24.Bill Miller
No, it''s because high speed rail is a low priority with the people. Industry knows it and sees low profits or losses in most areas. Politicians know except for small sections of areas it would be political suicide to force the enormous taxes to pay for it on their constituents.

不,這是因為高鐵在人們心目中的地位不高。工業界人士知道這一點,在大多數地區建設高鐵只有很低的利潤,甚至虧損。政治家們知道,除了一小部分地區,強迫他們的選民繳納巨額稅款無異于斷送自己的政治生涯。

It''s not because of big oil or the other stupid Green reasons mentioned in other answers. The reason is simply it doesn''t have the support of the people and the people do not want to pay the enormous taxes.

這不是因為石油或在其他答案中提到的愚蠢的綠色環保。原因很簡單,它沒有得到人民的支持,人民不想交巨額的稅。

-------------------------------

25.Leslie Smith
Not at all. The fact is the USA decided many years ago that transport was better handled by air and the all-conquering automobile. Turns out that although that was seen as the best way forward, bearing in mind rail technology at the time, it may not have been the best idea long term. While rail was seen as convenient and cost effective for transporting large and heavy loads across country passenger rail transport was virtually ignored other than in a few local areas. The last decade or so has seen a major investment in high speed rail lixs in many countries which traditionally had poor rail networks but which now connect the centres of their major cities with excellent 200+mph train services. Maybe the USA should follow in this direction and I believe there are several schemes currently underway, most of which seem to be hitting problems during construction. If the USA is to have a high speed rail network it will no doubt take a major change in thinking at Government level. However, as usual, there seem to be a number of lobby groups who are not keen to see this happen.



This is a reason for decline of a great nation. We will put blame on everybody else instead of ourselves.

這是一個偉大國家衰落的原因。我們會把責任推到別人身上,而不是自己身上。

-------------------------------

27.Bob MacKenzie
No I would say the main reason is because the people need it for a more comfortable life style and China is so big they need to be able to get around fast.

不,我認為主要原因是因為人們需要它來過上更舒適的生活,而中國太大了,他們需要能夠快速的到處走動。

The other main reason is that China does not waste tax payers money on endless wars that serves the benefit of only one percent of the population while the rest of the population is expected to pay for it and live with old worn out infrastructure.

另一個主要原因是,中國不會把納稅人的錢浪費在沒完沒了的戰爭上,這些戰爭只造福于1%的人口,而其余的人口卻要為戰爭買單,并住在破舊的基礎設施里。
收藏譯文
評論暫時關閉, 后進行查看
华彩彩票-华彩彩票平台-华彩彩票官网 极速三分快3-首页 现金购彩-首页 大发5分彩-首页 幸运快乐8-首页 幸运三分快3-首页