来自“ 一带一路 ”沿线的20国青年评选出了“中国的新四大发明”：高铁、扫码支付、共享单车和网购。来自中国铁路总公司的最新数据显示，到2018年底，我国高铁营业里程已达到2.9万公里，超过全球高铁总里程的2/3，成为世界上高铁里程最长、运输密度最高、成网运营场景最复杂的国家。如今，高铁作为一张中国制造的新名片，开始走向世界，建立起互通互联的世界动脉。
我们的国家也已经慢慢步入了高铁时代，在全国大部分的城市中，高铁已覆盖，高铁在人们的日常出行中越来越占据着重要的地位，选择坐高铁出行的人越来越多。
世界不是各自孤立的存在，中国的复兴之路当然会引起全世界的警惕、*压打**、迷惑。因此对于中国出现的新事物，他们会感到难以接受，先是粗暴鄙视，继而开始迷茫，然后开始反思。有美媒称，中国的公共交通建设是宝贵的经验，美国的交通系统仿佛处于第三世界国家水平。普通民众也开始反思为什么中国能建设高铁，而美国却不行？
美国知乎Quora上关于中国高铁的讨论很多，下面节选其中几个关于中国高铁的问答合并发一贴，因为回复众多，将分为上、中、下三篇发布。
Question：Why is China so good at building high speed-rail but the United States is not?
问：为什么中国如此擅长建设高铁，而美国却不擅长?
Quora网站读者评论：
Glenn Luk, B.S. Economics & Computer Science, University of Pennsylvania
格伦·卢克 宾夕法尼亚大学经济学与计算机科学学士
Building high-speed rail networks is more about coordination than any sort of underlying technology issues:
- The software and signaling systems to coordinate hundreds of trains in a rail network is less sophisticated than coordinating 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 with wide curve radii.
- The largest cost item in most high-speed rail projects is when you need to build these relatively 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.
建设高铁网络更多的是协调，而不是任何潜在的技术问题：
- 在铁路网络中协调数百列火车的软件和信号系统，比在任何时刻协调数千架在空中飞行的飞机要复杂得多。
- 利用电力使旅客列车加速到每小时200英里以上的技术由来已久。但要做到安全，就要建造具有宽曲线半径的笔直的轨道。
- 在大多数高铁项目中，最大的成本项目在于当你需要在人口密集的地区修建这些相对笔直线路的时候。降低土地征用成本的关键在于路权沿线的当地社区进行协调。
- 为乘客提供良好的出行体验是为了降低多次联运成本。换言之，要让长途城际轨道交通与本地交通网络（公共汽车、地铁、汽车）的切换做到尽可能无缝对接。这再一次涉及到中央和地方政府官员之间的协调。
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.
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.
因此，投入大量精力进行资源协调的决定实际上是一个经济学问题：通过这种协调工作所带来的增量经济效益是否大于成本？坦率地说，中国的高铁经济效益很好，而在美国却起不到作用。
随着相关领域的技术进步（如自动驾驶汽车技术、电动汽车的普及），这种情况在未来可能会发生变化，但在目前的情况下，这是普遍存在的现实。
In the United States, it costs a lot to build high-speed rail:
- 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.
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.
在美国，修建高铁花费很高：
- 获得土地既昂贵又费时，这是你为拥有强大的个人产权而必需付出的代价。
- 建设成本很高——这是你作为一个拥有发达安全法律法规的先进经济体所付出的代价。
- 地形也可能是个因素，这取决于地区。。
假设您能够克服这些障碍并建成铁路网络，您还需要应对低上座率或客流量的风险：
- 人口密度相对较低，即使在发达地区，人们倾向于居住在低密度的“郊区”式社区。在人口高密度和低密度环境下，火车站的设计是非常不同的，例如，在郊区环境中，专用于停车的空间明显高于城市环境。
- 在美国，交通最拥挤、人口最多的走廊是点对点网络和类网状网络。想想旧金山到洛杉矶或波士顿到华盛顿特区。此外，人口稠密的沿海地区被数千英里的人口相对稀少的内陆地区所隔开。高铁节省的时间往往会被400至500英里的航空旅行所取代，这就是为什么在澳大利亚修建高铁也没有多大意义的原因。
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.
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”.
- 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).
运输替代品很发达。在许多情况下，高铁所带来的时间利益和便利效益并不比替代方案好多少。
其中一些因素可以通过时间和技术进步来解决，例如，施工技术能改进，以便更容易铺设轨道。美国人口结构众多，入境移民数量强劲，人口密度增长速度快于其他发达经济体。
在中国，修建高铁较为便宜：
- 在中国土地征用比较容易。在中国，土地归国家所有，个人只拥有“土地使用权”。
- 建筑成本低——中国拥有大量劳动力，可以利用规模经济——就像为铺设高铁轨道而去发明大型发射梁机一样。
- 历史上中国人聚居的地方，地势相当平缓。这意味着需要建造的昂贵桥梁和隧道更少（即便如此，中国仍不得不建造大量桥梁和隧道）。
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.
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. 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 trains and switching to the subway in Nanjingwith the experience I have trying to transfer from the NYC Subway to the Airtrain to John F. Kennedy Airport.
中国高铁一建成，就被大量利用：
人口密度很高，特别是如果你把西部三分之二的地区排除在外再算的话，这些地区主要是人烟稀少的沙漠和山区。
中国城市发展趋向于网络化设计。类似网络的铁路网往往使用得更为密集，因为它可以通过增加交通流量来补充传统的点对点交通。例如，长沙已经成为一个主要的交通中心，因为它既是南北交通（广州到武汉）的枢纽，也是东西交通（至上海）的枢纽。
- 在仍在发展中的中国，交通替代品还不太发达。首先，拥有自己汽车的人很少。很少有人能负担得起航空旅行。因此，在许多情况下，高铁的价值成本优于其他长途运输方案（如公共汽车、普通列车）。。
- 中国的联运成本较低。在在几乎所有城市，高铁、地铁和公交车站都在同一个地方。我注意到，在我第一次乘坐中国高速列车和在南京换乘地铁的经历，与我试图从纽约地铁换乘机场列车到肯尼迪机场的经历形成了巨大的反差。
长沙南站
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 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.
我很想看到高铁在美国出现，但它必须有经济意义。我们必须记住，资源是有限的，把资源分配到一个地区是有机会成本的。
例如，也许更好地利用经济资源的办法是开发自动驾驶技术或开发电动汽车技术——这两种技术都可以解决低密度郊区扩张的一些问题。
或许，一旦我们解决了自动驾驶和/或转向更可持续的能源战略（太阳能/电池+电动汽车），高铁的经济性就会发生变化，从而成为一个有吸引力的选择。
Sarg Clan, Have read dozen books 萨格 读过很多本书
While China is wisely investing tax payers money on infrastructure … America is busy burning and wasting money on wars after wars.
In last 20 years alone, America spent over 6 trillions $ on their failed goal to force“democracy” down people’s throat. In Afghanistan alone, the war cost over a trillion $ … 17+ years with no ending in sight. And how can you explain 800+ military bases around the globe ??? America cannot even feed it own citizen let alone but have unlimited money to feed the military overseas.
If only America has spent the money to benefit its own people - building infrastructure … building bridges rather than burning bridges … universal healthcare … free education … homelessness …
Trump is choosing to spend billions building impregnable WALLS on south border with Mexico. If only … if only America had built high-speed rail … helping Latin America instead of exporting coup … regime change … war … revolution … if only, American has the vision of a One-Belt-One Road like China does - developing the World rather than bringing War to the World ???
The great world conundrum: A trillion dollars in investment or a trillion dollars in bombs ??? The choices were clear.
当中国明智地将纳税人的钱投资在基础设施上时，美国却忙于在一场又一场的战争中烧钱。
仅在过去的20年里，美国就花了6万亿美元在他们的失败目标上，以迫使“皿煮”进入人们的喉咙。仅在阿富汗，这场战争就花费了一万亿美元……17年的时间，而且看不到结束的迹象。你怎么解释在全球设立的800多个军事基地？?? 美国甚至不能养活自己的公民了，却用无限的钱养活在海外的*队军**。
如果美国把钱花在造福本国人民上-建设基础设施、建造桥梁而不是烧毁桥梁、全民医疗保健、免费教育、无家可归者…...
特朗普选择花费数十亿美元修建与墨西哥南部边境的坚不可摧的城墙。如果……如果美国建造高铁去帮助拉丁美洲而不是输出*变政**…政权更迭…无休止的战争革命……如果，美国有像中国一样的“一带一路”愿景——发展世界而不是给世界带来战争........
世界大难题：投资一万亿美元还是投掷一万亿美元的*弹炸**？?? 选择显而易见。
Andy Duffell, Rolling stock engineer for a UK train operating company
安迪·达菲尔，一家英国列车运营公司的机车车辆工程师
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 go nment 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.
把中国单独列为特别好的国家，是很奇怪的，欧洲许多其他国家也有广泛的高铁网络。
问题应该是，在富裕的发达国家中，为什么美国如此严重地忽视了铁路？这才是个公平的问题，美国的铁路状况相当糟糕。除了美国东北部的几个地方之外，美国铁路远远落后于国外。技术陈旧，人们对改善的欲望很小，总体上看就像20世纪中叶的铁路。
部分原因是该国大部分地区人口密度较低，但即使是在西海岸和东海岸，进展也很缓慢。来自联邦或州政府的激励很弱或不存在的，因此项目实施遥遥无期。投资铁路基础设施也许并不吸引人，但它确实有回报。越来越多的计划经济体似乎明白了这一点，而美国却不那么明白。
Phillip Yallah, lived in North America (1976-2010)
菲利普·亚拉，生活在北美（1976-2010）
USA (and Canada) have go nments 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 go nment if they can acford not to. If the go nment 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 go nments, the taxes are actually being put to good use instead of wasted on welfare programs and pointless make-work jobs.
美国（和加拿大）有这样的政府，他们宁愿让每个公民花大量的钱购买私家车，维修/保养/更换私家车，支付汽油费，支付强制车辆保险和牌照费，也不愿发展良好的公共交通系统，像韩国、日本和中国这样的亚洲国家一样，将人们可靠地、频繁地、高效地、经济地运送到各个地方。
这种对私人交通的依赖导致了额外的污染、石油依赖、蔓延、交通堵塞、肥胖率增加，以及给那些想工作（还没有私人车辆或无法负担使用私人车辆的所有相关费用）的人制造了昂贵的障碍。
好的一面是，人们不需要依赖政府，如果政府在给人们提供跨城和跨州/省的交通工具方面做得很差劲（就像大多数北美城市所做的那样），那么开车的费用就比在有优秀公共交通的地方便宜。
在加拿大，我开车是必要的。这是因为尽管每个城市都有自己的公交系统，但公交车不可靠（大多数公交线路每45分钟才有一班公交车，而且容易不准时），不经过任何工作的地方，不早或晚运营，而且太贵了。
在亚洲，我省了很多钱，因为我不需要开车。公共交通超级可靠，频繁，负担得起，而且比开车安全得多。我正在用我缴纳的税款补贴这些交通网络，但与北美的政府不同，这些税款实际上得到了很好的利用，而不是浪费在福利计划和毫无意义的增量就业机会上。
Mike Smith 迈克·史密斯
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.
当美国还没有真正开始建设高铁网络时，你怎么知道美国是否“擅长”？我敢肯定，如果我们真的决定建造真正的高铁，我们也可以像其他人一样做到。
Unci Narynin, Designer of Model Railway Rolling Stock at Self-Employment (2001-present)
纳瑞宁 铁路机车车辆模型设计师（2001年至今）
China has more available money, different priorities, lower ground prices and probably a better distribution of the population.
US politicians, no matter from what side, somehow rarely consider infrastructure improvements an important priority.
中国有更多的可用资金，不同的优先事项，较低的地价，可能更合理的人口分布。
无论从哪一方面来看，美国政界人士都很少把改善基础设施作为重要的优先事项。
Caleb A Norris 卡莱布·诺里斯
It’s too expensive to build high speed rail outside of the cities in the US. If you don’t do something very often, there’s no way you can magically be better at it then someone who does it often.
Why doesn’t china build high speed rail connecting the north of the country to the south? Too expensive and just kinda pointless seeing how all the major cities are in the coast.
在美国城市之外修建高铁太贵了。如果你不经常做某事，你就不可能神奇地比经常做的人做得更好。
为什么中国不修建连接南北的高铁？因为太贵了，而且没什么意义，它们所有的大城市都在沿海地区。
Yishai Barr 伊莎巴尔
China has a much larger and denser population than the US, which makes it economically viable to build them. Also, Chinese labour is cheaper and CRRC and some other Chinese companies have illegally appropriated railway technology from other companies by reverse engineering them, so they don’t have to spend as much money on that either.
中国人口比美国多、密度也大得多，这使得中国建设高铁在经济上是可行的。此外，中国劳动力更便宜，中国中车和其他一些中国公司通过逆向工程从其他公司非法窃取铁路技术，因此他们也不必在这方面花费那么多钱。
Faux Ami 福克斯.阿米
It’s not that we can’t, but more that we don’t want to. America has a staunch anti go nment 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.
不是我们不能，而是我们不想。美国有一个坚定的*政府反**立场，往往会阻碍州际之间的发展。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，以及与美国铁路公司连年亏损，资金流失有关。
Michael Feely, Avid rider on the rails 迈克尔·费利，铁轨上的热血骑手
Places where there’s enough population density, close enough together, it’s too insanely expensive to acquire the rights of way and build the thing.
Places where the cost per track mile are tolerable don’t have enough people to pay the project off.
Connecting two sets of the former places? Too far - air travel will still be faster.
Connecting two sets of the latter places? Why would you do this?
The closest you get in the US to the kind of European style population density that makes high speed rail attractive is the Northeast Corridor. Which, coincidentally, is the part of the Amtrak system that has the Acela - the thing closest to high speed rail.
But say, Boston to Chicago? 980 miles. I can fly in 2.5 hours. The fastest HSR routes in Europe and China average +/- 180 mph, so the same trip would be 5.5 hours, and that only if we don’t stop in Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland and Toledo. And the train will be more expensive, because we have to pay for almost a thousand miles of all-new track, whereas the airports are legacy infrastructure already.
那里有足够的人口密度，足够近的距离，要获得道路权和建造房屋的成本太昂贵了。
在每英里成本是可以接受的地方，没有足够的人流来支撑这个项目。
连接前面两个城市群？太远了-空中旅行还是会更快。
把后面两个城市群连接起来？你为什么要这样做？
在美国，最接近欧洲式人口密度的是东北走廊。巧合的是，这是美国铁路系统的一部分，它拥有最接近高速铁路的阿西乐特快。（译者注：阿西乐特快是北美洲真正意义上的第一种高速列车，最高时速可达240公里每小时（150英里每小时），但由于东北走廊铁路线的设施严重老化，阿西乐特快仅能够在一部分的路段上全速行驶。 它平常行驶的平均时速约为115公里每小时，仅达最高时速的一半左右。）
比如说，波士顿到芝加哥980英里。我可以在2.5小时内飞抵。欧洲和中国最快的高铁线路平均时速为每小时180英里左右，因此同样的行程将是5.5小时，而且还是在我们不停靠奥尔巴尼、雪城、罗切斯特、布法罗、克利夫兰和托莱多的情况下。而且火车票价会更贵，因为我们要为近千英里的全新轨道买单，而机场已经是传统的现成基础设施。
阿西乐特快
Rita Loy, I have my knowledge from my experience in transportation.
丽塔·洛伊 我的知识来自我在交通方面的经验
The reason why it is so hard to implement high speed rail in the US is due to the size of the United States and the population density of the United States. Places where there is enough population density in the United States the land is to expensive to build a true high speed rail system. This is why subways are built underground in major cities is due to the fact that it is less expensive to build tunnels and tracks underground that it is to build an elevated or surface system. The true cost of building a true high speed rail system completely underground would be in the trillions of dollars. There must be the political will to build a high speed rail system on the national level. There presently no political will on the national level to build a true high speed rail system.
美国之所以难以实施高铁，是因为美国的面积和人口密度。在美国，有足够人口密度的地方，建造一个真正的高速铁路系统要花很多钱。这就是为什么在大城市地下修建地铁，是因为在地下修建隧道和轨道的成本比修建高架或地面系统的成本低。建造一个真正的地下高速铁路系统的真正成本将是万亿美元级别。必须在国家层面上提出建立一个高铁系统的政治意愿才行。目前，在国家层面上还没有建立真正的高铁系统的政治意愿。
Adam J M Richards, Train "nut" 亚当·J·M·理查兹 列车“螺母”
Because those places that have built major large-scale infrastructures for markets that aren’t immediately highly profitable have always done so with go nment dollars and mandates that allowed building to overcome individual property rights.
The US is not prepared to do this for new rail - although it did/does so for interstate highways and airports and so on.
The argument that high-speed rail is uneconomic and/or slower than air would (and did) apply to high-speed in China or many of the longer European routes - but those go nments decided that investing in this infrastructure was a national priority and built it anyway.
因为那些为市场建造大型基础设施的地方，如果不能立即获得高额利润，就必须动用政府的资金和权力，才能克服个人产权问题。
美国不准备为新铁路做这件事，尽管它曾经为州际公路和机场等做了这件事。
认为高铁不经济或比航空速度慢的论点，适用于中国或许多较长航线的欧洲高速铁路，但这些国家决定，投资基础设施是国家的优先事项，无论如何都要建造它。
Joan McKniff, worked at U.S. Department of State
琼·麦肯尼夫 在美国国务院工作
Lack of political will. No effective high speed rail lobby in USA. Strong lobbying by trucking, auto and airline industries. Most people in USA have no experience with trains, let alone high speed rail. Conservation/environmental ovements have totally failed.
Follow the money. Our lack of passenger rail infrastructure is a national disgrace.
缺乏政治意愿，在美国，没有强有力的高铁游说团体。卡车、汽车和航空业都有强力的游说团体。在美国，大多数人对乘坐火车没有经验，更不用说高铁了，环保运动完全失败了。
跟着钱走，我们缺乏客运铁路基础设施，这是国家的耻辱。
ZsaZsa Salle, J.D. Law & Accounting, The John Marshall Law School (2011)
萨莱 约翰马歇尔法学院法学与会计学博士（2011）
Infrastructure…
Need….
Support…
A high-speed rail requires a track that is continuously welded, the land to put it on and the trains to run on it. To obtain those resources you need money or the potential to make money.
The US has several trans that would have been considered high speed when built. The northeast corridor has the Amtrak line that runs from Philadelphia to Boston. In the Midwest, there is the Milwaukee Chicago Amtrak that goes up to 100 mph. There is talk of making high-speed rail, but only after the current projects have been funded.
基础设施…
需求……
支持…
一条高铁需要一条无缝轨道、一块土地和一列火车。要获得这些资源，你需要资金或赚钱的潜力。
美国有几列火车在建造时被认为是高速的交通工具。东北走廊有从费城到波士顿的美铁线路，在中西部，密尔沃基-芝加哥美铁时速可达100英里。有人说要制造高铁，但只有在目前的项目获得资金之后才可能开始。
Bob MacKenzie 鲍勃·麦肯齐
No I would say the main reason is because the people need it for a more comfortable life style and China is so big they need to be able to get around fast.
The other main reason is that China does not waste tax payers money on endless wars that serves the benefit of only one percent of the population while the rest of the population is expected to pay for it and live with old worn out infrastructure.
不，我想说，主要原因是因为人们需要更舒适的生活方式，而中国是如此之大，他们需要能够很快速地到处移动。
另一个主要原因是，中国没有把纳税人的钱浪费在无休止的战争上，战争只为那些百分之一的人的利益服务，而其他大众则为此买单，并与破旧的基础设施一起生活。
未完待续。。。。。。。