[2019-12-10]为什么中国的客运铁路系统比美国的先进得多？

Glenn Luk , Invests in China
Building high-speed rail networks is more about coordination than any sort of underlying technology issues:
* The software and signaling systems used to coordinate hundreds of trains in a rail network are less sophisticated than systems used to coordinate the thousands of planes that are flying in the air at any given moment.
* The technology to accelerate a passenger train using electricity to over 200 mph has been around for a long time. But to do it safely means building very straight tracks.
* The largest cost item in most high-speed rail projects is a result of the need to cut these straight lines through populated areas. Reducing land acquisition costs is all about coordination with local communities along the right-of-way.
* Providing a good transit experience for commuters is about reducing intermodal friction costs. In other words, making the hand-off from long-haul inter-city rail to local transit networks (bus, subway, auto) as seamless as possible. Once again, this involves coordination between state and local officials.
Thus, the decision to invest a massive amount of effort and coordinate resources is really a question of economics: Do the incremental economic benefits of going through this coordination exercise outweigh the costs? And to put it bluntly, the economics of high-speed rail work in China and they don’t work as well in the U.S.
This could change in the future with technology advancements in related areas (e.g. autonomous vehicle technology, proliferation of electric vehicles) but under the current situation, this is the reality that prevails.
In the United States, it costs a lot to build high-speed rail[2]:
* It is expensive and time-consuming to acquire land — that is the price you pay for strong property rights.
* Construction costs are high — that’s the price you pay for being an advanced economy with developed safety laws and regulations.
* Topography may also play a role, depending on the region.
* Cost is not just about money, it is time as well. Authorities are projecting Phase I of the California HSR project to be completed in 2033. Because it takes so long to complete, you have to contend with the double-whammy of delaying the benefits well into the future while dealing with living next to a construction zone for many, many years.
Assuming you can overcome these obstacles and get the rail network built, you then need to contend with the risk of low capacity utilization or ridership:
* Population density is relatively low and even in developed areas, families seem to favor living in low-density “suburban sprawl” type development. Train station design is very different in high-density vs. low-density environments. For example, the amount of space dedicated to parking is significantly higher in suburban environments vs. urban environments.
* The most heavily trafficked and populated corridors in the U.S. are point-to-point vs. web-like networks. Think San Francisco to Los Angeles or Boston to Washington, D.C. Furthermore, the heavily populated coastal regions are separated from each other by thousands of miles of relatively sparsely populated interior. The time savings of high-speed rail tend to get overtaken by air travel around the 400 to 500-mile mark — this is why it doesn’t make much sense to build high-speed rail in Australia either[3].
* Transportation alternatives are well-developed. The incremental time and convenience benefit of HSR in many situations is not that much better than the alternative.
Some of these factors can be solved by time and technology advancement. For example, construction techniques may improve so that it becomes easier to lay track. The country has strong demographics and robust inbound immigration and population density is rising faster than other advanced economies.
But some things are structural in nature: Strong property rights and labor laws are good characteristics that should not be materially changed, in my view.
In China, it is inexpensive to build high-speed rail:
* Land acquisition is easy under China’s authoritarian system. In China, land is ultimately owned by the State and individuals only own “land use rights”. For everyday situations, this is not unlike property ownership but if the government needs your land, you have fewer protections — you may get some form of compensation but probably nothing compared to what you would get if you owned the property outright. Your ability to hold up the process will be limited.
* Construction costs are low — China has a large blue-collar labor pool and can leverage economies of scale — like a massive beam-launching machine that was invented for the sole purpose of laying high-speed rail track[4].
* Topography is fairly mild in the places Chinese people have historically tended to congregate and live. This means fewer expensive bridges and tunnels that need to be built (even then, China has still had to build a massive number of these).
* China can move fast. In the time it is projected to build out the 800-km line from San Francisco to Los Angeles, China is planning to complete an entire “8x8” high-speed rail network totaling over 30,000 kilometers that connects nearly every major Chinese city to the grid[5]. Typical lines are completed and operational within 4–5 years of initial planning. In other words, Chinese are able to realize the economic benefits of their construction efforts much, much sooner.
Once Chinese high-speed rail lines were built, they were heavily utilized:
* Population density is high, especially if you exclude two-thirds of the country out west in areas that are mostly desert and mountains and thus, sparsely populated[6].
* Chinese urban development tended to develop in a more web-like design. Web-like rail networks tend to be used more intensively, as it allows for incremental transit traffic to supplement traditional point-to-point traffic. For example, as you can see (if you squint) in the map below, Changsha has become a major transit center as it carries both North-South traffic (Guangzhou to Wuhan) and East-West traffic (to Shanghai).
* Transportation alternatives are less well-developed in still-developing China[7]. For one, fewer people own their own cars. Fewer people can afford air travel. So the cost-value proposition of high-speed rail over the closest long-haul options (e.g. bus, regular trains) is superior in many cases.
* Intermodal friction costs are lower in China. In almost every instance, high-speed rail, local metro and local bus stations are all in the same place. I will note the huge contrast in my first experience taking a Chinese high-speed train and switching to the subway in Nanjing[8] with the experience I have trying to transfer from the NYC Subway to the Airtrain to John F. Kennedy Airport.
Since high-speed rail made economic sense in China — which we are starting to see in the financials of the main company involved in running these networks[9] — it made sense to build a lot of high-speed rail lines and absorb all of the related technologies and know-how that are required to implement it efficiently. People and companies learn through repetition[10] and so it should be entirely unsurprising that Chinese firms developed core capabilities in building and implementing high-speed rail networks.
The net result of these structural differences is that usage of passenger rail (all types, including non-HSR) in China is around 21x that of the United States (1,346 billion[11] passenger-km compared to 63 billion[12]). Adjusting for population, use of passenger rail is still 5x more prevalent.
I would love to see high-speed rail happen in the U.S. but it has to make economic sense. We have to remember that resources are limited, and allocating resources to one area has an opportunity cost.
For example, perhaps a better use of economic resources is figuring out autonomous driving technology or taking the lead on electric vehicle technology — both of which could solve some of the issues of low-density suburban sprawl.
Perhaps once we solve autonomous driving and/or shift to a more sustainable energy strategy (solar/battery + electric vehicles), the economics of high-speed rail change such that it becomes an attractive option at that point.
And maybe it is not even technology-related change that impacts the economics of high-speed rail. For example, there seems to be a growing trend to live in walkable (i.e. “higher density”) neighborhoods instead of traditional “suburban sprawl” type environments. But these changes happen gradually and take many decades to really play out.
Once the economics of high-speed rail make sense where we can deploy high-speed rail networks at scale, figuring out how to build it will be easy. The underlying technology isn’t rocket science. I have faith we can figure it out out after a few reps.
So just because high-speed rail doesn’t make economic sense today does not mean that it won’t in the future.

Glenn Luk ，在中国投资
建设高铁网络更多的是为了协调，而不是为了解决任何潜在的技术问题：
* 用于协调铁路网中数百列车的软件和信号系统，不如用于协调任何时间在空中飞行的数千架飞机的系统复杂。
* 利用电力将列车加速到每小时200英里以上的技术已经存在很长时间了。但为了安全起见，这意味着要建造非常直的轨道。
* 在大多数高铁项目中，成本最高的项目是需要横穿人口密集地区的直线铁路。降低土地购置成本完全取决于与沿线的当地社区进行协调。
* 为通勤者提供良好的交通体验是为了减少多式联运的摩擦成本。换句话说，就是使长途城际铁路与地方交通网络(公共汽车、地铁、汽车)尽可能无缝切换。这又一次涉及到国家和地方官员之间的协调。因此，投入大量精力和协调资源的决定，实际上是一个经济学问题：通过这种协调工作，增加的经济效益是否超过成本？坦率地说，中国高铁的经济效益很好，而美国却不太好。
未来，随着相关领域的技术进步(如无人机技术、电动汽车的普及) ，这种情况可能会发生改变，但在当前形势下，这是一个普遍存在的现实。
在美国，修建高铁的成本很高：
* 购置土地既昂贵又费时——这是你为强有力的产权，所付出的代价。
* 建造成本高昂——这是发达经济体拥有成熟的安全法律法规，所付出的代价。
* 视地区而定，地形也可能会有一定的影响。
* 成本不只是在金钱方面，还有时间。当局预计加州高铁项目的第一阶段将于2033年完工。 由于这项工程需要很长时间才能完成，你不得不面对双重打击，一方面要把高铁带来的福利延迟到未来，另一方面又要在一个建筑工地附近生活很多很多年。
假设你能克服这些障碍并建成铁路网络，那么你就需要面对产能利用率或客流量低的风险：
* 美国人口密度较低，即使在发达地区，家庭似乎也倾向于生活在低密度的地区，“郊区蔓延”式正在发展中。火车站的设计在高密度和低密度的环境中是非常不同的。例如，在郊区环境中专门用于停车的空间明显大于城市环境。
* 美国交通最繁忙、人口最密集的走廊是点对点和网络的形式。想想从旧金山到洛杉矶，或者从波士顿到华盛顿特区。此外，人口密集的沿海地区与相对人口稀少的内陆地区，相隔了数千英里。 在400到500英里的范围内，高速铁路节省的时间比不上航空旅行的时间，这就是为什么在澳大利亚修建高速铁路也没有多大意义的原因。
* 美国各种交通工具发展良好。在许多情况下，高铁节省的时间和便利性并不比其他交通工具好多少。其中一些因素可以通过时间和技术的进步来解决。例如，施工技术可以得到改进，使铺设轨道变得更加容易。中国拥有强大的人口结构、强劲的入境移民和人口密度的增长速度快于其它发达经济体。但是有些事情是结构性的：在我看来，强有力的产权和劳动法是积极的特征，不应该有实质性的改变。
在中国，修建高铁并不昂贵：
* 在中国的威权体制下，征地很容易。在中国，土地归国家所有，个人只拥有“土地使用权”。 在日常情况下，这与财产所有权没什么不同，但如果政府需要你的土地，你得到的保护就少了——你可能会得到某种形式的补偿，但与你完全拥有这些财产相比，可能什么都得不到。
* 建造成本低。中国拥有庞大的蓝领劳动力资源，可以发挥规模经济效益，就像发明了一台巨大的梁式起重机，专门用于铺设高速铁路轨道。
* 中国人历来喜欢聚集和生活地形温和的地方。这意味着需要修建的昂贵桥梁和隧道将会减少(即便如此，中国仍然不得不修建大量这样的桥梁和隧道)。
* 中国可以迅速行动。按照计划，在美国修建从旧金山到洛杉矶的800公里高铁线路的同时，中国正计划完成一个总长度超过3万公里的“8x8”高铁网络，该网络几乎将中国所有主要城市与电网连接起来。典型的铁路线在最初规划的4-5年内就能完工并投入运营。换句话说，中国人能够更快地认识到他们的建设努力带来的经济效益。
中国的高铁线路一旦建成，就得到了广泛的利用：
* 中国人口密度很高，特别是如果你把国家西部三分之二的地区排除在外，这些地区大部分是沙漠和山区，因此人口稀少。
* 中国城市发展趋向网状设计。类似网络的铁路网往往使用得更加频繁，因为它允许增加过境交通，以补充传统的点对点交通。例如，你可以在地图上看到(如果你眯着眼睛仔细看的话) ，长沙已经成为一个主要的中转中心，因为它承载着南北交通(广州至武汉)和东西交通(至上海)。
* 在仍处于发展阶段的中国，交通工具的替代品还不够发达。首先，拥有自己汽车的人较少。能够负担得起飞机旅行的人也少。因此，在许多情况下，高速铁路的成本价值优于其他长途运输选择(例如公共汽车、普通火车)。
* 中国的多式联运成本较低。在几乎所有的情况下，高速铁路、当地地铁和当地公交车站都在同一个地方。我记得我第一次乘坐中国的高速列车在南京转乘地铁的经历，与我试图从纽约地铁转乘飞机列车到肯尼迪机场的经历之间存在巨大的反差。
由于高铁在中国具有经济意义(我们开始从运营这些铁路网的主要公司的财务状况中看到了这一点) ，因此建设大量高铁线路、吸收高效实施所需的所有相关技术和经验是有意义的。个人和公司通过学习，因此中国公司在建设高速铁路网络方面，发展出核心能力，也就不足为奇了。
这些结构性差异的最终结果是，中国客运铁路(包括非高铁)的使用量约为美国的21倍。考虑到人口因素，客运铁路的使用仍然是普通铁路的5倍。
我很乐意看到高速铁路在美国建成，但它必须具有经济意义。我们必须记住，资源是有限的，将资源分配到某个领域是有成本的。例如，或许更好地利用经济资源来研究出自动驾驶技术，或者率先发展电动汽车技术——这两者都可以解决一些低密度郊区扩张的问题。
也许一旦我们解决了自动驾驶或转向更可持续的能源战略(太阳能 / 电池 + 电动汽车) ，高速铁路的经济性就会发生变化，从而成为一个有吸引力的选择。
也许影响高铁经济的甚至不是与技术相关的变化。例如，似乎越来越多的人选择住在适于步行(即“高人口密度”)的社区，而不是传统的“郊区蔓延”式的环境。但这些变化是逐渐发生的，需要几十年的时间才能真正实现。
一旦高速铁路的经济效益说得通了，我们就可以大规模地部署高速铁路网络，弄清楚如何建设它将会变得更容易。基础技术并不是火箭科学。我相信我们可以在实施几次之后找到答案。
因此，仅仅因为高速铁路在今天没有经济意义，并不意味着它在未来也不会有。

Krishna Kumar Subramanian , worked at Air India (1971-2006)
You can immediately detect an American from his/her answer to this question: he/she will play down the achievement: “it’s nothing”, etc.
Laying out detailed maps of China and talk of “straight runs of track” conceals the fact that China is a big exporter of high-speed rail (along with other kinds of railway rolling stock), and competes with Japan.
The point is, some sensible Americans are wondering, too: Is having the know-how for stealth aircraft and advanced nuclear weapons enough?
It is true that their automobile-obsessed society killed the passenger train in the past (air travel also played a big role); Amtrak was formed in 1971 with government funding to have at least one long-distance passenger rail operating in the US. All the private players had walked away.
And Amtrak, even today, remains the ONLY long-distance passenger rail service connecting almost all of America.

Krishna Kumar Subramanian ，在印度航空工作(1971-2006)
你可以从一个美国人对这个问题的回答中，马上看出他/她的态度：他/她会贬低这项成就说着“这没什么”等等。摊开详细的中国地图，谈论“直线轨道”，这就掩盖了一个事实，即中国是高速铁路(以及其它类型的铁路车辆)的出口大国，并与日本展开竞争。
关键是，一些明智的美国人也在思考：拥有隐形飞机和先进核武器的技术就足够了吗？
的确，他们这个痴迷汽车的社会在过去扼杀了客运列车(航空旅行也发挥了很大作用) ; 美国铁路公司(Amtrak)成立于1971年，由政府资助，在美国至少运营一条长途客运铁路。所有的私人公司都离开了。
即使在今天，美国铁路公司仍然是连接美国几乎所有地区的唯一长途客运铁路服务。既然铁路旅行如此不受重视，谁会投资高铁呢？

Joseph Perez , USAF NCO, Teacher, Driver & now Retired
Because in the USA everyone has access to a car, and there is no need for an antiquated concept like Railroad. In China only 64 out of 1000 own a car. They need to put up with the inconvenience of rail travel, long trips just going to the stations, waiting in crowded terminals and trains, and emerging at your final station still many miles from your actual destination.
It doesn’t matter how fast or efficient you make the forgotten old choo choo move, no one in America wants to ride the crappy transportation system that their great grandfather abandoned when he got his first car in the 1920’s.
Why would anyone in America want to go back to choo choo trains. No one in China would willingly ride those crowded trains if they could simply drive door to door like an American can.

Joseph Perez 年，美国空军士官，教师，司机 & 现已退休
因为在美国，每个人都使用汽车，不需要像铁路这样过时的概念。在中国，每1000人中只有64人拥有汽车。他们需要忍受铁路旅行带来的不便，长途旅行只能去车站，在拥挤的终点站和火车上等待，在离你真正的目的地还有许多英里。
不管你把这种被遗忘的老式火车开得多快多高效，在美国没有人愿意乘坐他们的老古董，在20世纪20年代美国得到了第一辆汽车时，就抛弃了蹩脚的交通系统。
为什么美国人会想回到火车上。如果中国人可以像美国人那样每家每户都有汽车，没有人会愿意乘坐那些拥挤的火车。

Loren Petrich , Ph.D. Astronomy, Cornell University (1988)
I think that it’s from differences in political will. Looking at construction of high-speed-rail and urban-rail lines over the last half-century, I find that it is very patchy. In US urban rail, some cities built new lines a few decades before similar-sized neighboring cities did.I think that it is largely due to the capital expense of construction. Good high-speed lines are expensive. The necessity of acquiring land may also be a factor, since high-speed lines have to be very straight.
As to why the US might be lacking the necessary political will, I can only speculate. Despite a lot of talk about high-speed trains, the most that the US has to show for it is the Northeast Corridor and the first stages of a line in California. I think that part of the problem is Republicans disliking something that Democrats like, something very evident after the 2010 elections. But recent passenger-rail developments in Florida and Texas suggests that there may be ways of making high-speed trains ideologically acceptable to Republicans.

Loren Petrich 康奈尔大学天文学博士(1988)
我认为这是因为政治意愿的不同。回顾过去半个世纪高速铁路和城市轨道交通线的建设，我发现它们非常零散。在美国城市轨道交通方面，一些城市比规模相当的邻近城市早几十年建造了新的线路。我认为主要是由于建设的资本费用。好的高速铁路价格昂贵。获取必要的土地也可能是一个因素，因为高速铁路必须非常直。
至于美国为何缺乏必要的政治意愿，我只能推测。尽管有很多关于高速列车的讨论，但美国展示的最多的是东北走廊和加利福尼亚州一条线路的第一阶段。我认为部分问题在于共和党人不喜欢民主党人喜欢的东西，这在2010年大选后非常明显。 但最近佛罗里达州和德克萨斯州的客运铁路发展表明，可能有办法让高铁在意识形态上为共和党所接受。

Mark Rigotti , BBA Accounting & Computer Science, University of Notre Dame (1981)
China and the USA are almost the exact same size geographically at 3.7 million square miles.
The HUGE issue is the distribution of the respective populations. The USA has 2 coasts - China one. Look at the two maps below of the respective distribution of population.
Where are the less dense areas? Chinas western provinces. Their rail service does NOT serve that area. Look at the US. Our less dense population is right smack dab in the middle of the country.
To connect our two coasts involves MASSIVE land acquisition that China does not have to deal with.
To answer your question directly and simply - COST.

Mark Rigotti 会计与计算机科学，圣母大学1981年
中国和美国在领土面积上几乎是一样大的，有370万平方英里。
最大的问题是各自人口的分布。美国有两个海岸——中国有一个。中国西部省份是密度较小的区域。他们的铁路并不服务那个地区。看看美国，我们人口较少的地区恰好位于这个国家的中部。
这两者有很大的不同。 连接我们两个海岸需要大量征用土地，而中国不必处理这些问题。
直接而简单地回答你的问题——成本。

Andy Duffell , Armourer, engineer
It's strange to single China out as particularly good. Many other counties in Europe have also but extensive high-speed networks.
The question should really be asking why, amongst other wealthy developed nations, does the US neglect it's railways so badly? That's a fair question, the state of the railways is pretty poor in the US. Outside of a few spots in the northeast US railways are way behind what's seen overseas. Technology is old, there's little appetite for improvement and generally the whole thing looks like a mid-20th century railway.
Part of the problem is low population density in much of the country, but even on the west and east coast progress is slow. Incentivisation from federal or state government is weak or non-existant, and as a result programmes are unambitious. Investing in rail infrastructure may not be sexy, but it does pay off. More centrally-planned economies seem to get that, the US, not so much.

Andy Duffell 军械工程师
把中国单独挑出来说它特别好，是很奇怪的。欧洲其他许多国家也有广泛的高速网络。
我们真正应该问的问题是，为什么在其他富裕的发达国家中，美国如此严重地忽视了它的铁路？ 这是一个公平的问题，美国的铁路状况相当糟糕。除了美国东北部的一些铁路点，其他地方的铁路远远落后于国外。技术已经过时，没有改进的欲望，所有的看起来就像20世纪中期的铁路。
部分原因是美国大部分地区人口密度低，即使在西部和东部沿海地区，进展也很缓慢。 来自联邦或州政府的激励措施很少，或根本不存在，因此各项计划也就没有什么雄心壮志。投资铁路基础设施可能并不吸引人，但它确实带来了回报。中央计划经济国家似乎更明白这一点，而美国则不明白。

Scott Connery
Passenger rail is pretty inefficient anywhere. It’s usually less efficient than cars or buses for short trips, and it’s almost always less efficient than airplanes for long trips.
HSR fans will swear up and down that this isn’t true, but the numbers don’t lie. HSR cannot operate profitably without heavy government subsidy after financing charges are taken into account. It’s an extraordinarily capital intensive option.
However the higher the population density is the closer it comes to effectiveness. Outside of the NorthEast Corridor, America has incredibly low population density. Rail is just a dumb proposal for the rest of the country. The cost doesn’t come close to meeting the potential usage of it. Passenger rail is really a technology that was obsolete by the 1950s with the development of the interstate highway system and jet powered airliners.
China has areas with much higher population density, and so HSR comes closer to operating efficiently.
However the main difference is that China is an autocratic country with a command economy that has no concern for profitability or efficiency.
China’s rail “works” because it is built by the government who is happy to lose 130 billion per year subsidizing it. Rail subsidies - Wikipedia That sort of subsidy is not a good sign that you have a viable efficient plan.

Scott Connery
任何地方的客运铁路效率都相当低。短途旅行的效率通常低于汽车或公共汽车，长途旅行的效率几乎都低于飞机。高铁粉丝们会发誓这不是真的，但是数据不会说谎。考虑到融资费用后，如果没有大量的政府补贴，高铁就无法盈利。这是一个非常资本密集型的选择。
然而，人口密度越高，效果会更好。在美国东北走廊以外，人口密度低得令人难以置信。对于全国其他地方来说，铁路是一个愚蠢的提议。成本远远不能满足它的潜在用途。20世纪50年代，随着州际公路系统和喷气式客机的发展，客运铁路实际上已经过时了。
中国有一些人口密度高得多的地区，因此高铁更能相对高效运营。
然而，主要的区别在于，中国是一个专制国家，实行计划经济，不关心盈利或效率。
中国的铁路之所以“有效” ，是因为它是由政府建设的，政府乐于每年为此补贴1300亿美元。这种补贴不是表明你有可行的高效率计划的一个好迹象。

Aaron Williams
Because they can basically make a decision to start infrastructure projects without being blocked by an opposing party, provincial government or their own citizens. When Obama tried to build it in America you Florida and Ohio turned down the money to spite Obama.
China can also take property much easier than you can in the US and I think they actually compensate property owners will above market rate. They obviously don't spend as much time on environmental reviews. They don't have any issues with frivolous lawsuits in their infrastracture projects (Maryland Purple Line and Beverly Hills Metro Rail subway)。
But the most important reason is that China made it National Effort. They invested hundreds of billions hell it'll probably be trillions before it's over. They put their money where their mouth is. If you see my post I will criticize the hell out of China and the CCP. But they actually made a national effort to invest in HSR. From inviting Japanese, French, and German corporations to build (and agreeing to tech transfer) or planning lines all across their entire country. They made it a priority that's, why they are better and they are pretty good at building infrastructure too.
The last thing I'll say is the old population density thing. China is incredibly densely populated on its East Coast so that's makes it easier. But forget that California will soon have 40 million people, The midwest maybe has 65 million, Texas will soon have 30 million, The, eastern seaboard has over 100 million, a few states in the south could be linked to the midwest, Texas, or East Coast and there you have HSR for 250 million people.This is why China will beat us because in these sectors we don't even compete.

Aaron Williams
因为他们基本上可以决定何时启动基础设施项目，而不会受到反对党、州政府或自己公民的阻挠。当奥巴马试图在美国建立高铁的时候，你们佛罗里达州和俄亥俄州拒绝了这笔钱，来刁难奥巴马。
中国也可以比美国更容易得到土地，我认为他们实际上补偿业主的损失将高于市场价格。他们显然不会花那么多时间在环境评估上。在他们的基础设施项目中，他们没有任何琐碎的诉讼问题。
但最重要的原因是中国付出了举国上下的努力。他们投资了数千亿美元，在完成之前可能是数万亿美元，他们言出必行。如果你看到我的帖子，我曾批评中国和中共。但是他们实际上为高铁的投资举全国之力做出了的努力。从邀请日本、法国和德国公司建设(并同意技术转让)或规划他们整个国家的所有线路。他们优先考虑这个问题，这就是为什么他们做得更好，他们也非常擅长基础设施建设。
我要说的最后一件事是人口密度问题。中国东海岸的人口密度高得令人难以置信，所以这样做更容易。但是别忘了加利福尼亚很快就会有4000万人口，中西部可能有6500万，德克萨斯州很快就会有3000万，美国东岸有超过1亿的人口，南部的一些州可以连接到中西部，德克萨斯州，或者东海岸，在那里高铁可以服务2.5亿人口。这就是为什么中国会打败我们，因为在这些领域我们甚至没有竞争力。

David Bourton
Because the US is currently not interested in investing in its people and their futures. From health care to education to infrastructure. The US currently sees that spending as socialism yadda yadda. So the US is currently stewing in its own ignorance as it slips backwards on all development index criteria. Life expectancy is falling and so are standards and international indexes in education, freedom, happiness and opportunity. The US once had reason to claim to be the greatest country in the world but those days are a long time gone. They don't look like returning any time soon either with the current political situation. Neither side of the divide can accomplish anything ambitious or life changing for its people. They see the defeat of political opponents as more important than making progress to catch up with the rest of the developed world on the many issues they have been left behind.

David Bourton
因为美国目前对投资本国人民和他们的未来不感兴趣。 从医疗保健到教育再到基础设施。 美国目前认为这些类型的支出，是社会主义之类的东西。因此，美国目前正为自己的无知而烦恼，因为它在所有发展指数标准上都出现了倒退。预期寿命正在下降，教育、自由、幸福和机会方面的标准和国际指数也在下降。美国曾经有理由宣称自己是世界上最伟大的国家，但那些日子已经一去不复返了。在目前的政治形势下，他们看起来也不会很快回到正轨。带有分歧的任何一方都不能为人民实现任何雄心壮志或改变生活的目标。他们认为击败政治对手，比在许多问题上赶上其他发达国家更为重要。

Terry Bodanski , former Armor Crewman at U.S. Army (2003-2008)
Because most people here have cars, and our infrastructure is designed to reflect that.
Has nothing to do with being good at it and everything to do with the overall design we’re shooting for. You get people out of their cars and into trains and you’re crippling a huge portion of the US economy that revolves around people in cars stopping for food or gas.
In contrast, the primary method of transportation in China for most of the 20th century was a bicycle. Good to zip around short distances but terrible at intercity transit. So creating a simple way to go from Beijing to Shanghai was in the national interest.
We already have a simple way to go from New York to LA; airplane.
And to top it all off? Our auto industry was an absolute monolith. So much so that it owned enough of the government to essentially murder public transportation systems. They’d do crazy shit like buy the trolley company and then dismantle it overnight and leave people in cities with little choice but to buy a new Model T. That kind of thing has lasting societal impact and it’s why we have a culture of ‘you ain’t nothing if you don’t have a shiny new car’ here.

Terry Bodanski ，美国陆军前装甲兵(2003-2008)
因为这里的大多数人都有汽车，我们的基础设施就是为此而设计的。
这与我们是否擅长无关，而是与我们所追求的整体设计有关。你把人们从汽车里拉出来，让他们坐上火车，这就削弱了美国经济的很大一部分，这部分经济以人们在停车后吃饭或加油为中心。
相比之下，在20世纪的大部分时间里，中国的主要交通工具是自行车。短距离的时候很好，但城际交通就很糟糕了。因此，创造一种从北京到上海的简单方式符合国家利益。
从纽约到洛杉矶，我们已经有了一条简单的线路：飞机。
最重要的是什么呢？我们美国的汽车工业是一个庞然大物。以至于它拥有足够多的相关政府部门，从根本上扼杀了公共交通系统。他们会做一些疯狂的事情，比如买下电车公司，然后一夜之间把它拆掉，让城市里的人别无选择，只能买一辆新的T型车。这种事情有着持久的社会影响，这就是为什么我们有这样一种文化，“如果你没有一辆锃亮的新车，你就什么也不是”。

Phillip Yallah , Worked across China for several years
USA (and Canada) have governments that would rather have each and every citizen spend tons of their own money buying private vehicles, repairing/maintaining/replacing them, paying for petrol, and paying for mandatory vehicle insurance and licensing than develop good public transportation systems that can transport people to places reliably, frequently, efficiently, and affordably, as is the case in Asian countries like Korea, Japan, and China.
This dependence on private transportation results in extra pollution, oil dependence, sprawl, traffic jams, increased rates of obesity, and prohibitively expensive barriers to entry for those who want to start working (but don’t yet have a personal vehicle or can’t afford all the associated costs of using one).
On the plus side, people don’t need to depend on the government if they can afford not to. If the government is doing a shitty job of giving people trans-city and trans-state/provincial means of transport (as most North American cities have been doing), driving is less expensive than it is in places where there is excellent public transit.
In Canada, I drove because it was a necessary evil. That’s because although each city has its own bus system, the buses are unreliable (most bus routes only see a bus come once every 45 minutes, and they are prone to arriving early and late), don’t go to where any jobs are, don’t operate early or late enough, and are too damned expensive.
In Asia, I save so much money because I don’t need a vehicle. Public transit is super reliable, frequent, affordable, and much safer than driving. I am subsidizing the networks with the taxes I pay, but unlike North American governments, the taxes are actually being put to good use instead of wasted on welfare programs and pointless make-work jobs.

Phillip Yallah 在中国各地工作了几年
美国(和加拿大)的政府宁愿让每个公民花费大量的钱购买私家车，然后修理 / 维护 / 更换它们，支付油钱，支付强制性车辆保险和许可证费用，而不是发展良好的公共交通系统，能够可靠、频繁、高效、经济地将人们运送到各地，就像韩国、日本和中国这样的亚洲国家。
这种对私人交通工具的依赖导致了额外的污染、对石油的依赖、无序扩张、交通堵塞、肥胖率上升，以及对那些想要开始工作(但尚未拥有私家车或无法承担私家车的所有相关费用)的人来说，昂贵的门槛令人望而却步。
从好的方面来说，如果人们能够承受压力不依赖政府。如果政府在为人们提供跨城和跨州 / 省级交通工具方面做得很糟糕(就像大多数北美城市那样)，那么开车的成本就要低于那些公共交通条件优越的地方。
在加拿大，我开车是因为这是一种无奈的举措。因为，尽管加拿大每个城市都有自己的公交系统，但公交车并不可靠(大多数公交路线每45分钟才能看到一辆公交车开来，而且公交车很容易早到晚到)，去不了工作的地方，而且太贵了。
在亚洲，我存了很多钱，因为我不需要汽车。公共交通超级可靠，频繁，负担得起，而且比开车安全得多。我用我缴纳的税款补贴网络，但与北美政府不同的是，在亚洲这些税款实际上被用在了正确的用途上，而不是浪费在福利项目和毫无意义的东西上。

Deepak Bhimaraju , New immigrant to Canada
This is an apples to oranges comparison due to vast differences in societal behavior (i.e., individualism in the United States vs collectivism in China) and also, population densities.
The real comparison should be between China and India. India has a pretty consistent population density as well as a demand for better public transport. I do not think any technology used in a bullet train is impossible to build in India either.
As public transport is a usually a money losing business, the will power is lacking in both the public and private sectors. It is to be seen who will bite the bullet and take the first step.

Deepak Bhimaraju 加拿大移民
由于社会行为的巨大差异(比如，美国的个人主义和中国的集体主义) ，以及人口密度的差异，这是一个苹果和橙子的比较。
真正的比较应该是中国和印度之间。印度的人口密度相当稳定，同时也需要更好的公共交通。我也不认为印度建造不了任何子弹头列车的技术。
由于公共交通通常是一项赔钱的生意，公共和私营部门都缺乏意志力。谁愿意咬紧牙关迈出第一步，这是可以看出来的。

Bill Boyd , former Mechanical Transport Fitter at Royal Australian Air Force (1962-1973)
to start with all of china is government land so there is not the price jacking that occurs in america whne deciding where rail goes
Next the chinese government is capable of running a rail business profitably where the american government doesn’t want to be involved in running a busiuness
Lastly it is a culture problem, in that americans are in love with the idea of owning a car and polluting the environment where the chinese have to be some where fast and high speed rail beats cars hands down
Japan is running high speed rail profitably as is France and Italy

Bill Boyd 、澳大利亚皇家空军前机械运输装配工(1962-1973)
首先，整个中国都是政府土地，所以不会像美国那样决定铁路的走向时，价格上涨。
然后，中国政府有能力在美国政府不想参与经营的领域，经营一家有利可图的铁路企业。
最后，这是一个文化问题，因为美国人热衷于拥有一辆汽车并污染环境，而中国人必须在快速和高速的铁路上击败汽车。日本、法国、意大利也一样，正在运营高速铁路并且都盈利。

Robert Brown
Why are high-speed trains working well in China but not in the US?
Because of the popularity of personal vehicles, the US is ideologically committed to a 19th century railroad system powered by 1950’s technology.

Robert Brown
为什么高铁在中国发展良好，而在美国却不行？
由于美国私家车的流行，美国在意识形态上，致力于建设用上世纪50年代技术为动力的19世纪铁路系统。

Ji Liu , works at Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Besides the population density, most US rail crossings are level crossings, so the rail is not electrified. Increasing speed would replace all those crossings which is too expensive.
That being said, there is no extraordinary hardship for US to build commute railways around big cities, or a higher speed railway on the Eastern seaboard. The problem is that the commuter railway is still too slow. (and it charges no less than Chinese HSR)
The fastest train route in US: DC->New York->Boston, is on par with Chinese T level express train, slower than the HSR of Japan, France and China.

Ji Liu 就职于印第安纳大学-普渡大学印第安纳波利斯分校
除了人口密度，大多数美国铁路交叉口是平交道口，所以铁路没有通电。提高速度的话，将取代所有那些交叉口，过于昂贵。
话虽如此，对于美国来说，在大城市周围修建通勤铁路或者在美国东岸修建高速铁路并没有什么特别的困难。问题是通勤铁路仍然太慢。(它的收费不低于中国的高铁)
美国最快的列车线路：华盛顿——纽约——波士顿，与中国的T级特快列车相当，比日本、法国和中国的高铁慢。

Faux Ami
It's not that we can't, but more that we don't want to. America has a staunch anti government stance that tends to impede too many major interstate developments. Many Americans own automobiles, unlike in China. Couple that with the interests of the car manufacturing, petroleum industries, the airlines, and the constant financial drain of Amtrak.

Faux Ami
不是我们不能，而是我们不想这样做。 美国有一个坚定的反政府立场，往往会阻碍发展。与中国不同，许多美国人拥有汽车。再加上汽车制造业、石油工业、航空公司的利益，以及美国铁路公司不断的资金流失。

Mike Smith , BS Computer Science, Polytechnic University (1991)
How would you know whether the US is “good at” building high-speed rail systems, when it hasn’t actually built any yet? I’m sure that, if we ever actually decided to build any true high-speed rail, we could do it as well as anyone else.

Mike Smith ，理工大学计算机科学学士(1991)
你怎么知道美国是否“擅长”建设高铁系统，而实际上它还没有建设任何高铁系统呢？ 我相信，如果我们真的决定建造任何真正的高速铁路，我们可以做得和其他人一样好。

Chris Eckerson
Same reason they can build the three gorges dam. They can tell people what to do. In the US every time someone wants to do something a bunch of people protest and sue to stop it. New Highways, not in my neighborhood. New pipeline ,not through the wilderness.
People here want progress but they only want it if it’s convenient for them. In China they don’t care about people’s feelings they just say so and it is done.

Chris Eckerson
同样的原因，中国可以建造长江三峡水利枢纽工程。他们可以告诉人们该做什么。而在美国，每当有人想做某件事时，一群人就会抗议并起诉以阻止这件事。新高速公路，不能穿过我家附近。 新的管道，不能穿越荒野。
这里的人们想要进步，但只有对他们来说方便的时候他们才想要。在中国，他们不在意人们的感受，他们只是说出来，然后就做了。