是什么阻碍了美国城市拥有像这样酷炫的交通工具？（视频来自中国）

thehourglasses
likes: 348
Car companies have lobbied for ages against public transportation infrastructure. By granting their wish, we’ve created a system whereby a car is almost a requirement just to participate in the economy. What’s worse, municipalities have sacrificed a ton of what would otherwise be tax-productive land for the benefit of drivers. Parking lots don’t generate tax revenue, and are often overbuilt to handle spikes in demand. It’s a massive waste because they aren’t always being used at full capacity.
 
汽车公司长期以来一直在游说反对公共交通基础设施。由于满足了他们的愿望，我们创造了一个体系，在这个体系中，汽车几乎成了参与经济活动的必需品。更糟糕的是，市政当局为了司机的利益，牺牲了大量本可以产生税收的土地。停车场不产生税收，而且往往为了应对需求高峰而过度建设。这是一种巨大的浪费，因为它们并非总是在满负荷使用。
 
DaddyGrendel
likes: 57
This. America designed the country around cars, it’s really hard to reverse the last 100 years of developing infrastructure focused on that.
Expensive and really hard to build on top of or beneath existing infrastructure. Likely even harder to uproot people’s homes and land equity to build a train where it makes the most sense.
Not technically impossible but our entire country would need to actually agree on it first, they’d actually have to elect officials that have this vision, they’d have to reject millions to billions of bribes and lobbyist incentives from big businesses that would be hurt by this, and then maybe we’d have a shot at considering
 
确实如此。美国是围绕汽车来规划整个国家的，想要扭转过去100年以汽车为中心的基础设施发展趋势真的非常困难。
在现有基础设施之上或之下进行建设，成本高昂且难度极大。为了在最合理的地方修建铁路而征用人们的房屋和土地，可能就更难了。
技术上并非不可能，但首先需要我们整个国家真正达成共识，他们必须选出有这种远见的官员，他们必须拒绝那些会因此受损的大企业提供的数百万甚至数十亿美元的贿赂和游说，然后我们或许才有机会去考虑这件事。
 
Parking-College-5081
likes: 16
There are many cities in the US with decent public transportation that was added after the fact. L.A. added Metro Rail and Subway around the 90s and still expanding. I agree with your last paragraph. The US could take all the great things from other countries and develop them here but it's not about making things better for everyday Americans. Same reason we can't have Universal Healthcare.
 
美国有许多城市在后期也增设了不错的公共交通。洛杉矶大约在90年代增加了轻轨和地铁，并且至今仍在扩张。我同意你上一段的看法。美国本可以借鉴其他国家的优点并在这里发展，但问题的关键并不在于改善普通美国人的生活。我们无法实现全民医保也是出于同样的原因。
 
mckili026
likes: 26
We fought in Vietnam so everyone could buy a car. The entrenched interests that sent thousands of Americans to die fighting against rubber farmers chose this world of consumption for consumption's sake for us.
 
我们当年在越南打仗，就是为了让每个人都能买上一辆车。那些让成千上万美国人远赴他乡、在与橡胶农民的战斗中丧生的根深蒂固的利益集团，为我们选择了这个纯粹为了消费而消费的世界。
 
totpot
likes: 1
Recent LA developments:
There was a plan to connect the LA train system to the OC streetcar system but it had to go through Cerritos, home of the massive Cerritos Auto Square. They got the project killed.
There was a project to build a streetcar line to SoFi and Intuit stadiums. The stadium owners got the project killed to protect their parking revenue.
LA is now suing California because they passed a low allowing more density around major train stations
 
洛杉矶最近的动态：
曾经有一个计划，想把洛杉矶的火车系统和奥兰治县的有轨电车系统连接起来，但线路必须经过拥有超大“喜瑞都汽车广场”的喜瑞都市。结果他们把这个项目搅黄了。
曾经有一个项目，要建一条通往SoFi和Intuit体育场的有轨电车线路。结果体育场主为了保护他们的停车费收入，也把这个项目搅黄了。
现在，洛杉矶正在起诉加州，因为州政府通过了一项法律，允许在主要火车站周围提高人口密度。
 
earthlingHuman
likes: 1
Capitalism
 
资本主义
 
whipsmartmcoy
likes: 1
It's always lobbies
 
永远都是游说集团。
 
groovy_smoothie
likes: -3
Parking lots pay property taxes
 
停车场也交房产税。
 
notrussellwilson
likes: 5
Do they generate sales tax, income tax, or payroll taxes?
 
它们能产生销售税、所得税或工资税吗？
 
groovy_smoothie
likes: 4
In comparison to a shopping space it’s probably negligible, but it’s highly dependent on the structure and format. Many employ valets and attendants. Any monetary transaction would generate sales tax.
If it’s an empty lot that’s free to park, no, it’s purely property tax.
Your point stands - parking lots are not the best use of space from a tax generation perspective, but it’s also not zero. I would much prefer a sophisticated public transit
 
和商业区相比，可能微不足道，但这很大程度上取决于其结构和运营模式。很多停车场会雇佣代客泊车员和服务员。任何货币交易都会产生销售税。
如果只是一个免费停车的空地，那确实，纯粹只有房产税。
你的观点是对的——从创造税收的角度看，停车场不是对空间的最佳利用，但也不是零。我个人更倾向于先进的公共交通系统。
 
Intelligent_Teach247
likes: 369
Do oligarchs take trains?
Then you have your answer.
 
寡头们会坐火车吗？
这不就有答案了。
 
Environmental-Ad4090
likes: 15
Kim Jong-Un takes the train
 
金正恩就坐火车。
 
Common_Cucumber2446
likes: 21
In Europe? Yes
 
在欧洲？他们坐。
 
taolbi
likes: 18
I get your point, but my brain automatically pictures dictators taking public transit like anybody else
 
我明白你的意思，但我脑子里会自动浮现出独裁者像普通人一样乘坐公共交通的画面。
 
HammerUnknown
likes: 4
Not that he's a dictator but It is very common for me to run into my big boss on the Jubilee line to Bond Street , about once a week on average.
Not just him, it seems like most bankers, engineers, consultants and lawyers, the tube is a great leveler
 
他倒不是独裁者，但我经常在去邦德街的朱比利线上碰到我的大老板，平均每周一次。
不只是他，似乎大多数银行家、工程师、顾问和律师都这样，伦敦地铁真是一个伟大的“均衡器”。
 
echosixwhiskey
likes: 1
Which is why you won’t see oligarchs on a train. They don’t want life for everyone to be level.
 
这就是为什么你不会在火车上看到寡头。他们不希望每个人的生活都是平等的。
 
theObfuscator
likes: 4
You are implying China does not have oligarchs lol ok buddy
 
你这是在暗示中国没有寡头咯，呵呵，行吧兄弟。
 
King_Saline_IV
likes: 7
They tax the rich more.
When Jack Ma got uppity, the government made him calm down.
 
他们对富人征收更多的税。
当马云变得有点得意忘形时，政府就让他冷静下来了。
 
Parking-College-5081
likes: 4
We taxed the rich more which is why most of the interstate hwys were built. If we taxed them again at a similar rate than back in the 1950s we could advance in more ways than just transportation. We have more power than we realize and should start voting for better representation. No one needs more than a few million a year to live comfortably in this country. CEOs are over paid and the biggest problem is we defend them because many of us aspire to one day be in their position instead of collectively prospering in this great nation.
 
我们以前对富人征收更高的税，这就是为什么大多数州际公路能被建造起来。如果我们能再次按照1950年代的税率向他们征税，我们就能在交通以外的更多方面取得进步。我们拥有的力量比我们意识到的要大，应该开始投票选出更好的代表。在这个国家，每年有几百万美元就足以过上舒适的生活了。CEO们的薪水过高，而最大的问题是，我们还在为他们辩护，因为我们中的许多人都渴望有一天能坐到他们的位置上，而不是在这个伟大的国家里共同繁荣。
 
hokies314
likes: 7
That wasn’t taxing the rich, that was suppressing dissent
 
那不是对富人征税，那是压制异见。
 
King_Saline_IV
likes: 7
.... Yes, because the dissent was from an oligarch who would gut their country if allowed to continue his plans...
You should infact suppress people trying to destroy your country. Or else they will, for example, destroy your public transit
 
……是的，因为异议来自一个寡头，如果任由他继续他的计划，他会掏空这个国家……
事实上，你就是应该压制那些试图摧毁你国家的人。否则他们就会，比如说，摧毁你的公共交通。
 
DontBeEvil4
likes: 1
Oh they do have oligarchs, but more of their capital is deployed to improve the lives of their citizens. We do the opposite here in the U.S.
 
哦，他们确实有寡头，但他们更多的资本被用来改善公民的生活。而在美国，我们做的恰恰相反。
 
Mechanik_J
likes: 4
You're correct, but it's more sinister than that...
Oligarchs, especially republican oligarchs, want to go back to a time before slavery was outlawed in the US.
They want free labor, because think of all the profits!
They also want to flaunt how wealthy they are to other slave owners by saying how many slaves they own...
But yeah... the oligarchs want to control the technology that is available to lower classes, and also control the monetization of all technology available to the lower classes.
 
你说得对，但情况比这更险恶……
寡头们，尤其是共和党寡头，想要回到美国废除奴隶制之前的时代。
他们想要免费劳动力，因为想想那能带来多大的利润！
他们还想通过炫耀自己拥有多少奴隶，来向其他奴隶主夸耀自己的财富……
但是，是的……寡头们想要控制下层阶级能接触到的技术，并控制所有这些技术的商业化。
 
oh_woo_fee
likes: 2
Hey why don’t you vote them out
 
嘿，你们为什么不投票把他们选下去呢？
 
Intelligent_Teach247
likes: 1
I did my part. But the rest of the idiots didn’t agree with me.
 
我尽了我的责任。但其他的白痴们不同意我的看法。
 
ShyLeoGing
likes: 1
Putin goes shirtless on horseback!
 
普京还光着膀子骑马呢！
 
Alias-Q
likes: 49
Oil companies and their tremendous greedy desire to profit, resulting in them lobbying the government to prevent other solutions from being developed….
 
石油公司以及他们对利润的巨大贪欲，导致他们游说政府，阻止其他解决方案的开发……
 
casper_trade
likes: 0
You got many upvotes, because I think a lot of people can get behind the anti-corpo rhetoric. But from my understanding most large oil companies are in multiple sources of energy production now (purely from sheer profits they make, an not because they necessarily care). An therefore anything that is made which will require more energy from the grid, down streams becomes profits for them. So while it might sounds true to make a claim like this, I think its very surface level.
 
你得到了很多赞，因为我想很多人都认同这种反公司的论调。但据我了解，大多数大型石油公司现在都已涉足多种能源生产领域（纯粹是因为他们赚取的巨额利润，而不一定是因为他们关心这个）。因此，任何需要从电网获取更多能源的东西，最终都会成为他们的利润。所以，虽然这种说法听起来可能没错，但我认为这非常表面化。
 
Science-Sam
likes: 4
Here is an article that talks about how the Koch Brothers, may they soon be reunited in Hell, actively and effectively lobbied municipal governments to halt mass transit projects. The Koch Brothers have huge investments in fossil fuels.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019_/aug/26/koch-activists-phoenix-ban-light-rail
 
这里有篇文章，讲的是科氏兄弟（愿他们早日在地狱重聚）如何积极有效地游说市政府，叫停公共交通项目。科氏兄弟在化石燃料领域有巨额投资。
 
-SOFA-KING-VOTE-
likes: 88
Republicans
 
共和党人。
 
TuskenRaider2
likes: 1
What stops these from popping up in Democratic controlled cities?
 
那是什么阻止了这些东西在民主党控制的城市出现呢？
 
-SOFA-KING-VOTE-
likes: 4
Federal money and federal regulations
 
联邦资金和联邦法规。
 
TuskenRaider2
likes: 1
Wasn’t Biden just president for 4 years?
Can fund through state or other means?
 
拜登不是刚当了4年总统吗？
不能通过州或其他方式提供资金吗？
 
Significant-Gene9639
likes: 3
Takes more than 4 years to shift infrastructure to rail, especially when you have obstructionists fighting you every step of the way
 
将基础设施转向铁路需要超过4年的时间，尤其是当你每一步都有阻挠者与你作对时。
 
-SOFA-KING-VOTE-
likes: 1
Biden had an infrastructure bill
NYC is renovating mass transit because of it.
Republicans even claim to have supported it after the fact to claim credit
What’s your point?
When is trump’s infrastructure week?
 
拜登有一项基础设施法案。
纽约市正因此在翻新公共交通。
共和党人甚至在事后声称支持该法案来邀功。
你想说什么？
特朗普的“基础设施周”什么时候开始？
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: -35
Nope -- it's NIMBYism
 
不对——是“邻避主义”。
 
justboosted02
likes: 15
Two things can be true at once
 
两件事可以同时都是真的。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: 5
How to explain Democratically controlled California?
 
那怎么解释民主党控制的加州呢？
 
cranktheguy
likes: 3
The Democrats are not immune from catering to the wishes of the rich. California is like the mecca of nimbyism.
 
民主党人也并非不会迎合富人的意愿。加州简直就是邻避主义的麦加圣地。
 
HaiKarate
likes: 1
The problems in California are the result of too much capitalistic success.
 
加州的问题是资本主义过度成功的结果。
 
jimtow28
likes: 1
They have Republicans there, too.
 
他们那儿也有共和党人。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: -4
Read Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's Abundance. San Francisco, which has been controlled by progressives for decades, is almost impossible to build anything in. Places like Dallas routinely have more housing construction than Los Angeles.
 
去读读埃兹拉·克莱因和德里克·汤普森的《富足》吧。旧金山已经被进步派控制了几十年，在那里几乎不可能建造任何东西。像达拉斯这样的地方，住房建设量通常都比洛杉矶多。
 
-SOFA-KING-VOTE-
likes: 2
That’s anecdotal
And we are referring to large mass transit projects
 
那是坊间传闻。
而且我们讨论的是大型公共交通项目。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: -3
I'm not sure I understand why someone in Mississippi should pay for California's high-speed rail if California builds it at three or four times the cost of what it takes to build it in places like Italy and Spain.
 
我不太明白，如果加州建高铁的成本是意大利和西班牙等地的三到四倍，为什么密西西比州的人要为加州的高铁买单。
 
-SOFA-KING-VOTE-
likes: 2
Why should Californians pay for Mississippi welfare and disaster relief then?
 
那为什么加州人要为密西西比州的福利和灾难救济买单呢？
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: -1
Because Mississippi is poor in California is rich
 
因为密西西比州穷而加州富。
 
-SOFA-KING-VOTE-
likes: 5
So its ok to transfer wealth from rich to poor when its a shithole republican state but not when its billionaires and healthcare? strange
 
所以当财富从富州转移到共和党执政的穷州就可以，但当财富从亿万富翁转移到医疗保健就不行？真奇怪。
 
ChalkLicker
likes: 67
An inordinate amount of power in the hands of senators from rural states who represent a fraction of the US population.
 
代表美国一小部分人口的农村州参议员手中，掌握着过多的权力。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: 9
How is that stopping high speed rail in California?
 
这又是如何阻碍加州建设高铁的呢？
 
gomi-panda
likes: 14
Massive federal lobbying against state funding. California is not all blue either. Like the rest of the country it is mixed, not homogenous.
Governor Brown twice, in the 70s and 2000s, pushed for high speed rail, and both efforts failed due to a lack of funding allocated to it.
 
大规模的联邦游说活动，反对州政府的资金投入。而且加州也不是一片蓝（民主党）。和美国其他地方一样，它是混合的，不是单一的。
州长布朗在70年代和21世纪初两次推动高铁建设，但两次努力都因缺乏拨款而失败。
 
desperate-replica
likes: -4
why should the federal government fund it and not the state?
 
为什么应该由联邦政府而不是州政府出资呢？
 
King_Saline_IV
likes: 3
This is a stupid fuckin red herring question.
Because the benifitial externalities extend beyond a single state. Ignorant toad
 
这是个他妈的用来转移注意力的蠢问题。
因为其有益的外部效应会超越单个州的范围。无知的蠢货。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: 2
It's an expensive boondoggle. The US cannot build high speed rail because of NIMBYism.
 
这是一个昂贵的劳民伤财的工程。美国因为邻避主义建不了高铁。
 
Friedyekian
likes: 6
Correct! People blaming car manufacturers just want a boogeyman. The truth is, your friendly, smiley neighbors are to blame for the lack of public transportation infrastructure.
 
没错！那些指责汽车制造商的人只是想找个替罪羊。事实是，你那些友好、面带微笑的邻居才是公共交通基础设施缺乏的罪魁祸首。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: 4
Correct. 85% of environmental suits to stop construction in California are filed by organizations that have no ties to environmental activism. They're just looking to stop progress.
 
没错。在加州，85%旨在阻止建设的环境诉讼是由与环保活动毫无关联的组织提起的。他们只是想阻止进步。
 
cheweychewchew
likes: 8
Repub;icans hate public ....anything.
Democrats suck at doing things
 
共和党人讨厌公共的……任何东西。
而民主党人在做实事方面很烂。
 
hotweiss
likes: 16
Capitalism. In the US, people serve the economy (the rich). And in China, the economy serves the people. It just doesn't make financial sense. While it does make sense as a service to the people and environment.
 
资本主义。在美国，人民为经济（富人）服务。而在中国，经济为人民服务。这（指公共交通）在财务上没有意义，但作为一项为人民和环境提供的服务，它是有意义的。
 
wwplkyih
likes: 6
>And in China, the economy serves the people.
I wouldn't go that far.
 
>“而在中国，经济为人民服务。”
我不敢苟同。
 
XysterU
likes: 2
China has lifted 800 MILLION people out of extreme poverty. What about that makes you think the economy ISN'T serving the people? The US economy doesn't serve the people, it actually bankrupts us.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-China-s-experience
 
中国已经让8亿人摆脱了极端贫困。你凭什么认为经济不是在为人民服务？美国的经济不是为人民服务的，它实际上让我们破产。
 
wastingtoomuchthyme
likes: 3
Lobbyists..
It's why we no longer have light rail in the US..
 
游说者……
这就是为什么我们在美国不再有轻轨了……
 
AnComApeMC69
likes: 3
Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone lobbying the government years ago to destroy mass transit programs and ensure everyone would be dependent on cars and buy tires. They even got to choose to the makeup of the asphalt for the highway system under Eisenhower. So, your tires would wear enough and you’d need new ones every “X” amount of miles.
 
多年前，亨利·福特和哈维·凡士通游说政府，摧毁了公共交通项目，以确保每个人都依赖汽车并购买轮胎。在艾森豪威尔时期，他们甚至有权决定高速公路系统沥青的成分。这样，你的轮胎就会磨损得足够快，每行驶“X”英里就需要换新轮胎。
 
Dan0man69
likes: 3
Lawyers...
Seriously, lawyers block projects making any kind of advancements difficult.
 
律师……
说真的，律师们阻碍项目，让任何进展都变得困难。
 
DinkyDoozy
likes: 3
If you look up the history of most every mid size town and city in America they used to have a complex trolly or rail system that were torn out to put a road down. It’s sad the infrastructure used to be there. In the city I live in currently there have been multiple occasions where they have discovered forgotten rail tracks while working on the roads. At one point you were able to get to any part of the city easily by rail. That has been gone for about 80 years now in favor of waiting an hour at bus stops for a commute that will possibly take multiple hours to get across town. Then you think of the time lost. How those systems could have been developed and improved over the years. Squandered.
 
如果你去查阅美国几乎所有中等城镇的历史，你会发现它们曾经都有复杂的有轨电车或铁路系统，但后来都被拆掉，用来铺设公路。可惜的是，那些基础设施曾经存在过。在我目前居住的城市，有好几次工人在修路时发现了被遗忘的铁轨。曾几何时，你可以通过铁路轻松到达城市的任何地方。但现在，这种情况已经消失了大约80年，取而代之的是在公交车站等上一个小时，然后可能要花上好几个小时才能穿过整个城市。想想那些失去的时间。想想这些系统本可以在这些年里得到怎样的发展和改善。全都被浪费了。
 
Standard_Ad_4270
likes: 3
America is a country designed to favor corporate interests over its citizens’ needs.
 
美国是一个被设计成将企业利益置于公民需求之上的国家。
 
HOLDstrongtoPLUTO
likes: 2
Land Value Tax fixes this. Instead of landlords pocketing 100% of the economic rent from land speculation amd rent seeking a lot of that profit would go into public infrastructure since the community built that value, not the landlord.
 
土地价值税能解决这个问题。房东不再能将土地投机和寻租带来的全部经济租金收入囊中，大部分利润将投入公共基础设施，因为这些价值是社区创造的，而不是房东。
 
Crepuscular_Tex
likes: 2
Old Money and Old Guard
The above yank up the ladder behind them and burn down the ladders of success for competing ideas or things that will replace them.
The only way to implement better things is to work with the old systems. New and fresh concepts always try to jump around or over the old ones, then get crushed by the system built for the old ones.
Want to build light or high speed rail, partner with Amtrak. Get the big dogs of any industry on your side.
Being a disruptor is great for a hype man collecting funding for someone else's work or ideas, but it's horrible for implementing.
My city voted for light rail over twenty-five years ago, and right before ground broke, city council without a vote shut it down and gave the allocated funding to the city bus line.
Instead of a city wide system, it became one rail line with maybe five stops, and wasn't built until eight years ago.
The old guard and old money got its way because they were cut out of the better system.
 
老钱和守旧派。
这些人会抽走身后的梯子，并烧掉那些可能取代他们、与他们竞争的想法或事物的成功阶梯。
实现更好事物的唯一方法是与旧系统合作。新的、新鲜的概念总是试图绕过或超越旧的，然后被为旧的而建立的系统所碾压。
想建轻轨或高铁，就和美铁合作。把任何行业的大佬都拉到你这边。
做一个“颠覆者”对于一个为别人的工作或想法筹集资金的宣传者来说很棒，但对于实施来说却很糟糕。
我的城市在二十五年前就投票支持轻轨，但在破土动工前，市议会在没有投票的情况下就叫停了它，并把拨付的资金给了城市公交线路。
结果，它没有成为一个覆盖全市的系统，而是变成了一条只有大概五个站点的铁路线，并且直到八年前才建成。
守旧派和老钱之所以能得逞，是因为他们被排除在了那个更好的系统之外。
 
iSo_Cold
likes: 2
Decades of propaganda have embedded cars as symbols of personal freedom and financial security deep into the American psych. Decades of lobbying have built are entire national infrastructure around cars as "THE" mode of personal conveyance. While decades of racial and class warfare have exacerbated those 2 key issues.
 
数十年的宣传已将汽车作为个人自由和财务安全的象征，深深植入美国人的心理。数十年的游说已将我们的整个国家基础设施围绕汽车这个“唯一”的个人交通工具来建设。而数十年的种族和阶级斗争又加剧了这两个关键问题。
 
TweeksTurbos
likes: 2
Everything in the us is geared toward things costing us money to keep the beast alive. Can you imagine the hit to portfolios if people stopped consuming gas, oil, car parts, tires, ect ect ect
 
在美国，所有事情都是为了让我们花钱来维持这个“巨兽”的生存。你能想象如果人们停止消费汽油、机油、汽车零件、轮胎等等，对那些投资组合会造成多大的打击吗？
 
absurdwifi
likes: 2
Excluding the extremely wealthy, does the U.S. Government act to improve the lives of its citizens, or does it act to intentionally make the lives of its citizens more difficult and to facilitate the wealthy making the lives of its citizens more difficult?
 
除了极度富有的人，美国政府的行为到底是为了改善其公民的生活，还是为了故意让公民的生活更加困难，并为富人制造困难提供便利？
 
01967483
likes: 2
A few reasons from conservatives in my family are “If people rely on public transportation then the government controls where you go.” Then there’s “I drive a car and I don’t want my taxes funding it.” Also “public transportation makes it easy for people to get to rich part of town.”
 
我家里一些保守派的理由是：“如果人们依赖公共交通，那么政府就能控制你去哪里。”还有：“我自己开车，我不想用我的税款来资助它。”以及：“公共交通让人们很容易就能去到城里的富人区。”
 
Numerous-Anemone
likes: 2
We can’t even agree that giving people access to healthcare or parental leave is a good thing. Short answer: conservatives.
 
我们甚至无法就给予人们医疗保健或育儿假是件好事达成一致。简短的回答：保守派。
 
eoworm
likes: 2
greed and corruption?
i remember it was infrastructure week, then it'd be infrastructure week in two weeks time, then 4 years later some stuff got done but we're decades behind the rest of the world.
i still say we need to ride bikes more.
 
贪婪和腐败？
我记得当时说是“基础设施周”，然后又说是两周后，结果四年后才做了一点事，但我们已经落后世界其他地方几十年了。
我还是觉得我们应该多骑自行车。
 
Doudar
likes: 2
They are busy giving billions to Israel to steal the land and kill the Palestinians!
 
他们正忙着给以色列数十亿美元，让他们去窃取土地、杀害巴勒斯坦人！
 
BobBuckarooLaredo
likes: 2
Probably the fact that these cool modes of transportation were financed with the $2 trillion that was announced as "missing" from the Pentagon in 2001. It was the same year that China received $2 trillion in Direct Foreign Investment, making it eligible to be a member of the World Trade Organization.
 
可能的事实是，这些酷炫的交通工具是用2001年五角大楼宣布“失踪”的2万亿美元资助的。也正是在同一年，中国获得了2万亿美元的外国直接投资，从而有资格成为世界贸易组织的成员。
 
CYBORGMExiCAN
likes: 2
Americans value personal space, convenience, and privacy.
 
美国人重视个人空间、便利和隐私。
 
oneofthethreehundred
likes: 2
China has tens of thousands of miles of high speed rails, the U.S. has only dozens of true high speed rails. Only 33.9 miles of track in the U.S. is capable of supporting 150 mph plus speeds. Why? Because China gives free reign to Engineers and America gives free reign to lawyers and bureaucrats.
 
中国有数万英里的高铁，而美国只有几十英里真正的高铁。在美国，只有33.9英里的轨道能支持150英里/小时以上的速度。为什么？因为中国给工程师自由发挥的空间，而美国给律师和官僚自由发挥的空间。
 
RoastedTomatillo
likes: 2
Portland did it right, city is walkable yet you can get on a street car from anywhere and move around and it connects to a larger train to get out of the city into different towns, airport, stadium etc
 
波特兰做得很好，整个城市适合步行，而且你可以从任何地方搭上有轨电车四处走动，它还连接着更大的火车系统，可以带你出城去往不同的城镇、机场、体育场等。
 
pegaunisusicorn
likes: 2
because corporations are inherently driven to evil and politicians are inherently driven to corruption (under the system as it stands since forever). and the voters are idiots.
same as all the other problems in America.
 
因为公司天生就是趋向邪恶的，而政客（在现有且一直存在的体制下）天生就是趋向腐败的。而选民都是白痴。
和美国所有其他问题的原因一样。
 
schrodingers_gat
likes: 2
All the other answers in this thread are good, but it's also racism. Public transit that can take people into the city (where minorities live) can also bring those minorities out of the city and a LOT of people living in suburbs do not want people from the city to have easier access to their towns.
And before you say I'm imagining this, I've personally spoken to people in both the Northeast and the South that said this exact thing and believed there was enough of a consensus on this that I would naturally agree with them.
 
这个帖子里的其他答案都很好，但还有一个原因是种族主义。能把人带进城（少数族裔居住地）的公共交通，也能把那些少数族裔带出城，而很多住在郊区的人不希望城里的人更容易地进入他们的城镇。
在你开口说这是我想象的之前，我得说，我亲身和来自东北部和南部的人聊过，他们就是这么说的，并且相信这已是普遍共识，以至于我自然也会同意他们的看法。
 
Successful-Spot-6567
likes: 4
The Chinese economy is structured so that building infrastructure like this isn't expensive but the purchasing power of the individual is suppressed.
 
中国的经济结构使得建设这样的基础设施成本不高，但个人的购买力受到了压制。
 
Equivalent-Excuse-80
likes: 9
Democracy.
China can expand on infrastructure much faster and for far less expenses. China doesn’t have democrat processes of local politicians fighting against infrastructure or negotiating the purview and scope of the project.
And finally labor. The Chinese can just conscxt its laborers, no unxs and they can pay what they want.
A dictatorship is the most *efficient* form of governance, but is rarely benevolent and while infrastructure projects can be completed without the hassles of liberal democracy, there are far more drawbacks.
 
民主制度。
中国能以更快的速度和更低的成本扩展基础设施。中国没有地方政客反对基础设施或就项目权限和范围进行谈判的民主程序。
最后是劳动力。中国人可以直接征用劳工，没有工会，他们想付多少就付多少。
独裁是最高效的治理形式，但很少是仁慈的。虽然基础设施项目可以在没有自由民主制度麻烦的情况下完成，但其弊端要多得多。
 
Intelligent_Teach247
likes: 15
Are you saying Japanese under dictatorship?
And EU?
US has one of the worst, if not the worst public transportation among developed nations. Our trains smell terrible, conductors are rude, and the chairs look sad, not to mention being on time is a bug, not a feature, in the system.
Plus, we are no longer a democracy.
 
你是说日本处于独裁统治下？
还有欧盟？
在发达国家中，美国的公共交通即使不是最差的，也是最差的之一。我们的火车味道难闻，售票员态度粗鲁，椅子看起来破破烂烂，更不用说，准点在这个系统里是个bug，而不是一个特性。
而且，我们已经不再是一个民主国家了。
 
Equivalent-Excuse-80
likes: 2
No, but the Japanese and European countries had the benefit of the Marshall plan. America invested its part into the interstate system.
It’s easier to upgrade existing infrastructure than to build entirely new systems.
 
不，但日本和欧洲国家得益于马歇尔计划。美国则把钱投进了州际公路系统。
升级现有基础设施比建造全新的系统要容易。
 
Puzzleheaded-Bat6344
likes: 1
Italy and France easily build high speed rail. They are as messy democracies as they come. It's American proceduralism/Nimbyism
 
意大利和法国能轻松建造高铁。他们的民主制度可以说是乱糟糟的。问题出在美国的程序主义/邻避主义。
 
someoneinsignificant
likes: 1
I think people forget or don't realize the impact of that last part. In China, the government is very efficient in that they can build mega cities for 300M people like Pudong in 20 years. In the US, it takes 20 years to build just one tunnel in Boston. China can deploy the world's amount of solar in a year, while the US president can undo all the wind infrastructure and investments made in the past 4 years because he thinks they're ugly.
You do get the occasional issue every now and then, you know, of the trampling of civil rights on entire groups of people...but when they have real economic interests of their country in mind, it's scary what crazy progress they can make.
The last 20 years of US politics can be summarized as Democrats making big progressive changes (ACA, IRA/IIJA, CHIPS) followed by immediate progress reversals and massive debt increases by Trump. How the heck are we supposed to make any progress when we actively cut off any attempt to do so?
 
我觉得人们忘记或没有意识到最后那部分的影响。在中国，政府非常高效，他们可以在20年内为3亿人建造像浦东这样的特大城市。而在美国，光是在波士顿建一条隧道就需要20年。中国一年内可以部署全世界的太阳能装机量，而美国总统却可以因为觉得风力发电设备丑，就撤销过去四年所有的风能基础设施和投资。
当然，你偶尔也会遇到一些问题，比如对整个群体的公民权利的践踏……但是当他们真正把国家的经济利益放在心上时，他们能取得的疯狂进步是可怕的。
过去20年的美国政治可以概括为：民主党做出重大的进步性变革（如ACA、IRA/IIJA、CHIPS法案），紧接着特朗普上台后就立即逆转这些进步，并大幅增加债务。当我们主动扼杀任何进步的尝试时，我们到底要怎么取得进步？
 
Equivalent-Excuse-80
likes: 1
Keep in mind, that Boston tunnel intersected throughout the entire center of the city and was constructed along with other tunnels and bridges without a single home being demolished.
I don’t think the Chinese government has much legally in the way from them removing homes to build infrastructure.
 
请记住，波士顿的那条隧道贯穿了整个市中心，并且是在没有拆除任何一栋房屋的情况下，与其他隧道和桥梁一起建造的。
我不认为中国政府在拆除房屋来建设基础设施方面会受到什么法律上的阻碍。
 
NaughtyReplicant
likes: 1
China choose infrastructure, research & development. The US choose 'dead Gaza babies'.
 
中国选择了基础设施和研发。美国选择了“死去的加沙婴儿”。
 
Ugly-And-Fat
likes: 1
Did you see the video of the man who stabbed the woman in the neck with a pocket knife on the light rail in Charlotte, NC? We can't have nice things here.
 
你看到那个在北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市的轻轨上，一个男人用小刀刺伤女人脖子的视频了吗？我们这里就是没法拥有好东西。
 
LuluMcGu
likes: 1
They won’t do anything to benefit the average American. Only rich donors.
 
他们不会做任何有益于普通美国人的事，只会为富有的捐赠者服务。
 
BB_the_Dweeb
likes: 1
Spending taxpayer funds on global “priorities” rather than domestic.
 
把纳税人的钱花在全球“优先事项”上，而不是国内事务上。
 
GoGoTrance
likes: 1
How much do you spend on global priorities?
 
你在全球优先事项上花了多少钱？
 
Fluffy_Carpenter1377
likes: 1
We don’t like each other enough to share the same means of transportation. That divide is exactly what politicians and oligarchs exploit to preserve the status quo. The same tactic is used to undermine or eliminate social benefits by keeping people separated and manageable.
 
我们彼此不够喜欢，以至于无法共享同一种交通工具。这种分歧正是政客和寡头们用来维持现状的手段。同样的策略也被用来通过让人们保持分离和易于管理，从而削弱或消除社会福利。
 
FinerGamerBros
likes: 1
These aren’t immediately profitable or sometimes never profitable so even if long term it creates localized growth America won’t do it because everyone, republicans and democrats will never fund it.
 
这些项目不会立即盈利，有时甚至永远不会盈利，所以即使从长远来看它能创造局部增长，美国也不会去做，因为无论是共和党人还是民主党人，都不会为此提供资金。
 
piggybank21
likes: 1
You see all those 30 stories apartments in the background?
Everybody needs to live in those to achieve the kind of density to make these things economically viable. Oh, wait, you need to have enough people to occupy those buildings in the first place.
In other words, never, unless people start breeding like rabbits.
 
你看到背景里那些30层的公寓楼了吗？
每个人都得住进那些楼里，才能达到让这些东西在经济上可行的密度。哦等等，首先你得有足够的人去住满那些楼。
换句话说，永远不可能，除非人们开始像兔子一样生孩子。
 
Fl45hb4c
likes: 1
Another aspect: Cause doing so on a large scale requires an ongoing supply of skilled labor, and an industry to support it all year long. The US builds one project at a time, and even then it gets dragged out so long that industry professionals move on to other things instead of waiting for the next gig.
 
另一方面：因为大规模地做这件事需要持续的熟练劳动力供应，以及一个能全年支持它的产业。美国一次只建一个项目，即便如此，项目也会拖延很久，以至于行业专业人士都转行去做别的事了，而不是等着下一个活儿。
 
notboring
likes: 1
The US: Living off the Past since 1960.
 
美国：自1960年以来，一直在吃老本。
 
monkeymoo32
likes: 1
Good public transit is socialism. Do the ultra wealthy take the train??? There is your answer. This country’s is turning into a fucking shithole by the minute
 
好的公共交通就是社会主义。那些超级富豪会坐火车吗？？？答案就在这里。这个国家正在每分每秒地变成一个他妈的鬼地方。
 
ZoharDTeach
likes: 1
Do you know why people try to avoid the public transportation that we do have? Violence for one. Drugs for another.
We have had to shut down lightrail lines here where I am to clean all the METH out of them. We have had to do it with LIBRARIES too.
 
你知道为什么人们试图避开我们现有的公共交通吗？一个原因是暴力。另一个是毒品。
在我这里，我们不得不关闭轻轨线路，来清理里面的冰毒。我们甚至对图书馆也得这么做。
 
illcrx
likes: 1
We have too many entrenched interests at this point, its why we can't do anything. To get trains moving you need to cross so much land and then there are counties, cities, municipalities, states and the stakeholders can go from dozens to hundreds fast. That is why the Federal Government basically exists, to get around all the bullshit, but we all know how the federal government is at this point. Same entrenched interests there too.
 
我们现在有太多根深蒂固的利益集团，这就是为什么我们什么也做不成。要让火车开起来，你需要穿越大片土地，这涉及到县、市、镇、州，利益相关者可以很快从几十个变成几百个。联邦政府存在的根本原因就是要绕开所有这些破事，但我们都知道联邦政府现在是什么德行。那里也有同样根深蒂固的利益集团。
 
pgsimon77
likes: 1
Maybe it's not an engineering problem but a political one..
 
也许这不是一个工程问题，而是一个政治问题……
 
GenuineVerve
likes: 1
Real answer: real estate developers and average people in your neighborhood are the reason why. Pitch the idea at a city council meeting and watch them all go nuclear.
 
真正的答案是：房地产开发商和你社区里的普通人。你试试在市议会会议上提出这个想法，看看他们会不会集体暴走。
 
-JackBack-
likes: 1
Mass transit is socialism.
 
公共交通是社会主义。
 
Xerxero
likes: 1
Political vision beyond 2 years.
 
超过两年的政治远见。