【下】人们说中国可以快速建设高速铁路，而美国甚至还不能建设，是因为中国的劳动力很便宜。请问这是主要原因吗？

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：大司空转载请注明出处

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.

主要原因是美国的超级富豪做出了并不想拥有它的关键决策。他们执着于使用化石燃料，以至于他们掩盖了一个科学共识，即地球正面临着全球变暖的灾难。

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.

他们不仅自豪地吹嘘美国再次成为全球最大的石油和天然气生产国，而且通过水力压裂技术实现了这一壮举，但这些也大大增加了地震的频率和严重程度，造成了一个几十年前几乎闻所未闻的全新问题——天坑。

The last thing these people want is a different technology. In fact during the 1950s the US had an excellent rail network (not high speed because it didn’t exist then) but an open conspiracy of Big Oil and the automobile industry led to official policy changes with massive highways built at public expense (the ‘US army needs to be able to travel around the US quickly to protect against those awful Commies from the USSR who can’t wait to invade us’)…..

这些人最不想要的就是全新的技术。事实上，在20世纪50年代，美国拥有出色的铁路网(不是高速铁路，因为当时还不存在)，但石油巨头和汽车工业的公开阴谋导致了官方政策的改变，通过公共支出修建了大量高速公路(他们的说法是“美国军队需要能够迅速在美国各地行进，以抵御那些迫不及待想侵略我们的可怕的苏联分子”)。

I just came back from China - not only do they have bullet trains (I took one from Shanghai to Beijing which went to 330 kms/hr or more) but they also have - in Shanghai - the world’s only ‘MagLev’ train from the city to its airport. That train has no tracks! It runs on magnetic levitation! And reached 430 kms/hour! That was developed in Germany by Siemens but local government considered it too expensive. The Chinese bought it and although right now it is only 30–40 kms - they have the vision to invest in such advanced and progressive projects. The US sadly does not.

我刚从中国回来，他们不仅有子弹头列车(我从上海乘坐子弹头列车到北京，时速可达330公里或以上)，而且在上海，他们还有世界上唯一的“磁悬浮”列车，是从上海到机场的。那列火车没有轨道！它靠磁悬浮运行！并达到430公里/小时的速度！这是西门子在德国开发的，但当地政府认为它太贵了，于是中国人买下了它。虽然现在只有30-40公里，但他们有眼光投资这些先进的、进步的项目。遗憾的是，美国没有。

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

9.Roger Williams，现居美国(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，中国政府不仅热爱庞大、耗资巨大的基础设施项目，甚至在一些项目没有实际需求的情况下，也热衷于建设这些项目。更重要的是，在中国这样一个头重脚轻的政治体系中，没有任何凌乱的州法或地方法律可以阻挡中央在其他省份想要实现的目标。

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.

建造高铁并没有什么复杂的技术，不至于让美国人感到困惑。美国的劳动力是昂贵的，但是如果它真的想建造高铁的话，美国政府也完全有能力在项目上投入惊人的资金，就像世界上任何一个国家一样。

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.

美国没有高速铁路，因为实际上只有一个相当小的地区有足够的客流量来支付成本:那就是东北部连接波士顿和华盛顿特区的铁路线。最大的障碍与这里许多人的想法无关。没有什么阴谋，原因其实更实际:真正的高速列车需要真正的高速铁路才能运行。要在东北铁路线运行它们，你要么必须更换现有的铁路(这是不可能的)，要么在一些人口稠密的地方征用大量土地来铺设新铁路。而这在州际高速公路建设的时候就已经被证明是很难做到的了。仅仅为了拥有一辆美国新干线类型的火车而去尝试和做这件事。从大局来看，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让高速铁路产生经济效益。这并没有阻止他们在这上面花一大笔钱，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，这不是主要原因，我相信其他人会比我更好地回答这个问题，但是我的两点意见可能会证实其他的答案:

For me, it’s not down to cheap labor. Sure cheap and available labor is very handy to have but it’s not the main reason imho.

在我看来，这不是因为廉价劳动力。当然，拥有廉价和可用的劳动力是非常方便的，但这不是我认为的主要原因。

In the West we have so many rules to manage how people do things. These rules can become such a combined obstacle that they prevent innovation. A lot of the time innovation in the West happens despite of bureaucracy, not because of it. When have you ever heard of the phrase, “invented by bureaucracy”, or “inspired by bureaucracy”?

在西方，我们有很多规则来管理人们做事的方式。这些规则可能会成为阻碍创新的共同障碍。很多时候，西方的创新是在官僚主义的影响下发生的，但却不是因为官僚主义。你什么时候听说过“由官僚机构发明”或者“受官僚机构启发”这样的说法？

In China they have a more top-down approach. Once the government has decided on a project they make it happen. There are also less rules to overcome. This makes for harsher working conditions for Chinese Laborers but they get more done, not always successfully, but overall, much more than we manage in the West, and in a fraction of the time and cost.

在中国，他们采取的是自上而下的方式。一旦政府决定了一个项目，他们就会实施，不需要克服更多的规则。这使得中国工人的工作环境更加恶劣，也要做得更多。虽然并不总是成功的，但是总的来说，比我们在西方管理的模式下要多得多，花费的时间和成本也少得多。

This hit home to me once when there was some project in Europe where they were building a tunnel under the Alps, 57 kilometres long.They claimed it was the longest and deepest tunnel of it’s size in the whole wide world.

当时在欧洲有一个项目，他们正在阿尔卑斯山下修建一条57公里长的隧道。他们声称这是世界上最长、最深的隧道。

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.

西方国家经常这样做。声称他们的产品是世界上最好的，事实上，他们的意思是在西方是最好的。他们经常做出这样的假设:世界只是由西方组成的，除此之外没有其他存在的东西。完美的唯我主义泡沫。

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.

中国挖掘了一条长达1000多公里的从一个水源地到通往北京的隧道。非常大，还有两条较小的带铁轨的服务型隧道。我见过它，在我看来，它看起来像从英国到法国的欧洲隧道一样大(不是长度)。而且这三条隧道只能满足北京目前三分之一的用水需求，所以他们还需要再建两条。很少有人知道它们的存在，因为中国认为没有必要吹嘘它们。他们只是在没有人注意的情况下做了这件事。

-------------------------------
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.

美国无法建设一个庞大的高铁网络，因为我们的大多数城市都太小，距离太远。

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.

北京是一个拥有2100万人口的城市。60英里外是天津，一个拥有1500万人口的城市。往南230英里是济南，一个拥有700万人口的城市。再往南200英里是徐州，人口850万。再往南130英里就是蚌埠，一座拥有300万人口的城市。另一个130英里以南就是南京，一个800万人口的城市。再往西190英里就是上海，一个拥有2600万人口的城市。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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

因此，在总长度约为950英里的轨道上，你可以连接超过9000万人。

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

轨道长度和成本成正比:距离越长，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.

美国的问题是显而易见的:从波士顿到华盛顿特区大约有450英里，沿着这条线路你只能连接大约1700万人。中国每英里铁路的人口是美国的3倍。潜在收入也会是美国的3倍。而且，波士顿到华盛顿特区是美国唯一一个可以连接那么多人的线路。

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，从本质上讲，我们建设高铁的最佳位置仅限于全国范围内的这一条线路，而这个线路的收入仍然只有中国许多可能建设的线路中的一条的1/3。

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

不，这是因为美国缺乏政府和公众意愿的力量。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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

，让我用一个关于美国航空母舰的故事作为一个例子来说明。

In 1925, America had just one aircraft carrier, the USS Langley. It was about 10,000 tons. It was a relatively small ship. The British Navy had aircraft carriers over twice the size at that time.

1925年，美国只有一艘航空母舰——兰利号。大约有一万吨。这是一艘相对较小的船。当时英国海军拥有的航空母舰规模是现在的两倍多。

Twenty years later, in 1945 America had built over 100 aircraft carriers (of various classes). (And of course 50,000 Sherman tanks and equipped armies to fight in both Europe and Asia.)

20年后的1945年，美国已经建造了超过100艘(不同等级的)航空母舰。(当然还有50000辆谢尔曼坦克和装备齐全的军队在欧洲和亚洲作战。)

Now as you know aircraft carriers don’t grow from trees nor can fleet carriers be built in the back shed using your grandfather’s tools.

现在你知道航空母舰不是从树上长出来的，也不能用你祖父的工具在后面的棚子里建造航空母舰。

Ask yourself. Where did it get the money from? How much planning went into that? How much cooperation did it take to achieve from Federal to State to local.

问问你自己。这些钱是从哪里来的？为此做了多少计划?从联邦到州到地方需要多少合作。

America has the means to build high speed rail. But it lacks the will and clarity of mind to do such big industrial projects which require massive government expenditure. All this effort takes a lot of good thinking. Such matters should not be left to a Reality TV star who was once a failed Casino owner who cheated his workers of their wages and called a decorated war veteran “a loser”.

美国有办法建造高速铁路。但它缺乏意愿和清晰的头脑去做这些需要大量政府支出的大型工业项目。所有这些努力都需要深思熟虑。这样的事情不应该留给一个真人秀电视明星，他曾经是一个失败的赌场老板，他欺骗了他的工人的工资，并称一个获得勋章的退伍军人为“失败者”。

-------------------------------
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.

人们似乎忽视了中国高铁比美国更发达的真正原因:那就是中国有一块空白的画布可以利用。而美国不行。

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.

美国已经有了一个铁路系统，为客运和各种类型的商业运输提供服务。美国的铁路系统已经被用于多种用途。从汽车、石油/天然气到消费品，一切都是通过铁路运输。任何变化都会在全国各行各业产生连锁反应。

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.

除非你打算把人们赶出家门，扩大铁路网络，在旧铁路旁建设一个现代化的铁路系统，否则现有的铁路系统将不得不被拆除。这将在全国范围内造成混乱。

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.

美国当然有能力做到这一点，但考虑到大多数美国人都有车，而且大多数人不住在东海岸，那里的公共交通基本上可以让你去任何你想去的地方，没有公司愿意花钱升级系统。

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.

就我个人而言，如果他们能够在整个行程中保持200多英里/小时的时速，那么高速铁路虽然速度较慢，但却是一种更加舒适和负担得起的体验。

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.

当我在日本的时候，我非常喜欢子弹头列车。甚至连车厢都比美国铁路公司最好的座位高出好几个档次。如果美国铁路公司能够认识到这一潜力的话，他们可以让更多的人乘坐火车。

-------------------------------
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.

总有一天，西方(也就是美国)会停下来思考中国是如何在所有的领域都取得巨大进步的，大量的中国人现在拥有了相当好的生活质量。

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.

中国人一直是优秀的工程师，他们甚至在变得更加优秀，他们也擅长规划和组织，他们对经济和基础设施发展有着长期的宏观视角。

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.

几个月前，一位美国女士问了我一个问题:你能在中国买到罐头食品吗(她不敢吃任何新鲜食物，因为她确信自己吃了会死)，她还问“现在你能在中国买开罐器吗?”多么的傲慢和无知。

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

15.Adam Brower，投资顾问

This question, which has been asked and answered innumerable times, is a useful springboard for deep and erudite analyses of the differences in labor and capital markets, and of the differences in the efficiency of implementation of policy between a command economy and a laissez-faire economy. As interesting as these comparisons between the United States and China may be, the answer to this question does not depend upon them.

这个问题已经被无数次提出和回答，这个问题是一个有用的跳板，可以用来深入和全面地分析劳动力市场和资本市场的差异，以及计划经济和自由经济在政策执行效率方面的差异。尽管美国和中国之间的这些比较可能很有趣，但这个问题的答案并不取决于它们。

The answer instead lies in the vast disparity in population between the two polities, in the ratio of population to land area, and in the density of that population across available habitable land.

相反，答案在于两个政权之间人口的巨大差异，人口与土地面积的比例，以及可居住土地上人口的密度。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

The land area of China is 3.705 million mi². The land area of the United States is 3.797 million mi². The two are thus comparable in area, but not in population: China comprises 1.34 billion residents, while the United States comprises just 325 million.

中国国土面积为370.5万平方英里。美国的陆地面积是379.7万平方英里。因此，这两个国家在面积上具有可比性，但在人口上没有可比性:中国有13.4亿人口，而美国只有3.25亿人口。

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.

这意味着中国的高铁网络可以立即受益于“网络效应”。中国网络的乘客数量远远超过美国。这样就将每次运行的成本降低了一个数量级，同时也减少了空车次数，因为空车次数会增加成本，而且不会带来任何收入。除此之外，连接美国各城市的高速公路网络和高效的航空网络已经形成，建设高速铁路的动力进一步减弱。

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.

另一个明显的区别是人口的分布。在中国，许多非常大的城市中心集中在一个相对较小的土地面积。在美国，虽然人口越来越集中在城市地区，但这些城市地区相距甚远。这使得空中旅行比任何形式的铁路都更有效率。

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，答案不是美国不能建设与中国相当的高铁:而是没有经济上的理由这样做。

-------------------------------
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.

在几乎所有产品的生产方面，中国都具有显著的优势，因为中国的劳动力成本低于美国和欧洲。

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.

仅仅是劳动力成本吗？不是。中国的土地征用成本较低。环境审查更容易完成。人们拥有的权力要小得多，所以两个主要城市之间的火车不需要特地去某个小镇请求一个当地官员的同意。

But labor is king.

但是劳动力才是王道。

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.

世界银行2014年的一份报告估算，中国每公里高速铁路的成本为1700万至2100万美元。对欧洲高铁的成本的估算是每公里2500万至3900万美元。对加利福尼亚高铁的成本的估算是多少？每公里5200万美元。这个估算不包括土地收购成本，铁路车辆(火车本身)，以及在建设过程中发生的利息。在美国修建铁路的成本几乎是中国的三倍。同样，这也忽略了在中国以外获得土地更加困难和昂贵的因素。

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.

中国的自上而下的方式节省了金钱和劳动力。在美国，高铁是一系列使用不同技术的互不相关的项目，而中国的项目则采取了自上而下的方式。因此，整个高速铁路可以标准化建造。

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.

这并不是说其他因素不能帮助中国来降低成本。让一个人从他在中国的家里迁移到别的地方也要便宜得多。在美国或欧洲拒绝出售房产和地产的人，在可能发生的法律纠纷之后，必须得到适当的补偿。而在中国没有这种担忧。然而这些优势所起到的作用是非常小的。即使在这些领域的成本差不多，中国在大型交通项目上也会比美国和欧洲有明显的优势。

-------------------------------
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.

低廉的劳动力成本是其中一个原因。19世纪英国还是个发展中国家的时候，我们也修建了很多铁路。我们当时有资本，也有廉价劳动力，有点像今天的中国。中国也不用太担心健康和安全问题，这些会给项目增加巨大的成本。中国工人会长时间倒班工作，如果必要的话，甚至可以通宵工作。如果工人受伤了，他只可以得到廉价的补偿，而且不太可能上报纸。在美国，这些都无法实现。

The Chinese are not concerned about IP rights - with the result that their trains are built locally with IP substantially stolen from the Japanese - again that represents a huge saving - though of course it’s a one off “win” as western and Japanese companies now think very carefully about the IP placed into China.

中国人并不担心知识产权问题，他们的火车是在本地制造的，但其知识产权基本上是从日本人那里X来的，这也是一个巨大的节约，尽管是一次性的“胜利”，因为西方和日本公司现在已经对知识产权问题非常小心。

China like many East Asian countries likes infrastructure projects - the share of national income going into projects is relatively high in china and so building railways which don’t necessarily make commercial sense is the kind of thing they do. Chinese citizens have relatively less disposable income than you would expect partly because a sizeable chunk of national income goes into “building china”. Chinese citizens don’t get a vote and are not well informed about how their countries income is spent.

中国像许多东亚国家一样喜欢修建基础设施项目。在中国，投入项目的国民收入占国民总收入的比例相对较高，因此修建不一定具有商业意义的铁路就是他们所做的事情。中国公民的可支配收入相对较少，这在一定程度上是因为相当大一部分国民收入被用于“建设中国”。中国公民没有投票权，也不知道他们国家的收入是怎么花的。

-------------------------------
18.Alex Kim
Not exactly. I’m sure there are other people here who have laid out the reasons I’m about to explain, but here it goes.

不完全是。我相信这里还有其他人已经列出了我将要解释的原因，但是现在我要说的是：
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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.

在铁路建设方面，中国有一个明显的优势:那就是政府权威。从技术上讲，没有中国公民在中国拥有房地产，因为中国是一个共产主义国家，认为土地属于人民(即国家)，而不是个人土地所有者。因此，政府拥有土地所有权，然后将土地租赁给个人公民，租期为几十年。这也意味着，尽管政府不一定会随便直接拿走大片土地，但它需要的程序肯定远远少于像美国这样有私有制法律的国家。

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.

美国联邦政府和州政府可以强行从个别土地所有者手中征用土地(即“征用权”)，但有几点需要注意。第一，政府必须为土地所有者支付一笔合理的数额。第二，须向法庭证明其征用土地的理由符合公众利益(例如兴建新公路以疏导交通)。第三，它必须为所占用土地/建筑物的居民提供替代住所和足够的搬迁时间。当然，这整个过程并不是美国独有的。中国也有相应的法律程序，但是征用权法律在美国要严格得多。这使得像铁路这样的大型基础设施项目在法律上相当头疼，这些项目有良好的工程设计和背后的经济原理。

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.

尽管如此，中国对铁路的重视并不仅仅源于其优势。如果说有什么区别的话，那就是中国铁路的繁荣发展解决了一个问题:严格管制的空域。中国限制民营航空公司在其领空的具体航线和时间，这导致了中国航班的延误率相对较高，愿意乘坐飞机的人也相对较少。因此，中国别无选择，只能投资建设高速客运列车，穿越广阔的土地，连接遥远的城市。毕竟，中国是土地面积第三大的国家，所以它需要火车尽可能快。

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.

与此同时，美国的领空对航空公司相对开放。这意味着国内航班相对便宜，班次也相对充足。最关键的是，常规的飞行也要比任何高速子弹头列车都要快得多，而且几乎一样舒适和方便。因此，飞机取代了铁路成为首选的长途运输方式。正因为如此，建设一个庞大的快速客运网络的愿望和需求都变得微乎其微。

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.

与非美国人的普遍看法相反，美国并非完全没有铁路。这个国家有许多纵横交错的铁路。唯一的区别是，这些铁路几乎完全用于运输货物。你可以在一架飞机上搭载数百名乘客，但当涉及到货物，尤其是像石油、煤炭或木材这样的货物时，飞机就不行了。因此，铁路大部分是用来运输货物的，这样就可以避免客运列车进站，以免造成不必要的交通堵塞。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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.

因此中国在铁路方面的成就是伟大的，而且子弹头列车也很漂亮。但是我们不应该认为中国在铁路发展和建设方面取得了令人瞩目的进步，美国在这方面的不足仅仅是因为中国有在这方面的优势罢了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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

19.Roberto Santocho，高级计算机安全顾问(1995年至今)
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Its not a labor cost issue

这不是劳动力成本的问题

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

美国有一个非常发达的铁路系统，可以追溯到19世纪
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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.

美国一直在考虑建设高速铁路，但据我个人所知，最大的问题之一是，我们不能让一列高速列车从我们的后院疾驰而过。在美国，所有的道路都很好，而且高度发达，所以如果你要建高铁，你就必须让铁轨穿过一个社区或者就建在它的后面，我们不喜欢这样。而中国...思维方式上的巨大差异。

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

在我所在的地区，没有地方可以铺设高速铁轨，所以高速列车不得不在旧铁轨上运行，以满足传统列车的需要。说真的，要铺设这么多英里的铁轨，而且我们基本上不会从高速铁路中得到任何好处，所以我所在地区的大多数人都投了反对票

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

美国有一个庞大的、发达的、维护良好的州际公路系统，卡车运输业已经利用这个优势来推动使用卡车运输，而不是货运列车，所以普通人根本没有考虑这个铁路系统。

-------------------------------
20.Armand Welsh
Cost and speed are not related. Labor costs are less in china, but that has. no impact on how fast something can be built. Can you make toast faster if you are being paid $100 vs $1?

成本和速度没有关系。在中国，劳动力成本较低，但是这种情况对建造速度没有影响。如果你的工资是100美元而不是1美元，你能把面包更快的烤好吗？

In my opinion, the reason comes down to greed, and humanity. In California, we have tried a few time to fund a train, but none of the initiatives have done a single thing toward actually building. They all have to do with gimmicks to get the state to pay for feasibility studies in the mega millions to billions — resulting in little actual measurable results — that are essentially throw away efforts. They are just gimicks. There is no real interest to actually build the train, just in collecting as much money as possible for the least amount of real work.

在我看来，原因可以归结为贪婪和人性。在加利福尼亚，我们已经尝试了一段时间来资助建设一条高铁，但没有一项举措对实际建设起到任何作用。他们耍了一些小花招，目的是让让政府为数百万至数十亿美元的可行性研究买单，但没有得到任何可实施性的研究结果，这些努力基本上是白费力气。它们只是噱头。这些人实际上并没有真正的兴趣去建造高铁，他们只是为了尽可能少的实际工作而敛尽可能多的钱。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

The other issue, is that even if we did actually build a train system, we have to be concerned about human rights. We cannot force people to work in the “train building” industry, and we cannot force production rates to increase by throwing more workers at the problem. Each involved, will only do what they must, which circles back to the first point.. greed.

另一个问题是，即使我们真的建造了一个铁路系统，我们也必须关注人权。我们不能强迫人们在“火车制造”行业工作，也不能通过增加工人来强行提高生产率。每个参与者，只会做他们必须做的事情，回到第一点：人性的贪婪。

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

21.Sukhvarsh Jerath，北达科他大学土木工程学院名誉教授(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.

一些讨论偏离了正轨。美国是最适合建设高速铁路的国家。这是一个幅员辽阔的国家，人们之间的距离很远，再加上它是一个高科技国家，在这个领域有很多知识。那么，为什么美国不建设高铁呢？这和没有良好的公共交通是一样的道理。美国有某种形式的民主，但实际上，政府决策的控制权掌握在企业手中。我听说很多汽车公司不允许我们国家发展铁路运输。我有一种感觉，现在飞机制造公司可能也在对高铁建设进行阻挠。遗憾的是，飞机不适合作为公共交通工具。所以不建设高铁是因为政治，而不是其他的任何原因。

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

22.Ron Ih，网络安全业务发展处处长(2016年至今)

I havent gone through all the responses, but the political system is also a big factor.

我还没有看过所有的答案，但政治体制也是一个重要因素。

*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.

*任何时候*美国要开展重大建设项目，都会有环境研究、诉讼、反诉讼等步骤。仅仅是要完成所有的法律手续，就可能需要花费十年时间和数千万美元。

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.”

中国不是一个oo国家。如果政府想要修建一条铁路，而你的房子挡在中间。你要搬走。你没有发言权。“我们在几英里外给你建了一座新房子。你还有两个月的时间搬家。再见。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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

当你不必担心征求别人的许可时，建造东西就会容易得多。

-------------------------------
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.

问题是美国政府没有修建铁路。但这是铁路公司的事情。铁路公司没有在美国建设高速铁路，因为它不能盈利。

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

论速度，坐飞机比坐高铁要快得多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Flexibility. It’s a lot easier and cheaper adding or reducing flights than adding or reducing the number of high speed rail going to a city. Demand changes. A good example is Detroit. When the automotive business closed up shop, travel there dropped, so the airlines reduced their flights to the city.

论灵活性，增加或减少航班比增加或减少去某个城市的高速铁路数量要容易得多，也便宜得多。航班的班次会随着需求而变化。底特律就是一个很好的例子。在那里的汽车公司倒闭后，去那里旅行的人也就减少了，因此航空公司减少了飞往那里的航班。

Quantity. You can have a lot more flight to the same city and move a lot more people than one high speed rail. Flights also don’t use up land like rails

论数量，你可以有更多的航班飞往同一个城市，可以比一条高速铁路运送更多的人。航班也不会像铁路那样占用土地。

Americans are obsessed with their cars. It’s not just Californians. It’s the entire nation. If given a choice between driving 2 hours or taking high speed rail and getting to their destination in 30 minutes, most people will drive. Their thinking is they’ll have freedom to drive around when they get to their destination, and it will be cheaper than renting a car.

美国人痴迷于他们的汽车。不仅仅是加利福尼亚人，而是整个国家。如果让他们在开2小时的车或乘坐30分钟高铁到达目的地之间做出选择，大多数人会选择开车。他们的想法是，当他们到达目的地时，他们可以自由驾驶，而且比租车便宜。

Roads. There’s a lot of roads in the US and a lot of highways to the point where it’s almost insanity. If you have a car, you can drive on the interstate at 70 mph and go anywhere you want. That’s something China doesn’t have and why they need high speed rail.

论道路，美国有很多公路，很多高速公路，到了几乎疯狂的地步。如果你有车，你可以在州际公路上以每小时70英里的速度行驶，去任何你想去的地方。这是中国没有的东西，也是他们需要高铁的原因。

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.

与中国相比，航空旅行是非常可靠的。美国在空中交通管制方面投入了大量资金，因为航空公司需要可靠性和运载力，这样他们才能赚更多的钱。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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.

短途旅行由汽车代步。中长途旅行包括乘坐汽车、普通铁路和飞机。长途旅行由飞机承担。在美国，高速铁路没有多少发展空间。

-------------------------------
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，这是因为高铁在人们心目中的地位不高。工业界人士知道这一点，在大多数地区建设高铁只有很低的利润，甚至亏损。政治家们知道，除了一小部分地区，强迫他们的选民缴纳巨额税款无异于断送自己的政治生涯。

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.

这不是因为石油或在其他答案中提到的愚蠢的绿色环保。原因很简单，它没有得到人民的支持，人民不想交巨额的税。

-------------------------------
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.

完全不是。事实上，美国早在许多年前就认定，空运和征服一切的汽车运输效果更好。事实证明，考虑到当时的铁路技术，这在当时被认为是最好的前进方式，但从长远来看，这可能不是最好的方式。铁路被认为是跨国运输大型和重型货物的方便和具有成本效益的交通工具，但除了在少数地区以外，铁路客运几乎没有受到重视。在过去的十年左右的时间里，许多国家对高速铁路进行了大量的投资，这些国家的传统铁路网络很差，但是现在它们用时速超过200英里的优质列车将主要城市的中心连接起来。也许美国也应该沿着这个方向前进，我相信目前有几个方案正在进行中，但其中大部分似乎在建设过程中遇到了问题。如果美国要拥有一个高速铁路网，那么毫无疑问，政府的思维将发生重大变化。然而，像往常一样，似乎有一些游说团体不希望看到这种情况发生。

-------------------------------
26.Ming Tsui
No. Because America is a nation where people are used to being scammed. People know they can charge prices once and then charge prices much higher to complete any type of projects.

不是。因为美国是一个人们习惯于被欺骗的国家。人们知道，他们可以一次次收取更高的费用以完成任何类型的项目。

Second thing is people are more relax and take their time to work while in China workers have a very high work ethic. We are used to be lazy and relax when doing anything except doing work at home. This is due to our Democratic government policies creating a very lazy social structure for the whole nation.

其次，人们更加不愿意花时间在工作上。而在中国，工人们有着非常高的职业道德。我们习惯了懒惰，除了在家里工作，什么事情都不做。这是因为我们民主政府的政策为整个国家创造了一个非常懒惰的社会结构。

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

这是一个伟大国家衰落的原因。我们会把责任推到别人身上，而不是自己身上。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

-------------------------------
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，我认为主要原因是因为人们需要它来过上更舒适的生活，而中国太大了，他们需要能够快速的到处走动。

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.

另一个主要原因是，中国不会把纳税人的钱浪费在没完没了的战争上，这些战争只造福于1%的人口，而其余的人口却要为战争买单，并住在破旧的基础设施里。