正文翻譯

Is it cost-efficient to build a network of bullet trains across the United States

在美國到底值不值得花錢去建立一個高速列車網絡？

I’ve noticed that places like Europe and China have large bullet networks, which made me wonder why the US doesn’t. Is there something about the geography of the US that makes it difficult? Like the Rocky Mountains? Or are there not enough large population centers in the interior to make it cost-efficient or something? Or are US cities much too far apart to make it worth it?

我注意到，像歐洲和中國這樣的地方都有大型的高鐵網絡，這讓我想知道為什么美國沒有。是不是美國的地理環(huán)境有什么問題，使得建立它很困難？比如落基山脈？還是內陸地區(qū)沒有足夠的大型人口中心來使其具有成本效益或其他？還是美國的城市相距太遠，不值得這樣做？

評論翻譯

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

在做這么大的夢之前，你應該先把目光放在修復當地的公共交通上。在歐洲，大多數火車站都在可步行可達的地方，有足夠的選擇來往于車站本身。如果它變成了像我們在北美洲處理的機場噩夢那樣，我懷疑大家還愿不愿意坐火車。

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.

說到點子上了。跟飛機比，高鐵失去了一部分吸引力，而跟駕車比，當你坐火車到達地方還是需要一輛汽車來搭你到最終目的地的時候，高鐵幾乎失去了所有的吸引力。
比如說，在丹佛和阿爾伯克基之間有足夠的旅行需求，以支持定期的完整的航班，而且它們足夠近，許多人選擇開車而不是去處理機場的麻煩。然而，這兩個城市的公共交通系統都很糟糕，如果你到達時沒有汽車，你就沒辦法方便地到達任何地方。我經常去那里，是鐵路的忠實擁護者，但如果這兩個城市之間有一條高鐵線路開通，我可能還是會選擇開車。而從華盛頓到紐約市之間我絕對會考慮高鐵出行，因為這兩個城市都有成熟的公共交通系統。
圍繞鐵路的許多環(huán)境對話都集中在長途旅行上，但我們首先需要做的是為較短的日常駕駛提供一個替代方案，然后才是考慮長途旅行。

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

我生活在歐洲，即使在我到達最終目的地時仍需要汽車，我也會乘坐高鐵，如果我要出差，我通常會這樣做。只要在火車站租一輛車，到達后20分鐘左右我就可以上路了。這也比在機場租車容易得多。如果我有一個在一天內結束的旅行，比如說，1.5小時的火車+1.5小時的開車，相比單程4.5小時的開車，選擇火車加開車對我來說要輕松得多，可以讓我在部分時間里工作，所以會采取哪種方式是毫無疑問的。

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.

沒有足夠高的人口密度來支持從西海岸到東海岸的線路。
在人口密度足夠大的地方，如圣地亞哥到洛杉磯，或華盛頓到紐約的路線，大家對此很感興趣，但在進行實際建設和路權采購的時候，也有著很高的“別打擾到我”的心態(tài)。
另外，對通過征用土地進行補償所需的"公平市場價值"也很高。因為這些地區(qū)很受歡迎，而且很密集，土地價格非常高。

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.

“沒有足夠高的人口密度來支持從西海岸到東海岸的線路?！?br>我認為這個問題往往被夸大了。如果你真正去查看一下我們高速公路上的交通量，會發(fā)現即使只有一小部分人選擇高速鐵路，也意味著我們可以擁有每小時一趟的火車服務。我曾經在那些人們說人口太少無法支持公共交通的地區(qū)嘗試過這種做法，結論是如果人們真的選擇了公共交通，我們可以每5分鐘就有一輛滿載的公交車。我沒有計算過跨州交通的數字，但我我很有信心，它至少可以支持每小時一趟的高速鐵路。

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，只需要一小部分人將私人交通轉換為公共交通就足以維持了。然而除了對乘坐公共運輸工具通勤的偏見和抵觸，當涉及到低人口密度地區(qū)時，一旦你進入你需要去的地方附近，就會產生一個無法忽視的問題，即缺乏負擔得起的當地的公共交通。
我可以乘坐輕軌列車到達我工作地點的3英里范圍內，但除了每天步行、騎自行車或使用Uber，我沒有任何現實的方法可以結束最后幾英里。對于公共交通和出租車服務的價格，幾乎與我自己開車的支出持平，而且如果是自己開車，我還可以根據自己的時間安排自由出行，如果需要的話，還可以去其他地方。
所以除非有額外的基礎設施到位，有效地服務于地鐵郊區(qū)，否則對于大多數人來說，公共交通不是一個可行的選擇。