在美国到底值不值得花钱去建立一个高铁网络？

Valcatraxx
Before dreaming this big you should set your sights on fixing local public transportation first. In Europe most train stations are in walkable locations with adequate options getting to and from the station itself. I doubt people are going to want to take the train if it just turns into the same airport nightmare we deal with in NA

在做这么大的梦之前，你应该先把目光放在修复当地的公共交通上。在欧洲，大多数火车站都在可步行可达的地方，有足够的选择来往于车站本身。如果它变成了像我们在北美洲处理的机场噩梦那样，我怀疑大家还愿不愿意坐火车。

Dtownknives
I was looking all over for this comment. High speed rail loses some of its attractiveness over flying and almost all of it over driving when you still need a car to navigate the final destination.
There's enough demand for travel between Denver and Albuquerque, for example, to support regular full flights, and they are close enough that many choose to drive rather than deal with the hassle of an airport. However the public transit systems of both cities are so bad that you can't reasonably get anywhere if you arrive until you have a car. I make that trip relatively often and am a huge proponent of rail, but if a high-speed route opened I'd likely still choose to drive. Whereas I'd absolutely consider a high-speed rail trip from DC to NYC because both of those cities have mature public transit systems.
So much of the environmental conversation around rail focuses on the long haul trips, but what we need to work on first is providing an alternative for the shorter daily drives, and the longer trips can come after that.

说到点子上了。跟飞机比，高铁失去了一部分吸引力，而跟驾车比，当你坐火车到达地方还是需要一辆汽车来搭你到最终目的地的时候，高铁几乎失去了所有的吸引力。
比如说，在丹佛和阿尔伯克基之间有足够的旅行需求，以支持定期的完整的航班，而且它们足够近，许多人选择开车而不是去处理机场的麻烦。然而，这两个城市的公共交通系统都很糟糕，如果你到达时没有汽车，你就没办法方便地到达任何地方。我经常去那里，是铁路的忠实拥护者，但如果这两个城市之间有一条高铁线路开通，我可能还是会选择开车。而从华盛顿到纽约市之间我绝对会考虑高铁出行，因为这两个城市都有成熟的公共交通系统。
围绕铁路的许多环境对话都集中在长途旅行上，但我们首先需要做的是为较短的日常驾驶提供一个替代方案，然后才是考虑长途旅行。

arrayofeels
I live in Europe and take high speed rail even when I need a car at my final destination, which I usually do if I travel for work. Just rent a car at the train station, 20 mins or so after arriving I am on the road. Much easier than renting a car at an airport too. If I have a trip that I can make in a day combining say, 1.5 hr train + 1.5 hour driving as opposed to 4.5 hour driving each way then train plus driving for me is much more relaxing, allows me to work for part of it, then there is just no question which option I am going to take

我生活在欧洲，即使在我到达最终目的地时仍需要汽车，我也会乘坐高铁，如果我要出差，我通常会这样做。只要在火车站租一辆车，到达后20分钟左右我就可以上路了。这也比在机场租车容易得多。如果我有一个在一天内结束的旅行，比如说，1.5小时的火车+1.5小时的开车，相比单程4.5小时的开车，选择火车加开车对我来说要轻松得多，可以让我在部分时间里工作，所以会采取哪种方式是毫无疑问的。

der_innkeeper
There is not a high enough density to move people coast to coast.
Where it is dense enough, such as San Diego to Los Angeles, or the DC to NY route, there is high interest, but also very high NIMBYism when it comes to actually building them and right of way procurement.
Also, the "fair market value" needed to compensate for land acquired through eminent domain is prohibitive. Because these areas are popular and dense, land prices are very high.

没有足够高的人口密度来支持从西海岸到东海岸的线路。
在人口密度足够大的地方，如圣地亚哥到洛杉矶，或华盛顿到纽约的路线，大家对此很感兴趣，但在进行实际建设和路权采购的时候，也有着很高的“别打扰到我”的心态。
另外，对通过征用土地进行补偿所需的"公平市场价值"也很高。因为这些地区很受欢迎，而且很密集，土地价格非常高。

tuctrohs
There is not a high enough density to move people coast to coast.
I think this problem is often overstated. If you actually look at the volume of traffic on our highways, even a small fraction of that opting for High-Speed rail would mean we could have hourly train service. I've tried that exercise for local roots in regions where people say the population is too low to support transit and concluded that we could have full buses running every 5 minutes if people actually opted for transit. I haven't run the numbers for cross country interstate traffic, but I I'm pretty confident that it would support at least hourly high speed rail.

“没有足够高的人口密度来支持从西海岸到东海岸的线路。”
我认为这个问题往往被夸大了。如果你真正去查看一下我们高速公路上的交通量，会发现即使只有一小部分人选择高速铁路，也意味着我们可以拥有每小时一趟的火车服务。我曾经在那些人们说人口太少无法支持公共交通的地区尝试过这种做法，结论是如果人们真的选择了公共交通，我们可以每5分钟就有一辆满载的公交车。我没有计算过跨州交通的数字，但我我很有信心，它至少可以支持每小时一趟的高速铁路。

iAmRiight
Agreed, it only takes a small percentage of traffic converting to mass transit for it to make sense. Besides the stigma and resistance to commuting by mass transit, when it comes to lower density areas there is a legitimate problem with lack of affordable local transit once you get into the vicinity of where you need to be.
I can take a light rail train to within 3 miles of my workplace, but there’s no realistic way for me to get those last few miles except to walk, bike or post an Uber every day. For the price of transit and taxi service I’m nearly financially break even with driving myself, and I have freedom to travel on my schedule and go elsewhere if needed.
Unless there is extra infrastructure put in place to effectively serve the metro suburbs, mass transit is not a viable option for most people.

同意，只需要一小部分人将私人交通转换为公共交通就足以维持了。然而除了对乘坐公共运输工具通勤的偏见和抵触，当涉及到低人口密度地区时，一旦你进入你需要去的地方附近，就会产生一个无法忽视的问题，即缺乏负担得起的当地的公共交通。
我可以乘坐轻轨列车到达我工作地点的3英里范围内，但除了每天步行、骑自行车或使用Uber，我没有任何现实的方法可以结束最后几英里。对于公共交通和出租车服务的价格，几乎与我自己开车的支出持平，而且如果是自己开车，我还可以根据自己的时间安排自由出行，如果需要的话，还可以去其他地方。
所以除非有额外的基础设施到位，有效地服务于地铁郊区，否则对于大多数人来说，公共交通不是一个可行的选择。

tuctrohs
Yes, those are some of the issues with regional transit. I don't think that's what this post is about, but it is an interesting challenge. Part of it is the chicken and egg problem that you need to make the mass transit good enough in order to get enough people to ride it to make it worthwhile making it good enough.
But your answer hints at some ways around that conundrum other then massive government investment, which I do think is a good idea, by the way. An easy 10 minute bike ride, with a distinctly non-athletic effort level, gets you a 2-mile radius which vastly improves the range of destinations and origins a given transit stop can serve. E-bikes can make that option appealing to a wider variety of fitness levels, and can also increase the radius a little bit, perhaps the three miles.
And although Uber is probably not cost-effective for a daily commute for most people, and is questionable in terms of the impacts on energy, emissions, and congestion, compared to transit, bicycles, etc., it makes a huge difference for occasional needs. For example, if you can do meet your daily needs by walking, biking, and transit, the availability of Lyft and Uber makes it much more viable to skip owning a car, and use them for the occasional need to go somewhere that isn't convenient by the other modes.
Back to longer distance train travel, someone considering visiting a different city or suburb, that they can get to on a train, for example, used to be constrained to downtown destinations, but if you want to visit an office park or actual part outside of town, an Uber from the train station makes the train travel much more viable for occasional trips like that.

是的，区域交通是存在一些问题。不过讨论这个我不认为这是这个帖子的目的，但这是一个有趣的话题。其中一部分是先有鸡还是先有蛋的问题：你需要让公共交通变得足够好，以便让足够多的人乘坐它，然后才会让它变得更好。
但是你的回答暗示了除了大规模的政府投资之外的解决这个难题的一些方法，顺便说一句，我认为这是一个好主意。比如一次简简单单的10分钟的自行车骑行，在不用达到竞赛水平的情况下，你至少可以骑个两英里，这极大地提高了一个特定的交通站点可以服务的目的地和起源的范围。电动自行车可以使这一选择对希望更环保的人很有吸引力，而且还可以增加一点半径，可能达到3英里。
尽管对于大多数人的日常通勤来说，Uber可能并不划算，而且与公交车、自行车等相比，它对能源、排放和拥堵的影响也值得商榷，但对于偶尔的需求来说，它却能起很大的作用。例如，如果你可以通过步行、骑自行车和公交车来满足你的日常需求，那么Lyft和Uber的出现基本上使你不必拥有汽车了，在偶尔需要去其他方式不方便的地方的时候，就可以呼叫它们。

der_innkeeper
I can see that.
But, what's the ticket price? Half the speed/twice the time of an airliner that costs the same or more of an airline ticket isn't going to get the numbers needed.

我懂了。
但是，票价是多少？速度是飞机的一半/时间是飞机的两倍，但价格却与机票相同或更高，那这不会很吸引人。

tuctrohs
The number of people who will opt for the high-speed train instead of a plane for cross country travel will be limited. But for going distances under a thousand miles, it can be attractive, considering the comfort advantage and the lower hassle factor going through security, etc.
But personally, if I could book a bunk on an overnight 16-hour train from New York to San Francisco I would much rather do that than be on a cramped plane for a shorter time and then need to rent a hotel room for the night of my arrival.

选择高铁而不是飞机进行跨省旅行的人肯定是有限的。但是对于一千英里以下的行驶距离，考虑到舒适性优势和通过安检的较少麻烦因素等，高铁可能很有吸引力。
但就个人而言，如果我可以在从纽约到旧金山 16 个小时的火车订一张床位，我宁愿这样做，也不愿在狭窄的飞机上停留更短的时间，然后到了地方还得租一个酒店房间过夜。

winowmak3r
That does sound like a much more attractive option if you're just going to be in the destination city for the day for a conference or big business meeting and the like. Just use the transit time there and back to sleep and skip the expensive hotel but the trip length doesn't really change. That does sound pretty nice.

如果你只是要在目的地城市呆上一天，参加会议或大型商务展览之类的，这听起来确实是一个更有吸引力的选择。只需利用往返途中的时间睡觉，跳过昂贵的酒店，但旅行长度并没有真正改变。这听起来确实很不错。

tuctrohs
For shorter distances, that has long been an option in europe. They don't use the high-speed trains, because then you wouldn't get enough time to get a good sleep. I've done it a couple times and loved it. They're actually expanding that service because people are catching on to the fact that it's both a nice comfortable low-stress time saving option, and it's low carbon.

对于较短距离的旅行，这在欧洲早已是一种选择。他们不使用高速列车，因为那样你就没有足够的时间去睡个好觉了。我这么做过几次，很喜欢这种方式。实际上，他们正在扩大这种服务，因为人们开始意识到这既是一种舒适、低压力的省时选择，也是一种低碳的选择。

JohnDoeMTB120
Maybe I was just unlucky, but the one time I paid for a sleeper train from France to Italy it was terrible. It was so hot in my bunk room there was no way I'd be able to sleep (July and no AC). I just went to the bar car and got drunk out of boredom. I do like the bar cars on trains though lol. That's a pretty big benefit over planes.

可能是我运气不好。但有一次我花钱买了从法国到意大利的卧铺车票，真是太糟糕了。我的下铺太热了，根本无法入睡（七月，没有空调）。我只能去酒吧车厢，然后因为无聊而喝醉了。不过我确实喜欢火车上的酒吧车厢，哈哈。与飞机相比，这是一个相当大的好处。

tuctrohs
I'm definitely adding air conditioning to my checklist of amenities to consider for any summer long distance train trip, overnight or not. I don't remember any recent train trips on trains that did not have that but I could imagine that there are some trains in some parts of Europe that still don't have it

我肯定会把空调添加到我在任何夏季长途火车旅行中必须考虑的设施清单中，不管是否过夜。我不记得最近坐的火车有哪次是没有空调的，但我可以想象，在欧洲的一些地方，有一些火车仍然没有空调。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

JohnDoeMTB120
This was more than 15 years ago, so it might not be an issue anymore. But I'll never forget it lol.

这是15年多以前的事了，所以现在可能不是问题了。但我永远不会忘记它，哈哈哈。

der_innkeeper
Choosing the routes of ~1000 miles gives us, New York to Chicago, Chicago to Denver, Denver to most points west, Orlando to major cities in the southeast, routes like that.
Is a 4 hour train ride from Denver to KC/St Louis worth it?

1000英里左右的路线，我们可以得到：纽约到芝加哥，芝加哥到丹佛，丹佛到西部大部分地区，奥兰多到东南部的主要城市等等这样的路线。
从丹佛到堪萨斯/圣路易斯坐4小时火车值得吗？

blytho9412
A lot of the time people don’t consider all the time in security and even just getting to and from the airport. Train stations tend to be in city centers and have far less onerous security than airports. Depending on the airport, and especially at busy ones, those could be up to 3 hours added to your trip, maybe more.
Say you have a flight from JFK to O’Hare. JFK is one of those airports where you really want to arrive 2 hours or more before your flight because getting through security can be really variable. So you leave your apartment for the subway and 45 minutes later arrive at JFK via the sky train. Next you spend two hours at security/check-in and getting to your gate. Let’s assume your flight isn’t delayed so the doors close on time, and you spend 15 or so minutes taxiing and waiting to take off. Flight time is 2 hours 10 mins. Again you spend 15 minutes taxiing and disembarking, and maybe only 5 minutes to exit the airport. Both car and transit take about 45 minutes to reach downtown Chicago. Total trip time is 5 hours 45 minutes.
Now say you take a new high speed train from Grand Central Station to unx Station in Chicago. So you leave your apartment and spend 30 minutes traveling to Grand Central, since it’s more centrally located and generally more convenient to get to than JFK. You step onto your train 5 minutes before it departs and get settled in. Now this is a brand new, true high speed service, so even with stops it can average 150 mph. The driving distance between the two is 801 miles, so we’ll use that for the train distance even though it might be longer or shorter depending on other stops on the route and the fact that train routes tend to be much more direct close to their end points. 801 mi / 150 mph gives you a 5 hour 20 minute time on the train. When you arrive at unx Station, you take 5 minutes to emerge from the station, already in downtown Chicago. Total trip time: 6 hours.
So air travel comes out just ahead for this trip, and depending on where you start and end in each city could easily be a toss-up. Given the much higher level of comfort and no need to deal with security, I know I would pick the train every time even if it meant a few extra minutes of travel time. It’s hard to say how ticket prices would compare, but I will say that I used to take the Amtrak from Charleston SC to Orlando FL to go between home and college, and even though it was like an 8 hour trip, it wasn’t much longer than driving if you include stops and it was much more relaxing. Plus the ticket was $70, which was better than I could do in my F150 even when gas was $2.50 a gallon, let alone now. My only complaint was their ability to run on schedule, but that got A LOT better around 3 years ago, though I couldn’t tell you why.
TLDR, yes. People will make the switch to trains from air travel for certain routes as long as the service is reliable. Travel time is similar if you include security and time to/from the airport.

很多时候，人们并没有考虑到安检所需时间，甚至是往返机场的时间。火车站往往位于城市中心，其安保工作远没有机场那么繁重。根据不同的机场，特别是在繁忙的机场，这些（安检+往返机场）时间可能会给你的旅行增加3个小时，甚至更多。
假设你有一个从肯尼迪机场到奥黑尔的航班。肯尼迪机场是那种你绝对想在航班起飞前2小时或更早到达的机场，因为通过安检的时间很不固定。所以你离开你的公寓去坐地铁，45分钟后通过机场专列到达肯尼迪机场。接下来，你得花两个小时在安检/登记和到达你的登机口上。让我们假设你的航班没有延误，所以舱门准时关闭，你花了15分钟左右的时间滑行并等待起飞。飞行时间是2小时10分钟。你又花了15分钟滑行和下机，离开机场可能只需5分钟。但是无论自己驾驶汽车还是乘坐公共交通都需要大约45分钟才能到达芝加哥市中心。总行程时间为5小时45分钟。
现在假设你从中央车站乘坐新的高速列车到芝加哥的联合车站。所以你离开你的公寓，花30分钟前往中央车站，因为它的位置更靠近市区，一般来说比肯尼迪机场更方便。你在火车发车前5分钟踏上火车，安顿下来。现在，因为这是一个全新的、真正的高速服务，所以即使有停靠，它的平均时速也能达到150英里。两者之间的驾驶距离是801英里，所以我们用这个距离来计算火车距离，尽管它实际上可能更长或更短，这取决于路线上的其他站点，以及火车路线往往更直接地接近你的目的地的事实。801英里/150英里的速度使你在火车上的时间为5小时20分钟。当你到达联合车站时，你花5分钟走出车站，已经在芝加哥市中心了。总行程时间：6小时。
因此，在这次旅行中，航空旅行仅占一点优势，而且取决于你在每个城市的起点和终点，这很容易成为一次巨大的折腾。考虑到更高的舒适度和不需要处理安检问题，我每次都会选择火车，即使这意味着需要额外多那么几分钟的旅行时间。很难说票价如何比较，但我想说的是，我曾经乘坐美铁从南卡罗来纳州的查尔斯顿到佛罗里达州的奥兰多，来往于家和大学之间，尽管这是个8小时的旅程，但如果算上停靠，也不比自己开车长多少，而且更轻松。另外，票价是70美元，这比我开着我的F150也更优惠，即使是在汽油2.5美元一加仑的时候，更不用说现在了。我唯一抱怨的是他们按时运行的能力，但这在三年前有了很大的改善，尽管我无法告诉你为什么。
总而言之，是的。只要服务可靠，人们会在某些路线上从航空旅行转到火车。如果包括安检和往返机场的时间，旅行时间其实也差不了多少。

big_trike
I love high speed rail, but fixing airport security delays would be a lot cheaper than building rail.

我喜欢高铁，但解决机场安检延误问题要比建铁路便宜得多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

PefferPack
NY SF is a bad example though because it takes 2-3 days to cross, vs what 6 hours flying?

不过，举纽约市到旧金山不是一个很好的例子，因为火车需要2-3天的时间来穿越，而飞行只需要6小时？

tuctrohs
It takes 3 days now on a super slow train on a 190 mph train, which is a little below the speeds of new steel wheel and steel rail trains in China, it would be 16 hours.

坐现在超慢的火车需要3天时间，在190英里/小时的火车上--这比中国新的钢轮和钢轨火车的速度要低一点--也只需16个小时。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

PefferPack
Wow that would be impressive.

哇，真是令人印象深刻。

worldDev
Have you ever driven coast to coast? Its pretty sparse for passenger vehicles where there are long distances between major metros. Nobody is driving Denver to LA unless they are specifically taking a road trip for fun or moving their belongings somewhere else. When talking about a cross country train system, it wouldn’t be replacing much of any car travel, it would mainly be biting into air travel of which its a far lesser alternative in both cost and travel time.

你有开车从东海岸到西海岸过吗？距离较远的主要城市之间的客运车次是很少的。没有人会开车从丹佛到洛杉矶，除非他们是专门为了好玩而进行公路旅行，或者是为了把他们的物品搬到别的地方。当谈论一个跨省的火车系统时，它绝对不会取代汽车旅行，它主要竞争的是航空旅行的份额，而航空旅行在成本和旅行时间上都是一个更好的选择。

tuctrohs
I have. I hated it, which is part of why would like a train. But I suspect that was just a rhetorical flourish, and your real point is that you think traffic volumes are low. I took a look at some data. It seems that I-40 in AZ has as low as about 12k vehicles per day. So in fact, if 10% of those were on a 400-passenger train, we'd "only" have three trains a day. That's still very good.

我试过。我讨厌这么干，这也是我喜欢火车的部分原因。但我怀疑这只是你的一种修辞手法，你真正的意思是你认为交通量很低。我看了一下一些数据。亚利桑那州的I-40公路每天的交通量低至12000辆左右。因此，事实上，如果其中10%的人乘坐载客400人的火车，我们每天就"只有"三趟火车。这还是很不错的。

worldDev
Most of those numbers are going to be local traffic requiring frequent stops to serve, not high speed train distances. If you are going long distances even where there are currently high speed train systems built, for example going from one end of Japan to the other, it is cheaper and faster to fly. The logistics just don’t make sense in the sparse geography of the US.

这些数字中的大部分都是需要频繁停靠的当地交通，而不是需要搭乘高速列车的距离。如果你要走很远的路，即使在目前有高速列车系统的地方，例如从日本的一端到另一端，坐飞机也更便宜更快。在美国人口稀疏的地理环境下，这么做是没有意义的。

whatsup4
A huge difference between the US and Europe is Europe isn't nearly as car centric as the US is. If you were planning on driving LA to SF part of the reason you would drive is so you don't have to rent a car. This is a big reason rail mostly only competes with planes in the US.

美国和欧洲的一个巨大区别是欧洲不像美国那样以汽车为中心。如果你打算从洛杉矶开车到旧金山，部分原因是你会开车，所以你不必租车。这也是在美国铁路大多只能与飞机竞争的一个重要原因。

graytotoro
Exactly, and OP's example of China shows this: Chinese high speed rail development is concentrated on the eastern half of the country with most lines running north-south to and from where people and development are. There is only one line in the sparsely populated rural western half of the nation that's capable of 200-299 kph.

没错，OP举的中国例子说明了这一点。中国的高铁发展主要集中在东半部，大部分线路都是南北走向，往返于人口和发达的地方。在人口稀少的西半部农村，只有一条线路能够达到200-299公里/小时。

buzzwrong
What if we put a tube like 100ft below surface of ocean with it tethered to the sea floor and run a train or hyperloop in it? San Diego to LA to San Francisco. Would avoid earthquake and land purchase issues. Certainly technical challenges but I think should be considered

如果我们在海面下100英尺处放一个管子，把它固定在海底，然后在里面开火车或超高速铁路，会怎么样？从圣地亚哥到洛杉矶到旧金山。这样可以避免地震和土地购买问题。当然这也是技术上的挑战，但我认为可以考虑。

axz055
No. Even the fastest high speed trains aren't really competitive with air travel for distances over 500 miles or so. If you look at high speed rail in Europe, it's mostly networks within individual countries and only a little overlap between them. For example, you can take a train from Paris to Amsterdam or Geneva. But you can't take a single train all the way from Paris to Rome or Berlin.
If it went 300 mph, a train from Chicago to LA would still take 7 hours without any stops (which is unlikely). And at an optimistic $20 million per mile to build, would cost over $40 billion.
A system on the west coast, maybe with branches to Tucson and Las Vegas might be viable. And the population density in most states east of the Mississippi is probably high enough.

不，即使是最快的高速列车，在超过500英里左右的距离上，也无法与航空旅行竞争。如果你看一下欧洲的高速铁路，会发现它主要是各个国家内部的网络，只有少数国家之间有重叠。例如，你可以乘坐火车从巴黎到阿姆斯特丹或日内瓦。但你不可能从巴黎到罗马或柏林一路只乘坐一辆火车。
即使速度达到300英里/小时，从芝加哥到洛杉矶的火车仍然需要7个小时，这还是没有任何停靠的情况（这是不可能的）。以乐观的每英里2000万美元的建造成本计算，将花费超过400亿美元。
在西海岸建立一个高铁系统，也许分支到图森和拉斯维加斯可能是可行的。密西西比河以东大多数州的人口密度可能足够高。