看看英国佬对高铁的评价（转载自《经济学人》）

The great train robbery火车大劫
High-speed rail lines rarely pay their way. Britain’s government should ditch its plan to build one 高铁往往
不会带来理想的收益，英国政府应取消建高铁的计划
AT THE launch of the Liverpool-Manchester railway in 1830, a statesman was killed when he failed to spot
an approaching train. That was not the last time a new train line has had unintended consequences.
Victorian railways ushered in a golden age of prosperity; these days politicians across the developed world
hope new rapid trains, which barrel along at over 250mph (400kph), can do the same. But high-speed rail
rarely delivers the widespread economic benefits its boosters predict. The British government—the latest
to be beguiled by this vision of modernity—should think again (see article).
在1830年利物浦至曼彻斯特的火车开始运营时，一位政治家因没有注意到向他驶来的火车而被撞死，而之后也有过
由新建铁路带来的意外事故。维多利亚时代的铁路系统给人们带来了一个繁荣的黄金时代，而现在发达国家的政客
们希望新兴的高速铁路系统也能给他们带来同样的效果，这种高铁能以250多英里（400公里）的时速飞驰。然而高
速铁路很少带来其支持者们所预期的广泛的经济效益。最近被这种现代化事物的幻象所迷惑的英国政府该三思了。
High-speed talk is everywhere at the moment. Six countries have put large sums into “bullet” trains:
Japan, France, Germany, Spain, and, more recently, Italy and China. Australia, Portugal and Indonesia are
all considering new lines. And the British government is pondering plans for a £32 billion ($52 billion) link
from London to the north of England. Ventures elsewhere have stumbled: China suspended new projects
after a fatal collision of two high-speed trains in July; Brazil delayed plans for a rapid Rio de Janeiro-São
Paulo link, after lack of interest from construction firms. Yet governments remain susceptible to the idea
that such projects can help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth.
如今世界各国都在谈论高铁。已经有六个国家花巨资建了“子弹头”列车，包括日本、法国、德国、西班牙，更近
的还有意大利和中国。另外澳大利亚、葡萄牙和印度尼西亚也在考虑建设新线路。而英国政府正在考虑一个耗资320
亿英镑（520亿美元）的铁路计划，连接伦敦和英格兰北部。其它地区则踌躇不前：在七月两列高铁列车发生致命
追尾事故之后，中国延迟了新项目的进行。巴西则因建筑公司低迷的投资兴趣而延缓了里约热内卢至圣保罗的高铁
项目。然而各国政府仍然容易受一种想法的诱导，即这种高铁项目能帮助国家减少区域的不平等并促进本国经济的
增长。

In fact, in most developed economies high-speed railways fail to bridge regional divides and sometimes
exacerbate them. Better connections strengthen the advantages of a rich city at the network’s hub: firms
in wealthy regions can reach a bigger area, harming the prospects of poorer places. Even in Japan, home
to the most commercially successful line, Tokyo continues to grow faster than Osaka. New Spanish rail
lines have swelled Madrid ’ s business population to Seville ’ s loss. The trend in France has been for
headquarters to move up the line to Paris and for fewer overnight stays elsewhere.
实际上，在大多数发达经济体，高铁并不能减小区域贫富差距，有时甚至会加剧这种情况。好的线路会加强富裕城
市在交通网枢纽中的优势：富裕地区的公司能延伸到更广阔的地域，而这样会危及贫困地区的发展前景。即使是拥
有许多成功高铁商业运营路线的日本，东京仍然比大阪发展更加迅速。西班牙新建的铁路使得马德里的商业人口大
增，而塞维利亚的商业人口却因此减少。法国一直以来的趋势是，企业总部沿铁路迁至巴黎，而在其它地区过夜的
情况减少了。
Even if some cities benefit, other places beyond the rail network may suffer: speed is attained partly at the
cost of stops, so areas well served by existing services may find new lines bypass them. Parts of Britain, for
example, fear that a new zippy railway will create a second tier of cities supplied by fewer and slower trains.
High-speed lines, like other regeneration projects, often displace economic activity rather than create it.
即使有些城市从高铁中受益，那些铁路网以外的地区可能会遭殃：速度的提升是以停站数的减少为代价的，因此一
些享受现有路线良好服务的地区会发现，新的路线绕开了他们。例如，英国的部分地区担心新建的高速铁路会使一
些城市成为拥有更少的车次和更慢火车的二线城市。像其它的重建项目一样，高速铁路往往会转移经济活动，而不
是创造新的机会。
The advantages, meanwhile, mostly accrue to business travellers. In China ticket prices are beyond the
reach of most people, so new trains yawn with empty seats. Yet because high-speed lines require huge
investments, usually by governments, ordinary taxpayers end up paying. So instead of redistributing
wealth and opportunities, rich regions and individuals benefit at the expense of poorer ones.
而与此同时，商业利益往往属于商业旅客。在中国，高铁票价超出了多数人的承受能力，新的列车往往会因乘客少
而空跑。然而由于高铁线路需要政府巨额投资，最后掏腰包的普通的纳税人。因此，建设高铁只能使富裕地区和个
人以牺牲贫困地区和穷人的利益获得收益，而不会使财富和机遇得到重新分配。
Full steam ahead 全速前进
Ultra-fast railways will have their day. They are a good way to cut air travel and carbon emissions,
particularly where, as in China, they connect dense but distant population clusters. On shorter routes,
their advantages dwindle: they can neither transform a region nor replicate the advantages of wider
networks. And there is not yet such a thing as a cheap high-speed link: China’s safety failures have shown
the perils of skimping in any way. At present, for most places, the marginal benefits of these fantastic feats
of engineering, in terms of reduced journey times, are outweighed by the high costs.
高速铁路总会有受欢迎的一天。它有利于减少空运和二氧化碳排放量，尤其是在像中国这样的地方，高铁连接着人
口密集而又偏远的地区。但在较短的线路上，高铁的优势就不明显了：它既不能改变一个地区，也不能使更大范围
的网络系统的优势得以体现。而且想要既便宜有高速的铁路是不可能的：中国的安全事故已经证明了在这方面打折
扣所带来的风险。目前对于大多数地区而言，这些铁路工程梦幻般的功绩所带来的缩短旅行时间的边际效应远不及
其高昂的成本。
And those costs sap funding from humbler but more efficient schemes. Especially in smaller countries,
upgrading existing, slower networks often makes more sense. Capacity can be increased with longer trains
and extended platforms. Some spacious first-class carriages could be converted to more compressed
second-class ones; pricing may ration demand more effectively at busy times. Better signalling can
increase the average speed of journeys. Britain’s non-high-speed trains, for example, are already quicker
than most other countries ’ equivalents. Some trains that currently run at 125mph could go faster if

signals were upgraded — even if unveiling a new signal box might appeal less to politicians than
inaugurating a futuristic new service.
而且高昂的成本使那些更高效的小规模的资金来源受到阻碍。尤其是在一些小国家，优化现有的低速交通网往往更
有意义。乘客容量的增加可以通过加长列车和扩建站台来实现。一些宽敞的头等车厢可以改装成更密集的二等车厢；
在交通高峰期可以通过抬高价格更有效地限制需求。更好的信号系统可以提高列车的平均速度。例如，英国的非高
铁列车速度已经超过了多数其它国家同类的列车。在优化信号系统的情况下，一些目前以125英里的时速行驶的列
车可以以更高的速度行驶——虽然建设新的信号楼对于政客们的吸引力远不及开创一项具有前瞻性的新服务。
Britain still has time to ditch this grand infrastructure project— and should. Other countries should also
reconsider plans to expand or introduce such lines. A good infrastructure scheme has a long life. But a bad
one can derail both the public finances and a country’s development ambitions.
英国现在放弃这项重大的基础设施项目还来得及——而且应该放弃。其他国家也应该重新考虑扩建或引入这种高速
路线的计划。一项完善的基础设施规划是有长久生命力的，而一项欠考虑的计划则会将公共财产的分配和国家的发
展方向引入歧途。
翻译：金婧华The Economist《经济学人》
地址http://xiaozu.renren.com/xiaozu/228064The great train robbery火车大劫
High-speed rail lines rarely pay their way. Britain’s government should ditch its plan to build one 高铁往往
不会带来理想的收益，英国政府应取消建高铁的计划
AT THE launch of the Liverpool-Manchester railway in 1830, a statesman was killed when he failed to spot
an approaching train. That was not the last time a new train line has had unintended consequences.
Victorian railways ushered in a golden age of prosperity; these days politicians across the developed world
hope new rapid trains, which barrel along at over 250mph (400kph), can do the same. But high-speed rail
rarely delivers the widespread economic benefits its boosters predict. The British government—the latest
to be beguiled by this vision of modernity—should think again (see article).
在1830年利物浦至曼彻斯特的火车开始运营时，一位政治家因没有注意到向他驶来的火车而被撞死，而之后也有过
由新建铁路带来的意外事故。维多利亚时代的铁路系统给人们带来了一个繁荣的黄金时代，而现在发达国家的政客
们希望新兴的高速铁路系统也能给他们带来同样的效果，这种高铁能以250多英里（400公里）的时速飞驰。然而高
速铁路很少带来其支持者们所预期的广泛的经济效益。最近被这种现代化事物的幻象所迷惑的英国政府该三思了。
High-speed talk is everywhere at the moment. Six countries have put large sums into “bullet” trains:
Japan, France, Germany, Spain, and, more recently, Italy and China. Australia, Portugal and Indonesia are
all considering new lines. And the British government is pondering plans for a £32 billion ($52 billion) link
from London to the north of England. Ventures elsewhere have stumbled: China suspended new projects
after a fatal collision of two high-speed trains in July; Brazil delayed plans for a rapid Rio de Janeiro-São
Paulo link, after lack of interest from construction firms. Yet governments remain susceptible to the idea
that such projects can help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth.
如今世界各国都在谈论高铁。已经有六个国家花巨资建了“子弹头”列车，包括日本、法国、德国、西班牙，更近
的还有意大利和中国。另外澳大利亚、葡萄牙和印度尼西亚也在考虑建设新线路。而英国政府正在考虑一个耗资320
亿英镑（520亿美元）的铁路计划，连接伦敦和英格兰北部。其它地区则踌躇不前：在七月两列高铁列车发生致命
追尾事故之后，中国延迟了新项目的进行。巴西则因建筑公司低迷的投资兴趣而延缓了里约热内卢至圣保罗的高铁
项目。然而各国政府仍然容易受一种想法的诱导，即这种高铁项目能帮助国家减少区域的不平等并促进本国经济的
增长。

In fact, in most developed economies high-speed railways fail to bridge regional divides and sometimes
exacerbate them. Better connections strengthen the advantages of a rich city at the network’s hub: firms
in wealthy regions can reach a bigger area, harming the prospects of poorer places. Even in Japan, home
to the most commercially successful line, Tokyo continues to grow faster than Osaka. New Spanish rail
lines have swelled Madrid ’ s business population to Seville ’ s loss. The trend in France has been for
headquarters to move up the line to Paris and for fewer overnight stays elsewhere.
实际上，在大多数发达经济体，高铁并不能减小区域贫富差距，有时甚至会加剧这种情况。好的线路会加强富裕城
市在交通网枢纽中的优势：富裕地区的公司能延伸到更广阔的地域，而这样会危及贫困地区的发展前景。即使是拥
有许多成功高铁商业运营路线的日本，东京仍然比大阪发展更加迅速。西班牙新建的铁路使得马德里的商业人口大
增，而塞维利亚的商业人口却因此减少。法国一直以来的趋势是，企业总部沿铁路迁至巴黎，而在其它地区过夜的
情况减少了。
Even if some cities benefit, other places beyond the rail network may suffer: speed is attained partly at the
cost of stops, so areas well served by existing services may find new lines bypass them. Parts of Britain, for
example, fear that a new zippy railway will create a second tier of cities supplied by fewer and slower trains.
High-speed lines, like other regeneration projects, often displace economic activity rather than create it.
即使有些城市从高铁中受益，那些铁路网以外的地区可能会遭殃：速度的提升是以停站数的减少为代价的，因此一
些享受现有路线良好服务的地区会发现，新的路线绕开了他们。例如，英国的部分地区担心新建的高速铁路会使一
些城市成为拥有更少的车次和更慢火车的二线城市。像其它的重建项目一样，高速铁路往往会转移经济活动，而不
是创造新的机会。
The advantages, meanwhile, mostly accrue to business travellers. In China ticket prices are beyond the
reach of most people, so new trains yawn with empty seats. Yet because high-speed lines require huge
investments, usually by governments, ordinary taxpayers end up paying. So instead of redistributing
wealth and opportunities, rich regions and individuals benefit at the expense of poorer ones.
而与此同时，商业利益往往属于商业旅客。在中国，高铁票价超出了多数人的承受能力，新的列车往往会因乘客少
而空跑。然而由于高铁线路需要政府巨额投资，最后掏腰包的普通的纳税人。因此，建设高铁只能使富裕地区和个
人以牺牲贫困地区和穷人的利益获得收益，而不会使财富和机遇得到重新分配。
Full steam ahead 全速前进
Ultra-fast railways will have their day. They are a good way to cut air travel and carbon emissions,
particularly where, as in China, they connect dense but distant population clusters. On shorter routes,
their advantages dwindle: they can neither transform a region nor replicate the advantages of wider
networks. And there is not yet such a thing as a cheap high-speed link: China’s safety failures have shown
the perils of skimping in any way. At present, for most places, the marginal benefits of these fantastic feats
of engineering, in terms of reduced journey times, are outweighed by the high costs.
高速铁路总会有受欢迎的一天。它有利于减少空运和二氧化碳排放量，尤其是在像中国这样的地方，高铁连接着人
口密集而又偏远的地区。但在较短的线路上，高铁的优势就不明显了：它既不能改变一个地区，也不能使更大范围
的网络系统的优势得以体现。而且想要既便宜有高速的铁路是不可能的：中国的安全事故已经证明了在这方面打折
扣所带来的风险。目前对于大多数地区而言，这些铁路工程梦幻般的功绩所带来的缩短旅行时间的边际效应远不及
其高昂的成本。
And those costs sap funding from humbler but more efficient schemes. Especially in smaller countries,
upgrading existing, slower networks often makes more sense. Capacity can be increased with longer trains
and extended platforms. Some spacious first-class carriages could be converted to more compressed
second-class ones; pricing may ration demand more effectively at busy times. Better signalling can
increase the average speed of journeys. Britain’s non-high-speed trains, for example, are already quicker
than most other countries ’ equivalents. Some trains that currently run at 125mph could go faster if

signals were upgraded — even if unveiling a new signal box might appeal less to politicians than
inaugurating a futuristic new service.
而且高昂的成本使那些更高效的小规模的资金来源受到阻碍。尤其是在一些小国家，优化现有的低速交通网往往更
有意义。乘客容量的增加可以通过加长列车和扩建站台来实现。一些宽敞的头等车厢可以改装成更密集的二等车厢；
在交通高峰期可以通过抬高价格更有效地限制需求。更好的信号系统可以提高列车的平均速度。例如，英国的非高
铁列车速度已经超过了多数其它国家同类的列车。在优化信号系统的情况下，一些目前以125英里的时速行驶的列
车可以以更高的速度行驶——虽然建设新的信号楼对于政客们的吸引力远不及开创一项具有前瞻性的新服务。
Britain still has time to ditch this grand infrastructure project— and should. Other countries should also
reconsider plans to expand or introduce such lines. A good infrastructure scheme has a long life. But a bad
one can derail both the public finances and a country’s development ambitions.
英国现在放弃这项重大的基础设施项目还来得及——而且应该放弃。其他国家也应该重新考虑扩建或引入这种高速
路线的计划。一项完善的基础设施规划是有长久生命力的，而一项欠考虑的计划则会将公共财产的分配和国家的发
展方向引入歧途。
翻译：金婧华The Economist《经济学人》
地址http://xiaozu.renren.com/xiaozu/228064