为什么加州(以及美国其他地区)反对高铁?
Why is there opposition to high-speed rail in California (and the rest of America)?
译文简介
网友：很简单，成本太高了，票价比机票还贵，而且旅行时间也要慢得多。加利福尼亚不是日本，中部山谷人口稀少，而且缺水。此外，山区对火车来说也是一个大问题，因为火车无法翻越坡度超过 3% 的高山，所以要么是需要大量维护的超长隧道，要么是会减慢火车速度的岔道，从而大大延长行程.......
正文翻译
Bruce Wellman
it is very simple the cost is way too high and the the fares would cost more then airline tickets and the travel time would be far slower. California is not Japan the central valley is not very populated and can not be so do to the lack of water. Also the mountains are a major problem for trains since a train can’t climb mountains over 3% grade so either very long tunnels with a lot of maintenance or a lot of switchbacks slowing the trains and a much longer trips. Also last point the local public transportation system is not very good so unless you can bring your car you will need to rent one or use some car service (be is a cab company or ride service)
bottom line is it is a poor solution for a non-problem that has a better solution that is already being used airplanes
很简单，成本太高了，票价比机票还贵，而且旅行时间也要慢得多。加利福尼亚不是日本，中部山谷人口稀少，而且缺水。此外，山区对火车来说也是一个大问题，因为火车无法翻越坡度超过 3% 的高山，所以要么是需要大量维护的超长隧道，要么是会减慢火车速度的岔道，从而大大延长行程。还有最后一点，当地的公共交通系统不是很好，所以除非你能带着你的车，否则你需要租一辆车或使用一些汽车服务（如出租车公司或乘车服务）。
最重要的是，这不是一个解决问题的好办法，而更好的解决办法已经在使用飞机了。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 4 )
收藏
In Texas, the scheme makes no sense. There’s not enough traffic to justify the expense and the disruption the rail lines would cause to ordinary traffic.
How many people actually want to go from downtown Houston to downtown Dallas? Or Fort Worth. And then walk around until it’s time to go back? Virtually none, especially not if the ticket will cost $500.
So then you say, but we’ll subsidize the tickets.
Fine. So I see not only the disruption, but I pay extra taxes so a few big shots can be whisked back and forth at my expense. No thanks.
在得克萨斯州，这一计划毫无意义。没有足够的交通量来证明铁路线的花费和对普通交通的干扰是合理的。
有多少人真正愿意从休斯顿市中心前往达拉斯市中心？或者沃斯堡。然后走来走去，直到要回去的时候？几乎没有，尤其是如果车票要 500 美元的话。
所以你说，但我们会补贴车票。
好吧。所以我不仅看到了混乱，还支付了额外的税款，这样几个大人物就可以花我的钱来回接送了。不，谢谢。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
When democrats have control of your tax money..... $863 BILLION dollars of shovel ready jobs that never existed! democrat kickbacks Obama's porkulous bill
6% of $863 billion stimulus redistribution bill went to shovel READY JOBS !
Thank you obama!
How's your job, home, student loans, 401k or insurance?
merelY two examples of OBAMA’S PORKULOUS BILL!
Amtrak Loses $32 Per Passenger, Rewarded with Windfall ($1.3 billion)
All Aboard The Wine Train! ($54 million)
当民主党控制了你的税款..... 8,630亿美元的铲子就绪工作从未存在过！民主党回扣奥巴马的猪肉法案
8,630亿美元的经济刺激再分配法案中，6%用于 "准备就绪的工作岗位"（shovel READY JOBS）！
谢谢你，奥巴马！
你的工作、住房、学生贷款、401K养老金或保险怎么样了？
以下是奥巴马腐败法案的两个例子！
Amtrak 每名乘客损失 32 美元，却获得意外之财（13 亿美元）
葡萄酒列车全线通车！(5400 万美元）
They’ve been working on it here for years. It’s millions of dollars over budget, years behind schedule. The part that is almost done runs from nowhere to nowhere else.
They never bothered to find out if anyone would actually ride it.
Trains need lots of land - narrow corridors. That means they’d have to take a lot people’s land to build it.
Back when the Transcontinental Railway was built, there was lots and lots of open, un-owned land.
It is not economically feasible - there’s no way for them to make a profit - or even break even.
他们已经在这里工作了好几年。预算超出数百万美元，进度落后数年。快完工的部分从哪儿也不知道延伸到哪儿。
他们从来没有费心去了解是否有人会真正乘坐它。
火车需要大量的土地--狭窄的走廊。这意味着他们必须占用很多人的土地来建造它。
当年修建横贯大陆的铁路时，就有很多空地和无主土地。
这在经济上是不可行的--他们根本无法盈利，甚至无法收支平衡。
One good reason is skyrocketing cost. The cost of rail is somewhere between $100m per mile and $1b per mile. Put in 100 miles of rail in a major city, or 250, or whatever. These services MUST be paid for in some way.
no ability to forecast realistic usage. With billions being spent, there needs to be an ability to return some capital on an investment. For example, the downtown atlanta trolley has 100 riders per day and cost hundreds of millions to create, manage, and upkeep. I wouldn’t go in front of voters trying to support that.
the US has a very low population density outside of the north east. Sure, it works in places with higher population density. Heavy subsidies are a bad idea.
cost and limited usage, those are good reasons to not do anything with rail.
一个很好的理由是成本飞涨。铁路的成本大约在每英里 1 亿美元到 10 亿美元之间。在大城市铺设 100 英里铁路，或 250 英里，或其他。这些服务必须以某种方式支付费用。
无法预测实际使用情况。既然花费了数十亿美元，就必须有能力在投资上获得一定的资本回报。例如，亚特兰大市中心的电车每天有 100 名乘客，其创建、管理和维护费用高达数亿美元。我不会在选民面前试图支持这一点。
美国东北部以外地区的人口密度非常低。当然，这在人口密度较高的地方也行得通。大量补贴是个坏主意。
成本和有限的使用，这些都是不使用铁路的充分理由。
I can see from the other answers that Americans in general still don’t understand the concept of “public utility”. Infrastructure must only be built if it “pays for itself”. That particular argument applies to all forms of public transit, but to passenger rail in particular.
But here’s the truth. Passenger rail in other parts of the world is doing just fine.
从其他答案中我可以看出，美国人普遍仍不理解 "公共事业 "的概念。基础设施只有在 "物有所值 "的情况下才能建设。这种说法适用于所有形式的公共交通，但尤其适用于客运铁路。
但事实是这样的。世界其他地区的客运铁路做得很好。
事实是，在 20 世纪 50 年代至 80 年代期间，美国基本上决定放弃机场和公路客运铁路，然后在 1980 年也基本上停止了这些方面的建设。直到那时，人们才清楚地认识到，只有剩余的客运铁路服务才有可能让人们通过美国人口最稠密的地区。如果终止美国铁路公司在波士顿-纽约-华盛顿之间的客运服务，就根本无法运行足够多的公共汽车、修建足够多的高速公路或机场来满足需求。
让我们来谈谈西南航空公司，它仍然是商学院的重点研究对象。它是全球仅有的几家持续盈利的航空公司之一。然而，当它成立之初，尽管不需要那么多乘客就能实现收支平衡，却一直在亏损。他们很快发现，罪魁祸首是在大部分航线上开车比坐飞机便宜。
High speed rail works the same way.
于是，西南航空将票价降到了坐飞机比开车便宜的地步。乘客数量激增。他们需要更多的飞机来满足需求。
高速铁路也是如此。
High speed rail isn’t rail. It’s “Transportation” and the United States spends loads of money, and doesn’t make it back, on airports and highways, essentially an indirect subsidy for air and car travel. People won’t take a train from downtown Dallas to downtown Houston? Then why would they fly from Dallas’s airport to Houston’s? Those are both out in the middle of nowhere.
继中国之后，世界上第二个最大的高速铁路系统在西班牙。从马德里到巴塞罗那的单程票价为 7-20 美元，具体取决于一天中的不同时间。大约每小时一班火车。
高铁不是铁路。它是 "交通"，美国在机场和高速公路上花费了大量资金，却没有赚回来，这基本上是对航空和汽车旅行的间接补贴。人们不会坐火车从达拉斯市中心到休斯顿市中心？那他们为什么要从达拉斯机场飞到休斯顿机场？这两个机场都在荒郊野外。
-LA to Las Vegas - 352 flights per week
-Atlanta to Orlando - 272 flights per week. Add another 254,000 passengers from Atlanta to Ft. Lauderdale.
-Denver to Las Vegas - 317 flights per week
看看这些数字
-洛杉矶至拉斯维加斯 - 每周 352 个航班
-亚特兰大至奥兰多 - 每周 272 个航班。亚特兰大到劳德代尔堡的乘客再增加 25.4 万人次。
-丹佛至拉斯维加斯 - 每周 317 个航班
那么，告诉我丹佛-拉斯维加斯-洛杉矶的高铁列车是个坏主意，或者亚特兰大-奥兰多-劳德代尔堡的列车是个坏主意。我会告诉你对谁来说是个坏主意--航空公司。
California is a perfect example. It’s freeways between its cities (2nd, 12th,.13th, 18th, 28th, 36th and 48th largest metro areas in the United States, plus Las Vegas in 47th) are packed and there’s a lot of opposition to new airports
道路和机场根本无法承受。如前所述，现在你能从纽约到达华盛顿的唯一原因就是有火车。然而，整个交通网络需要升级，因为在过去的六十年里，它已经恶化到连货运列车都要在上面爬行的地步。
加州就是一个很好的例子。它的城市（美国第 2、12、13、18、28、36 和 48 大城市区，加上第 47 位的拉斯维加斯）之间的高速公路拥挤不堪，而且有很多人反对新建机场。
It’s simple really - build some rail or expect transportation in the region to slow to a crawl as its population and economy grows.
此外，该地区的人口几乎都在太平洋沿岸。
这其实很简单--修建一些铁路，否则随着人口和经济的增长，该地区的交通将变得缓慢。
‘I can see from the other answers that Americans in general still don’t understand the concept of “public utility”. Infrastructure must only be built if it “pays for itself”. That particular argument applies to all forms of public transit, but to passenger rail in particular.’
This can’t be said often enough. I’ve seen many Americans sneering at the Chinese high-speed rail system because it carries a lot of debt. But who cares? It supports everything around it - not just economic life and urbanisation but countless practical uses, like people being able to access work, education, tourist destinations and healthcare, and being able to maintain family ties, and knitting the whole country together.
'从其他答案中我可以看出，美国人普遍仍然不理解 "公共事业 "的概念。只有在基础设施 "物有所值 "的情况下，才能建设基础设施。这种说法适用于所有形式的公共交通，但尤其适用于客运铁路。
这句话怎么说都不为过。我看到很多美国人对中国的高铁系统嗤之以鼻，因为它背负了很多债务。但谁在乎呢？它支持着周围的一切--不仅仅是经济生活和城市化，还有无数的实际用途，比如人们能够前往工作、教育、旅游景点和医疗机构，能够保持家庭联系，将整个国家联系在一起。
And Americans pave over the more than 200 BILLION dollars annual debt the stuperhighways rack up, and NO ONE complains because automotive use is an extreme ADDICTION….
美国人为超级高速公路每年积累的2000多亿美元债务铺路，没有人抱怨，因为使用汽车是一种极度的瘾癖....。
The answer is simple: Americans generally don’t support passenger rail service, and it will never break even financially unless the government bans automobile traffic.
And Americans really don’t care “how they do it” in Europe or China.
答案很简单： 美国人普遍不支持铁路客运服务，除非政府禁止汽车通行，否则铁路客运服务在经济上永远无法实现收支平衡。
而且美国人真的不在乎欧洲或中国的 "做法"。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Big difference is with a car I can choose when to leave and take the most direct route. Transit takes time which the advocates always ignore. Say I want to go from Pottstown, PA to Freehold, NJ. How long would such as trip take? Most people’s lives don’t center around the downtowns of big cities. Even in Europe I mainly drive because most of the places I need to go for visit are not located in cities.
最大的区别在于，有了车，我可以选择何时出发，走最直接的路线。公共交通需要时间，而拥护者总是忽略这一点。假如我想从宾夕法尼亚州的波特斯敦去新泽西州的弗里霍德。这样的旅行需要多长时间？大多数人的生活并不以大城市的市中心为中心。即使在欧洲，我也主要开车，因为我需要去的大多数地方都不在城市里。
If Americans hate paying for public utilities, they must truly detest their suburban road networks. Or has no one ever told them how expensive those are?
如果美国人讨厌为公共设施付费，那么他们一定非常讨厌郊区的道路网络。还是从来没有人告诉过他们这些费用有多贵？
California tried to get rail feom SF to LA. Politics dictated the route ND they started with the least efficient part. I woukd be curious the number of flights between the two. And then you have to get I to downtown. Correct me if wrong but Amtrak dies not go into SF?
加州曾试图修建从旧金山到洛杉矶的铁路。政治因素决定了 ND 的路线，他们从效率最低的部分开始。我很好奇两地之间的航班数量。然后你还得把我送到市中心。如果我说错了，请纠正我，但 Amtrak 没有进入旧金山？
They are still trying. The main problem is geography (mountain ranges). There is no “Sacramento to LA" track. You have to finish the route by taking a bus from Bakersfield to LA due to mountains. There are plans to build HSR through the mountains and similarly though the Diablo Range from the Silicon Valley into the central valley. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime (and another $100B). Most of it won't be HSR… by design, curiously.
LA basin to Las Vegas makes sense.
他们仍在努力。主要问题在于地理位置（山脉）。没有 "萨克拉门托到洛杉矶 "的轨道。由于山脉的原因，您必须乘坐巴士从贝克斯菲尔德到达洛杉矶，才能完成这条线路。有计划修建穿越山脉的高铁，同样也有计划修建穿越暗黑破坏神山脉从硅谷进入中央山谷的高铁。我很怀疑在我有生之年能否看到它（还要再花 1000 亿美元）。奇怪的是，其中大部分都不会是高铁......这是设计好的。
从洛杉矶盆地到拉斯维加斯是合理的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Very interesting your post. What was not clear to me what was the economic reasons that made people switch from rail to air and roads, At that moment I guess that it was more economical to drive and still keep one’s car in cities without good public transportation. Am I right?.
您的评论非常有趣。我不清楚是什么经济原因让人们从铁路转向航空和公路，当时我想，在没有良好公共交通的城市，开车和保留汽车更经济。我说的对吗？
Hand-over-fist oversubsidization granted to fuel-intensive transportation modes such as the automobile and airplane is a good part of the story; another part is that the automotive industry and energy corporations lobbied congress for control of ground-based transportation in the United States.
对汽车和飞机等燃料密集型交通方式的过度补贴是一个很好的例子;另一部分是汽车工业和能源公司游说国会控制美国的地面交通。
Trains are the worst of both worlds in the US. you have all the hassles of going by plane, but it takes as long or longer than a car.
even in larger cities where traffic is considerably worse and slows down cars, its usually around the same time as going by train. Example of Atlanta, the marta train from the airport to the north springs station I believe takes me a good hour. That’s not too much different than just taking a car. The car is more expensive, but most people don’t really care about a few dollars, especially with the convenience factor.
在美国，火车是两个世界中最糟糕的。你有坐飞机的所有麻烦，但它花的时间和开车一样长，甚至更长。
即使在交通相当糟糕的大城市，汽车也会放慢速度，通常与乘火车的时间差不多。以亚特兰大为例，从机场到地铁花了我整整一个小时。这和开车没有太大区别。汽车更贵，但大多数人并不在乎几美元，尤其是考虑到便利因素。
最大的经济因素是，汽车意味着你想去哪里就去哪里。公路的建造成本非常低，有人给出了一英里铁路和高速公路的价格，我们也将一英里的两车道砾石路、县道和其他类型的道路与铁路线进行比较。不需要时间表，也不需要限制地点何时连接。
我的意思是，想想看，即使在拥有惊人铁路连接的地方和国家，它们中的任何一个都有和公路一样的连接吗?即使是在最不适合公路旅行的地方(大城市)，每个地方都有公路连接，地铁和铁路网络可能相对较近，可以步行到达，但如果交通不是问题，它就不会连接到所有地方，也不会像公路那样方便。
在美国，除了大城市之外，交通很少是一个问题，所以如果你要去一个遥远的地方旅行，坐飞机不太吸引人，那么公路旅行几乎和铁路旅行花费的时间一样或更少，你有所有的便利，并且能够在你的目的地漫游。与其他选择相比，要想让铁路旅行更具吸引力是一件非常困难的事情。