回答一：
Inaki Arbelaiz, City Innovation Project Leader (2011-present) upxed January 29 城市创新项目负责人（2011-至今）

From a foreign perspective, this question is a very interesting question dividing the attention between national pride, economic power, and the commercial reality of the need for infrastructure.The simple answer is that there is no need for it. The USA, geographically, is not any longer a transportation hub, but a transportation destination.

从外国人的角度来看，这是一个非常有趣的问题，问题的答案无外乎人们对民族自豪感、经济实力和基础设施需求的商业现实之间的关注。答案很简单，没有这个必要。从地理上来说，美国不再是一个交通枢纽，而是一个交通目的地。



浙江宁波舟山港

The last list, the busiest cruise ports, is largely skewed due to Disney [sad but true]. Once you have that taken out [the Disney phenomena due to cruises], the countries where most of the population is divided between a set of islande [as Greece, Finland, and the Sea of China] will require the largest ports.

最后一份名单是最繁忙的邮轮港口，由于迪士尼的影响，排名出现了很大的偏差（悲伤，但事实如此）。一旦你排除了因游轮而产生的迪士尼现象，那些大部分人口被分割在一组组岛屿的国家（如希腊、芬兰和中国海）将需要最大的港口。

Same happens with airports:Due to regulations and the low cost phenomena, airlines do not have to land in the USA when doing a transatlantic flight when travelling from Europe to South America, one of the booming routes.Because of that, airports don´t need to be large on terminals [perhaps on non civil infrastructure such as landing lanes, but not on terminals]: a destination terminal needs to be much smaller than a hub because it is simply getting passengers in and quickly moving them out, contrary to hubs, that need to get passengers and house them for one to four-six hours.And so on.

机场也是如此：由于法规和低成本原因，航空公司从欧洲飞往南美洲的跨大西洋航班上不必降落在美国，这是一个蓬勃发展的航线。正因为如此，机场航站楼不需要太大：目的地终点站只需要比枢纽站小得多的航站楼，因为只需要简单地把乘客送进来，然后迅速把他们送出去，而枢纽站需要把乘客送进来，并为他们提供1到4到6个小时的住宿，等等。

But then, there is the question that nobody seems to be asking, or the issue to be understood: the problem with infrastructre is not to build it, it is to keep it.Of all the cities I have lived [not visited, lived], which are 12, with metro systems, Barcelona has by far the best public transport system and network. But it does not look fancy, nor is it “big”. It is, though, extremely reliable and the frecuency of trains is astounding [every 40s on peak times on the busiest lines, and never above 7 mins on valley times on weekend nights]. It is very integrated with buses, trams, metro, public bikes, and microbuses.

但是，有一个问题似乎没有人问，或者说有一个问题需要理解：基础设施的问题往往不是建设，而是维护。在我住过（不仅仅是走马观花，而是住过）的12个城市中，巴塞罗那拥有迄今为止最好的公共交通系统和网络。但看起来既不花哨，也不“大”。不过，该系统网络非常可靠，而且班次的频率令人震惊（在最繁忙的线路上，高峰时间每40秒一班，周末晚上的峰谷时间从不超过7分钟）。该系统把公共汽车、有轨电车、地铁、公共自行车和微型公共汽车融合成了一体。

And finally, as a foreigner, roads in the USA are, well, with all due respect, a service design nightmare. It simply doesn´t make sense for a foreigner. They are way too big, and are designed as point ot point transportation lines. That is a recipe for a disaster. I do understand that the USA is a very large territory, don´t get me wrong. But apart from the need to connect such a huge territory, the roads are just to over-engineered in the capacity sense.A road is not more capable due to the lanes it has, but for the number of cars it can handle per a time unit.

最后，作为一个外国人，美国的道路，恕我直言，是一个设计的噩梦，这对外国人来说根本没有意义。美国得道路太大了，被设计成点对点的交通线路，这将导致一场灾难。我知道美国有广袤的领土，不要误解我。但是，除了需要连接如此巨大的领土之外，道路在容量方面的设计也过于过度。一条道路的能力不仅取决于拥有的车道数，而是取决于在一个单位时间内可以通行的汽车数量。

But to sum it up:Infrastructure is the classic bussines case of the long run: they need to perform for 30 to 40 years.Because of that, the smartest strategy is usually to develop the “minimum viable product” or infrastructure: if you build it too big, it will become a monster that is too huge to maintain [a problem the USA is having right now].

但总结一下：基础设施是典型的长期商业案例：一般需要运行30到40年。正因为如此，最明智的策略通常是开发“最小可行性产品”或基础设施：如果你把基础设施建得太大，它就会变成一个大得难以维持的怪物（这是美国现在所面临的问题）。

Having the “-est” of anything is not important. They are usually not the most efficient things, products or services at all. They might be a pride element, but they are not efficient and most importantly, not a business case any longer. The tallest building is a FAR [floor to area ratio] nightmare for all the services that at the end eat up valuable surface.Lets put it this way:The most important car for Toyota is not the “-est” lexus or the “-est” Toyota Century. It is the very humble Corolla. It is their money earner, their bread.

拥有任何“最”的东西并不重要，这些通常不是最有效的东西、产品或服务。拥有“最”字名头的可能是一个值得骄傲的因素，但他们没有效率，最重要的是，不再是一个商业案例。对于所有的服务来说，最高的建筑是楼层面积比的噩梦，因为它最终会吞噬宝贵的外观。让我们这么说吧：对丰田来说，最重要的汽车不是“最贵”的雷克萨斯，也不是“最出色”的丰田世纪，而是非常不起眼的卡罗拉。这是丰田最赚钱的地方，是他们的面包。