您当前的位置:首页 > 网贴翻译 Tips:使用 ← → 键即可快速浏览其他文章
人们说中国可以如此快地建造高铁,而美国甚至不能建造高铁,是因为中国的劳动力很便宜。这是主要原因吗?
2020-01-27 Lina 10 收藏 纠错&举报
原文标题:People say China can build high-speed rail so fast and the USA can't even build one because Chinese labor is cheap. Is
原文地址:https://www.quora.com/People-say-China-can-build-high-speed-rail-so-fast-and-the-USA-cant-even-build-one-because-Chinese-labor-is-cheap-Is-that-the-major-reason
译文简介:正如其他人所指出的,真正的答案始于这样一个事实,即中国只是有建造高铁的经济意愿,但却忽视了中国将其视为其整体贸易政策的一部分。因此,他们投入了大量资金来提高工程能力。
William E. Madden Jr., Director of Engineering, Philosopher, Rock Star
I’ve been in the rail business as a design engineer and manager of design groups that supply both rolling stock and signaling systems since 1998, so I think I’m pretty well qualified to answer this question. The short answer is “no.”
The real answer, as other people have noted, starts with the fact that the Chinese simply have the economic will to build high speed rail, but what’s missed as that the Chinese view it as part of their overall trade policy. As a result, they’re investing a lot of money into growing their engineering capacity.
There’s no similar economic will in the west. The traditional western suppliers have the designs and capacity to build high speed trains whenever they have a customer, in both the US and Europe. I know because I've worked for many of them.
We’re all having problems recruiting engineers because it’s a niche market in the West, and except in limited cases, where it makes economic sense,(Northeast Corridor,) there’s no market for building high speed trains. In Asia, not only do they have more engineers, but their view of the market is different so they have an easier time recruiting them into Rail.
When you throw a ton of money at a problem, you can make things happen, and China views rail technology as a growth industry, both internally and as a component of their foreign trade strategy. They’ve thrown a metric crap ton of money at it.
For the past twenty years, they’ve focused on growing their competencies, particularly focusing on high-speed rail and have spent a lot of money, literally, buying the technology from every major rolling stock (vehicles) and signaling (control systems) competitor - Siemens, Alstom, Bombardier (formerly Adtranz) and Kawasaki Rail.
Here’s the part that most people don’t know - over the last 20 years, when you did business as a rail system supplier in China, they own your product design. You had to sign a “technology transfer agreement.” I’ve sat in design reviews where there are 30 engineers who don’t really have anything to do with the project, pouring through the design specs and asking very specific questions about things that are normally proprietary. We had to answer the questions. The only reason to do that is to reverse engineer the guts of the design instead of understanding just the local application.
This assisted the rise of CRRC, which is now one of the largest suppliers in the world (mostly in the domestic Chinese market,) and allowed them to build a competency in about 20 years that the other competitors took over 100 years to acquire. They’re still not quite on the same level as the traditional suppliers, but they’re good, and they’re catching up very quickly. As their competencies have increased, the opportunities for the traditional suppliers have decreased because they no longer need to invest in foreign technology. It’s Capitalism at its finest.
Once they had the competence, they modified the designs themselves for their specific applications, and their specific manufacturing and construction techniques, and now are exporting those applications around the world. They haven’t attempted to penetrate the European market yet, because of the barriers to entry there, but they’re doing a very large project in Boston that everyone’s watching. With their lower cost labor, if they can pull it off, they’re going to get a lot of work.
So the TL/DR answer to the question is that the Chinese have the economic will, and a long term strategy to capture the emerging high speed rail market, and have developed the competency to do the job economically. That’s why they’re viewed as “fast” within the industry.

William E. Madden Jr.,工程总监,哲学家,摇滚明星。
自1998年以来,我一直在铁路行业担任设计工程师和设计集团的经理,为铁路车辆和信号系统提供服务,所以我认为我很有资格回答这个问题。简短的回答是“不是”。
正如其他人所指出的,真正的答案始于这样一个事实,即中国只是有建造高铁的经济意愿,但却忽视了中国将其视为其整体贸易政策的一部分。因此,他们投入了大量资金来提高工程能力。
西方没有类似的经济意愿。在美国和欧洲,只要有客户,传统的西方供应商就有设计和能力制造高速列车。我知道是因为我为他们中的许多人工作过。
我们在招聘工程师时都遇到了问题,因为这是西方的一个缝隙市场,除了在经济上有意义的有限情况下(东北走廊),没有建造高铁的市场。在亚洲,他们不仅拥有更多的工程师,而且他们对市场的看法也不同,因此更容易招募到工程师。
当你在一个问题上投入大量资金时,你可以促使事情发生,中国将铁路技术视为一个增长的行业,无论是在国内还是作为其外贸战略的一个组成部分。他们投入了大量的金钱。
在过去的20年里,他们专注于提高自己的竞争力,特别是在高速铁路方面,投入了大量资金,从每一个主要的铁路车辆和信号(控制系统)的竞争对手——西门子、阿尔斯通、庞巴迪(前安达公司)和川崎铁路——那里购买技术。
这是大多数人不知道的部分——在过去的20年里,当你在中国做铁路系统供应商的时候,他们拥有你的产品设计图。你必须签署一份“技术转让协议”。“我曾经参加过设计审查,那里有30名工程师,他们实际上与项目没有任何关系,他们翻阅设计说明书,并就通常属于专利的东西提出非常具体的问题。我们必须回答这些问题。这样做的唯一原因是对设计的核心进行逆向工程,而不是仅仅理解本地应用。
这帮助了中国中车公司的崛起,它现在是世界上最大的供应商之一(主要在中国国内市场),并使他们在大约20年的时间里建立了竞争对手花了100多年才获得的能力。
他们仍然没有达到传统供应商的水平,但他们很好,他们正在迅速赶上。随着它们能力的提高,传统供应商的机会减少了,因为它们不再需要投资外国技术。这是资本主义的鼎盛时期。
一旦他们有了能力,他们就会根据自己的具体应用,以及具体的制造和施工技术来修改设计,现在他们把这些应用出口到世界各地。由于进入欧洲市场的障碍,他们还没有尝试进入欧洲市场,但是他们正在波士顿做一个大家都在关注的大项目。由于他们的劳动力成本较低,如果他们能够成功,他们将获得大量的工作。
所以,对这个问题的回答是,中国有经济意愿和长期战略来占领新兴的高铁市场,并且已经发展了在经济上胜任这项工作的能力。这就是为什么他们在业内被视为“速度快”的原因。

Steve Walker
China has a great high speed rail system for a variety of factors.
domestic flights operations are atrociously bad. Chinese air traffic control are like amateurs compared to North America.
Average Chinese income is way too low to routinely afford flights.
China does not have a long distance car culture like we do in the USA.
Average Chinese income is way too low to afford a car or even worse, the high gasoline costs. Gasoline costs in China makes California’s look like pocket change.
China inter province highways look like neighborhood streets compared to American interstate highways.
But most of all, China has a crap ton of people all concentrated along one long corridor on their east coast, and Chinese cities are also incredibly dense.
Shenzhen and Guangzhou compared to Los Angeles. Shenzhen and Guangzhou are full of skyscrapers. Los Angeles other than some new downtown buildings, looks like someone flattened the city with a giant pancake press.
USA is a big coastal country with a crap ton of flyover country and very low population densities. Transcontinental rail cannot compete with a 5 hour jet flight.
USA has believe it or not the most sophisticated domestic flight system in the world. The sheer volume of flights in the USA makes the rest of the world look like amateurs.

Steve Walker
由于各种因素,中国有一个很好的高速铁路系统。
国内航班运营糟糕透顶。与北美相比,中国的空中交通管制就像业余的一样。
中国人的平均收入太低,通常负担不起机票。
中国没有像美国那样的长途汽车文化。
中国人的平均收入太低,买不起车,更糟糕的是,油价高。中国的汽油价格让加州看起来就像口袋里的零钱一样。
与美国的州际高速公路相比,中国的省际高速公路看起来就像社区街道。
但最重要的是,中国有大量的人口集中在他们东海岸的一条狭长走廊上,而且中国的城市也非常密集。
深圳和广州与洛杉矶相比。深圳和广州到处都是摩天大楼。洛杉矶除了一些新的市中心建筑外,看起来就像有人用一个巨大的煎饼机把城市夷为平地一样。
美国是一个沿海大国,有大量的立交桥,人口密度很低。横贯大陆的铁路无法与5小时的喷气式飞机竞争。
信不信由你,美国拥有世界上最先进的国内飞行系统。美国航班的庞大数量让世界其他地方看起来就像业余的一样。

Roger Williams, lives in The United States of America (1972-present)
No. The big reason is that the Chinese government not only loves big, enormously expensive infrastructure projects, it loves to build them even when there’s no actual demand for some of it. 
There is nothing so complex about building high speed trains . Labor is expensive here, but the US government is perfectly capable of throwing astounding sums of money at projects if it really wants to, as well as any nation in the world.
The US doesn’t have high speed rail because there’s really only one, fairly small part of the country with enough passenger train traffic to justify the cost: a rail corridor of the northeast connecting Boston to Washington DC. The biggest obstacle has nothing to do with what a lot of the people here seem to think. There’s no conspiracy, the reasons are more practical: true high speed trains require true high speed rails to move them on. To build them in the northeast corridor, you would either have to replace the existing rails (not going to happen) or make an enormous number of eminent domain seizures in some very densely populated places to get the land to lay down rail. This was hard enough to do when the interstate highways were being built - it would be extremely difficult, and at the end of the day impractical, to try and do this solely for the purpose of having an American shinkansen type train. It’s just not worth it in the big picture.
Even California doesn’t have a population density that can justify the economics of high speed rail. That didn’t stop them from spending a fortune on it anyway, but that’s another story.

Roger Williams,生活在美国(1972年至今)。
不是。一个重要的原因是,中国不仅喜欢耗资巨大的大型基础设施项目,甚至在没有实际需求的情况下也喜欢建设这些项目。
建造高铁并没有那么复杂。美国的劳动力价格昂贵,但如果美国政府真的愿意这么做的话,它完全有能力在项目上投入巨额资金,世界上任何一个国家也一样。
美国之所以没有高铁,是因为美国只有一个相当小的地区有足够的客运量,足以证明其成本是合理的: 一条连接波士顿和华盛顿特区的东北部铁路走廊。最大的障碍与很多网友的想法无关。没有阴谋,原因更加实际: 真正的高速列车需要真正的高速铁路来运行。要在东北走廊修建这些铁路,你要么必须替换现有的铁路(这是不可能的),要么在一些人口非常密集的地方征收大量土地征用权,以便让土地铺设铁路。在修建州际公路的时候,要做到这一点已经够难的了——仅仅为了拥有一辆美国新干线式的列车而去尝试这么做是非常困难的,并且最终是不切实际的。总的来说,这是不值得的。
即使是在加州,人口密度也不足以证明高速铁路的经济价值。但这并没有阻止他们在这上面花一大笔钱,但那是另一回事了。

William Regan, I've been living in China for nine years.
There are a number of factors that impact the disparity between Chinese and American high speed rail development…
Sure, Chinese labor is cheaper. That helps. This should help control costs on projects.
Chinese “eminent domain” is stronger. If they want or need land for something, they’re going to take it. You’ll be compensated, but you’re not going to hold up a high speed rail line for years in court over your “insignificant” house.
Rail lines are built by subsidized, state-owned companies. They get funding and encouragement from the central government. Projects don’t have to prove to be 100% profitable for the long-term before they start. In the USA, unless there’s a massive new infrastructure bill, multiple states would have to work together to piece a deal together.
Population density. There are few places in the USA that are as densely populated as eastern China. When I ride the trains in China, they’re almost always full. In the USA, I can only really envision high speed lines running down the east and west coasts. Maybe one also running from Chicago to St. Louis down through the cities in Texas and ending at New Orleans.
Profitability. Amtrak, as far as I know, gets bailed out by the US government from time-to-time. I rode on Amtrak the last time I was home. The train was maybe half full (if you consider the full journey). I was traveling during Christmas — a peak season — and the train was just half full. The American interstate highway system is far better than China’s. In about 18 hours, you can drive from New York to Florida. In China, it has taken me 12+ hours just to travel halfway across a province. Most Americans over 16 years old have cars. Fuel in America is cheaper and there are much less tolls on the highways. So the costs/benefits of taking a train are quite different in the USA.

William Regan,我在中国生活了9年。
影响中美高铁发展差距的因素有很多。
当然,中国劳动力更便宜。这很有帮助。这将有助于控制项目成本。
中国的“土地征用权”更强。如果他们想要或者需要土地,他们就会拿走。你会得到补偿,但你不会为了你那“微不足道”的房子而在法庭上耽误一条高铁线路很多年。
铁路是由政府补贴的国有企业建造的。他们得到中央政府的资助和鼓励。项目在开始之前不需要证明是100%的长期盈利。在美国,除非有一个大规模的新基础设施法案,否则多个州将不得不共同努力来达成协议。
人口密度。在美国,很少有地方像中国东部那样人口稠密。我在中国坐火车时,火车几乎总是满员。在美国,我只能想象高铁贯穿东西海岸。也许还有一条从芝加哥到圣路易斯,穿过德克萨斯州的城市,最后到达新奥尔良。
盈利能力。据我所知,美铁公司不时得到美国政府的救助。上次我在家的时候,我坐的是美铁。火车可能是半满的(如果你考虑全程的话)。我当时乘坐的时候是圣诞节期间——那是一个旅游旺季——火车上只有一半的乘客。美国的州际公路系统比中国的要好得多。在大约18个小时内,你可以从纽约开车到佛罗里达。在中国,我花了12个多小时才走完了半个省。大多数16岁以上的美国人都有车。在美国,燃料更便宜,高速公路上的通行费也少得多。所以在美国坐火车的成本/收益是非常不同的。
环球旅行
请文明理性发言,请不要发布违规评论,包括但不限于(诋毁、极端、敏感、歧视、色情、引战、人身攻击)等,如发现此类评论,请不要回复,直接举报。网站意见建议请点击 意见反馈
我要纠错&举报
文章地址
纠错类型
备注说明
 
我要举报
文章地址
举报理由
 
打赏评论
1、如果您喜欢此评论,可以对其打赏
2、不鼓励对违规评论(包括但不限于违法、辱骂、歧视等)进行打赏,系统将可能回收对其的打赏
充值