你認為美國未來會擁有像歐洲、中國和日本那樣規(guī)模的高速客運鐵路網(wǎng)絡嗎
Do you think the USA will ever have a high speed passenger rail network on the scale of what is found in Europe, China, and Japan?
譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友：是的，這是可能的。美國擁有世界上排名前兩的技術學院（加州理工學院、麻省理工學院），而中國許多壯觀的摩天大樓都是由美國建筑師設計的。
正文翻譯
Scott Wood
Yes, it is possible. The USA has the top two technical institutes in the world (Cal Tech, MIT) and many of the spectacular skyscrapers in China were designed by American architects.
是的，這是可能的。美國擁有世界上排名前兩的技術學院（加州理工學院、麻省理工學院），而中國許多壯觀的摩天大樓都是由美國建筑師設計的。
Yes, it is possible. The USA has the top two technical institutes in the world (Cal Tech, MIT) and many of the spectacular skyscrapers in China were designed by American architects.
是的，這是可能的。美國擁有世界上排名前兩的技術學院（加州理工學院、麻省理工學院），而中國許多壯觀的摩天大樓都是由美國建筑師設計的。
Thus, The USA has the talented professionals to construct high speed rail. Much of The USA does not have the population density to support high speed rail. It could work in the north east, the south east and California. The rest of The USA is too sparsely populated to make high speed rail affordable. If high speed rail between Philadelphia and New York City had 10,000 passengers per day, high speed rail between Memphis and Oklahoma City would have 300 passengers per day. To make the second route operate, it would cost 30 times more, per passenger, and most people would not want to pay that much. The sophisticated trains that China is famous for travel between huge cities, some of which are more populated than New York City.
因此，美國擁有建設高速鐵路所需的人才。但美國的大部分地區(qū)人口密度不足以支持高速鐵路。它在東北部、東南部和加利福尼亞州可能會有效。美國其他地方人口稀少，無法使高速鐵路具有經(jīng)濟可行性。如果費城和紐約市之間的高速鐵路每天有10,000名乘客，那么孟菲斯和俄克拉荷馬市之間的高速鐵路每天只有300名乘客。要使第二條線路運營，每名乘客的成本將是第一條線路的30倍，大多數(shù)人不會愿意支付如此高的費用。中國以其先進的列車聞名，這些列車在大城市之間行駛，其中一些城市的人口比紐約市還要多。旅行的總費用由乘客人數(shù)分攤，因此每位乘客的費用較低。
因此，美國擁有建設高速鐵路所需的人才。但美國的大部分地區(qū)人口密度不足以支持高速鐵路。它在東北部、東南部和加利福尼亞州可能會有效。美國其他地方人口稀少，無法使高速鐵路具有經(jīng)濟可行性。如果費城和紐約市之間的高速鐵路每天有10,000名乘客，那么孟菲斯和俄克拉荷馬市之間的高速鐵路每天只有300名乘客。要使第二條線路運營，每名乘客的成本將是第一條線路的30倍，大多數(shù)人不會愿意支付如此高的費用。中國以其先進的列車聞名，這些列車在大城市之間行駛，其中一些城市的人口比紐約市還要多。旅行的總費用由乘客人數(shù)分攤，因此每位乘客的費用較低。
The total cost of the trip is divided by the number of passengers, thus it is cheaper, per passenger. In summary, it is possible to have high speed rail in The USA, but only realistic in three parts of The USA.
總結來說，美國有可能擁有高速鐵路，但僅在美國的三個地區(qū)實現(xiàn)是現(xiàn)實的。
總結來說，美國有可能擁有高速鐵路，但僅在美國的三個地區(qū)實現(xiàn)是現(xiàn)實的。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 5 )
收藏
The future of rail in the USA will be very much like today.
The countries that OP named as examples are smaller than many US states.
Japan's population is concentrated heavily in a single urban strip on its west coast, essentially a single megacity that is hundreds of miles long and only a few miles wide, in a country roughly the size of California.
美國鐵路的未來將與今天非常相似。
OP提到的那些國家比許多美國州要小。
日本的城市人口主要集中在其西海岸的一個狹長地帶，基本上是一個幾百英里長、只有幾英里寬的超級大城市，面積大致相當于加利福尼亞州。
法國的面積是典型美國州的三倍，但每平方英里335人，人口密度是美國的10倍。巴黎人口250萬，面積42平方英里。而一座人口為5萬的美國城市的面積幾乎和巴黎一樣，達到35平方英里。一個50萬人口的都市區(qū)則占地超過3000平方英里，沒有足夠的集中人口來使鐵路高效運行。美國人認為過于擁擠的城市，其人口密度為每平方英里125人。往返于鐵路車站的旅程將消耗掉在實際旅行中節(jié)省的所有時間。
美國人口稀疏——平均每平方英里不到35人，部分地區(qū)的面積甚至大于一些國家，而人口密度幾乎是“每人幾平方英里”。
HSR is increasingly looking like a 20th century solution to a 19th century problem that is simply sidestepped by the 21st century solution of Internet.
高速鐵路的最大驅動因素是商務旅行（沒人專程去美國城市度假，我們才是離開它們）。但商務旅行的需求已經(jīng)大幅減少。自從新冠疫情以來，我沒有遇到過任何客戶要求現(xiàn)場工作——一切都是遠程進行?？蛻裟軌颢@得更好的服務和價格。會議通過Zoom、WebEx或其他競爭對手進行。
高速鐵路越來越像是20世紀的解決方案，針對的是19世紀的問題，而這個問題在21世紀的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)解決方案面前已經(jīng)被繞過了。
No, not on the scale of other nations.
The topography and population density and the sheer size of the U.S. as well as the needs and wants of it’s people made passenger rail service, much less high speed rail, a thing of the past in the U.S.
不，不能與其他國家的規(guī)模相比。
美國的地形、人口密度以及龐大的面積，再加上民眾的需求和愿望，使得客運鐵路服務，尤其是高速鐵路，成為美國過去的事情。
在20世紀的前半葉，客運鐵路服務很常見，但汽車的普及和全國高速公路網(wǎng)絡的擴展導致了鐵路服務在1950年代逐漸衰退，除了在人口密集的地區(qū)，主要是在東海岸。隨后，飛機成為了美國境內長途旅行的首選方式，因為速度更為重要。
The U.S.’s only attempt at transcontinental passenger rail service, Amtrak, has been a financial failure and only exists because of heavy funding by the government for decades.
今天，需求和成本的結合使得高速鐵路變得不太可能。那些有足夠需求支持客運鐵路服務并能夠自負盈虧的地區(qū)，已經(jīng)有了相應的鐵路服務。
美國唯一一次嘗試跨大陸的客運鐵路服務，即美鐵（Amtrak），一直是財務上的失敗，并且僅僅因為政府多年來的大量資助才得以存在。
Why would we waste money on some stupid train? Jet passenger planes are faster. A “high speed” train goes between big cities. So does a jet. And a jet does it faster. Our cities are much, much farther apart than Japanese cities. A train may make sense for a small country like Japan, or densely populated Europe, but not for a huge country like the US (except for the densely populated east coast, maybe). As for all the spaces between big American cities, public roads for private vehicles make more sense than a train, subway, or bus. We are not Europe. We are not Asia. We solve our problems the way we feel is best for us. High speed trains are not practical, useful, or needed. You want high speed trains in your country? Great. Good for you. If they make sense in your country, go for it. We choose not to, because in this country, they would be a stupid, colossal waste of money.
為什么要浪費錢建什么愚蠢的火車？噴氣客機更快。所謂的“高速”火車連接的是大城市，噴氣飛機也是如此，而且飛得更快。我們的城市相隔遠得多，遠遠超過日本的城市?；疖嚳赡苓m用于像日本這樣的小國，或像歐洲這樣人口密集的地方，但對像美國這樣的大國來說不合適（也許只有東海岸那種人口密集的地方例外）。至于美國大城市之間的所有空曠地帶，公共道路對私人車輛來說更合適，而不是火車、地鐵或公共汽車。我們不是歐洲，我們也不是亞洲。我們以自己認為最適合我們的方式解決問題。高速火車既不實際，也不實用，更不需要。如果你們國家需要高速火車？好啊，祝你們好運。如果在你們國家有意義，去做吧。我們選擇不做，因為在這個國家，它們將是一個愚蠢的、巨大的浪費。
Unless the U.S. improves its tendency to dislike socialism as much as Com...ism, I don't think high-speed rail will work.
The areas where high-speed rail is currently doing well are in countries that have adopted modified Com...ism or socialism.
This is because there is an affinity between the method of boarding large numbers of people from a limited number of stations to improve overall efficiency and the way efficiency is increased in socialism.
除非美國改變它對社會主義的厭惡程度，否則我認為高速鐵路行不通。
目前高速鐵路運行良好的國家，都是采取了某種形式的改良社會主義或GCZY的國家。
這是因為，如何通過有限數(shù)量的車站來高效地搭載大量乘客，這種方法與社會主義提高效率的方式有某種相似性。
Such countries are not motivated to promote the construction and use of high-speed rail, even if they have the potential to do so.
然而，美國對這些改進方法有排斥，甚至對全民醫(yī)保都感到厭惡。
這些國家即使具備建設高速鐵路的潛力，也不一定會推動其建設和使用。
North America does not even have a low speed rail network. In 1945 there were 2,000 scheduled passenger trains per week but by 30 or so years ago it was down to less than 50. Few rail lines today carry passengers. Intercity bus service is also a shadow of the past.A recent revival aka Amtrack has reversed the trend but passenger rail is still small. I can stretch my neck out and say that there might be one in the future when carbon or battery use become too expensive for small scale road traffic, sort of a return to the pre-jet era of aviation.
北美甚至沒有低速鐵路網(wǎng)絡。1945年，每周有2,000列定期客運列車，但大約30年前，這個數(shù)字降到了不到50列。今天，少數(shù)鐵路線路仍提供客運服務。城際巴士服務也幾乎不復存在。最近的復興，例如美鐵，扭轉了這一趨勢，但客運鐵路仍然是少數(shù)。我可以大膽預測，在未來，當碳或電池使用變得對小規(guī)模道路交通來說過于昂貴時，可能會有一個鐵路復興，類似于噴氣機時代前的航空交通。
保守勢力和成本可能會阻止美國盡快建成任何單一的高速鐵路。唯一有可能的地方是蒙特利爾到漢密爾頓的走廊，大約有一半的加拿大人生活在這里。政府對新想法更加開放，現(xiàn)有的高速公路也超負荷。多倫多、蒙特利爾和其他城市有發(fā)達的公共交通系統(tǒng)，因此在每個終點城市的旅行是可能的。租車也很常見。此外，現(xiàn)有的客運鐵路服務相當受歡迎，提升速度正在討論中。
No. There is no market that could justify the costs involved. It is that simple.
Many tracks go back to the 19th century. They would all have to be replaced. Except that they are currently in use, which means current rail traffic would have to be curtailed (and later regained) or new track would have to be laid. For new track to be laid, permission must be granted by every municipality along the way. That could take years, and one holdout could delay the project even longer. Then, there must be enough traffic, ie full trains, to pay the cost, and if there are not, the tracks would have to be shared with other train traffic, which could result in the high speed train being stuck behind a slow freight, which is what happens now.
不。目前沒有市場能夠證明這樣做的成本是合理的。就是這么簡單。
許多軌道可以追溯到19世紀。所有這些都必須更換。但它們目前正在使用，這意味著現(xiàn)有的鐵路交通必須減少（之后再恢復）或必須鋪設新的軌道。鋪設新軌道需要得到途經(jīng)每個市鎮(zhèn)的許可，這可能需要數(shù)年時間，而且任何一個反對者都可能會進一步延遲項目的推進。然后，必須有足夠的交通量，即滿載的列車，才能支付成本，如果沒有足夠的乘客，鐵路就必須與其他列車共享軌道，這可能會導致高速列車被慢速貨運列車擋住，就像現(xiàn)在的情況一樣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
再考慮列車必須?？康拇螖?shù)。為了確保列車滿員，路線必須經(jīng)過大城市。每?？恳淮味紩p緩列車的速度。然后就是票價問題。除非你有很多時間，否則長途火車票和飛機票的價格差異很小。而且這是非高速鐵路的情況。如果是高速鐵路，票價差異就更小了。為了讓火車旅行在四小時以上的行程中具有競爭力，必須大幅削減飛機的航班量。
I personally believe that high-speed rail is a great solution to mass passenger transportation over a certain range, as long as there is a steady demand on that route that justifies the investment. (Too short and it’s not worth to go that fast, too long and air travel will be faster even considering the way to the airport and the hours before the flight you have to be there.) It’s safe, reliable, comfortable, environmentally friendly and has very convenient total travel times.
我個人認為，高速鐵路是解決一定范圍內大規(guī)?？瓦\運輸?shù)囊粋€好方案，只要該路線有穩(wěn)定的需求，足以支撐投資。（如果距離太短，就不值得去那么快，太長的話，即使考慮到去機場的時間和提前到達登機口的時間，航空旅行也會更快。）它安全、可靠、舒適、環(huán)保，且總旅行時間非常方便。
像所有工業(yè)化國家一樣，美國有許多城市符合這個范圍，并且有足夠的需求?？紤]到化石燃料價格有上漲趨勢，氣候危機只會越來越嚴重（所以我們必須轉向使用再生能源……電氣化鐵路是最適合這種轉型的交通方式），高速鐵路變得越來越明顯是一個解決方案。它需要不同的政府來做出這樣的投資，所以……再等幾年吧。我很確定你們會實現(xiàn)的。
It could someday, but likely it would only be regional isolated systems designed to serve metro areas.
Transcontinental high speed rail in the USA simply cannot be made profitable by private investment, and the government wisely has no interest in spending many billions of tax dollars on a transportation system that would only be used by a tiny percentage of the population.
未來有可能，但很可能只會是一些地區(qū)性的孤立系統(tǒng)，旨在服務于大都市區(qū)。
美國的跨洲高速鐵路在私營投資者眼中無法盈利，政府明智地對花費數(shù)十億美元的稅收資金在一個只會被少數(shù)人使用的交通系統(tǒng)上沒有興趣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
American political system allowed rapid country development in 19th and 20th century to become No. 1 in the world. It’s system became outdated now and stands in a way of country’s progress. We got a gridlock in Congress and Senate, and very difficult coordination between State, local and Federal government. Public opinion of badly educated population is ignorant.
Any meaningful project of big size is doomed.
美國的政治體制曾經(jīng)允許國家在19世紀和20世紀迅速發(fā)展，成為世界第一。但現(xiàn)在這個體制已經(jīng)過時，阻礙了國家的進步。國會和參議院的僵局，州政府、地方政府和聯(lián)邦政府之間的協(xié)調困難，民眾的公共意見由于教育水平低下而顯得無知。
任何有意義的大型項目都注定要失敗。
Nope, because of geography.
Fast passenger trains make sense connecting high population density areas not more than about 200 - 300 miles apart. At any greater distance, trains are not competitive with flying because of the travel time.
There are some areas in the USA like that, like the Northeast Corridor and a few other places. But most population centers in the USA are farther apart than in Europe, China, or Japan.
不行，因為地理原因。
高速客運列車在連接人口密集、相距大約200到300英里以內的地區(qū)時有意義。在更遠的距離，列車就無法與飛機競爭，因為旅行時間太長。
美國有一些這樣的區(qū)域，比如東北走廊和其他幾個地方。但美國的大多數(shù)人口中心之間的距離比歐洲、中國或日本更遠。
It is obviously possible - though the US hardly has the necessary technological know-how at present, so advice and expertise might come from France, Japan or China. The main problem is who would make the investment. No private investor is likely to do it: high-speed rail may be a paying proposition, but the investment is huge and there are more profitable opportunities for capital. Amtrak is hardly in a position to undertake such a gigantic project, so the only solution would be massive state funding. Politically, that does not seem likely any soon.
The obvious choice for a line would be the New York- Philadelphia corridor, possibly extended to Boston.
顯然是可能的——盡管美國目前幾乎沒有必要的技術能力，因此可能需要從法國、日本或中國獲取建議和專業(yè)知識。主要的問題是誰來進行投資。沒有私人投資者愿意做這件事：高速鐵路或許能盈利，但投資巨大，資本有更多盈利機會。Amtrak（美國鐵路公司）顯然沒有能力承擔這樣一個龐大的項目，因此唯一的解決方案可能是大規(guī)模的國家資金支持。在政治上，近期似乎不太可能實現(xiàn)這種投資。
紐約-費城走廊顯然是建造線路的最佳選擇，可能還會延伸到波士頓。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
US is a vast Country, from West to East the time difference being 4 hours. It is not compact like Japan or China. US has one of the best Air Connectivity, which is cheaper and dose not require much infrastructure as bullet train will need. So Americans are happy with their Air Connectivity.
美國是一個廣闊的國家，從東西海岸之間的時差有4小時。它不像日本或中國那么緊湊。美國的航空連接非常好，票價便宜，也不需要像高速列車那樣的大量基礎設施。所以美國人對航空連接感到滿意。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Probably not. The USA with over 300 million people doesn't have vast open spaces to lay the high speed rail tracks. The north has open spaces in States like Oregon, Montana, Wyoming and Minnesota. In Japan there is populous cities plus the open spaces for the bullet trains to travel between major cities. Canada is larger than the USA, but has 1/10th of the population. We don't even have these type of trains and probably never will.
可能不行。美國人口超過3億，無法像日本那樣在空曠的地方鋪設高速鐵路軌道。美國北部有一些空曠地區(qū)，比如俄勒岡、蒙大拿、懷俄明和明尼蘇達州。而在日本，人口密集的城市和開闊的空間使得子彈頭列車可以在主要城市之間通行。加拿大的面積比美國大，但人口只有美國的十分之一。我們甚至沒有這種類型的列車，可能永遠也不會有。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Our military-industrial system limits the ability of our productive capacity for advancement of domestic infrastructure. Our military is scattered throughout the earth. We spend trillions on other countries wars. Our elected officials are beholden to the arms manufacturers for reelection. If billions were diverted away from supporting millions of illegals and building bombs and missiles we’d could build a rail system to easily rival Japan.
我們的軍事工業(yè)系統(tǒng)限制了我們國內基礎設施的進步能力。我們的軍隊分布在世界各地。我們在其他國家的戰(zhàn)爭上花費了數(shù)萬億美元。我們的民選官員依賴武器制造商的支持來連任。如果我們能把數(shù)十億資金從支持非法移民和制造炸彈導彈上轉移到建設鐵路系統(tǒng)上，我們就能建立一個輕松趕上日本的鐵路系統(tǒng)。
I don't think it's possible.
The reason is simple. Most Americans don't need this mode of transportation.
It may be convenient and cool to take a ride once or twice, but unlike China, America does not have tens of millions or hundreds of millions of workers who need to cross thousands of kilometers to work in another city.
In America, financiers' time is as precious as gold. They fly. Ordinary people are engaged in local service industry, and they travel by car and subway.
Without enough passengers, the huge high-speed railway network cannot survive.
我認為這不可能實現(xiàn)。
原因很簡單。大多數(shù)美國人不需要這種交通方式。坐一次或兩次可能方便且很酷，但不像中國，美國沒有數(shù)千萬甚至上億的工人需要跨越幾千公里到另一個城市工作。在美國，金融家的時間和黃金一樣寶貴，他們選擇坐飛機。普通人從事本地服務行業(yè)，出行一般靠汽車和地鐵。沒有足夠的乘客，龐大的高速鐵路網(wǎng)絡是無法維持的。
“Do you think the USA will ever have a high speed passenger rail network on the scale of what is found in Europe, China, and Japan?”
Passenger trains are obsolete in any place that has cars, airplanes and parking spaces.
The reason those regions use trains at all is their lack of cars. The US does not lack cars so here trains are obsolete.
“你認為美國是否會擁有像歐洲、中國和日本那樣規(guī)模的高速客運鐵路網(wǎng)絡？”
在擁有汽車、飛機和停車位的地方，客運火車已經(jīng)過時。
這些地區(qū)之所以使用火車，是因為它們缺乏汽車。美國不缺汽車，所以在這里火車已經(jīng)過時。
Watch what happens when drones reach the size of buses. Both commuter trains and parking lots near airports will fade away.
No. High speed trains have specific requirements that don’t apply in the US.
當自動駕駛汽車能夠自己找到停車位時，地鐵和通勤列車的使用將大幅下降。
當無人機的大小達到公交車水平時，通勤列車和機場附近的停車場將逐漸消失。
不，高速列車有特定的要求，而這些要求在美國并不適用。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處