什么是铁路客运的资本主义解决方案是非财务盈利？

In developed countries, rail transport is usually made at financial loss, and needs to be sponsored by governments. In countries who refused to do so (mostly on the American continent), passenger rail transport became anecdotal and rail stay used for freight only, while in countries who sponsor their rail network (mostly on the European continent), rail transport decreased significantly since the 1950s. Government sponsoring lead to many problems such as the imposition of cost-saving measures, on rail transportation companies, preventing them to do their job in good conditions.

在发达国家,铁路运输通常是经济损失,需要由*提供。在拒绝这样做的国家(主要是在美洲大陆),客运铁路运输成为轶事,铁路运输只用于货运,而在赞助铁路网络的国家(主要是在欧洲大陆),铁路运输自从20世纪50年代。*资助导致许多问题,例如对铁路运输公司实施节约成本的措施,阻碍他们在良好的条件下工作。

• They are constantly looking for small, less profitable lines to close.

他们不断寻找收益较小,盈利能力较低的线路。

• When it's not the line it's the individual stations that might be considered unprofitable and are closed.

如果它不是线路,则可能被视为无利可图且关闭的各个站点。

• They reduce the frequency of service, which by itself makes passenger trains much less attractive as the mean time of waiting the train increase dramatically; which results in less passengers and an even less profitable line.

它们降低了服务频率,这使得旅客列车的吸引力大大降低,因为等候火车的平均时间急剧增加;这导致更少的乘客和更低利润的线路。

• Even if none of the above happens, transportation companies might be unable to buy new vehicles and have to maintain their service with old and obsolete vehicles.

即使上述情况都没有发生,运输公司也可能无法购买新车,并且必须使用旧的和过时的车辆维持其服务。

However, rail passenger transportation is, in a purely engineering point of view, much more efficient than road transportation (both private vehicles and buses):

然而,从纯粹的工程角度来看,铁路客运比公路运输(私家车和公共汽车)更有效率:

• Higher passengers per hour theoretically possible on a given line. A road lane can have a vehicle at most every 2 seconds, so if we assume 1.5 per vehicle (optimistic figure) that's 2700 passenger per hour. Rail can have 500 passengers per train and 8 trains per hour easily, that's 4000 passengers per hour.

理论上,在给定的线路上每小时可以获得更高的乘客。一条道路车道最多每2秒就有一辆车,所以如果我们假设每辆车1.5(乐观数字)那么每小时2700名乘客。铁路每列火车可容纳500名乘客,每小时可容纳8列火车,即每小时4000名乘客。

• Because only a single powerful motor is used to transport a large mass instead of many smaller motors, and because friction is smaller, energy spent to transport each passenger is typically much lower (according to this wikipedia page Passenger transportation by rail requires less than one-tenth of the energy needed to move a person by car or plane)

因为只使用一个强大的电动机来运输大质量而不是许多小型电动机,并且由于摩擦力较小,所以用于运输每个乘客的能量通常要低得多(根据这个*页面,铁路乘客需要少于一个 - 通过汽车或飞机移动一个人所需的能量的十分之一)

• Maximum speed much higher; maximum speed of 115 km/h is usual between villages for regular train; up to 200-300 km/h is common for high speed trains. In most countries cars can only go up to 80-90km/h between villages and 120-140 km/h on autobahn; but even then traffic congestion makes such speed rarely attainable, while traffic is planned in advance for trains and is a much lesser problem. (If, like in some countries, trains are running slower and/or traffic is poorly managed, that's because no effort was made and not an inherent flaw of rail)

最高速度要高得多;普通列车的村庄通常最高时速为115公里/小时;高速列车通常高达200-300公里/小时。在大多数国家,汽车之间的汽车速度最高可达80-90公里/小时,高速公路只能达到120-140公里/小时;但即便如此,交通拥堵也很难达到这样的速度,而交通是为火车提前规划的,而且问题要小得多。 (如果像某些国家一样,列车运行速度较慢和/或交通管理不善,那是因为没有做出任何努力而且没有铁路固有的缺陷)

• Much better safety: in Switzerland 2017, there was almost 18k people wounded or killed by road, only 57 people wounded or killed by trains (excluding suicides), this makes road 312 times more hazardous than rail.

更好的安全性:在2017年的瑞士,有近18,000人受到道路伤害或杀害,只有57人受到火车伤害或死亡(不包括自杀),这使得道路比铁路危险性高312倍。

• Train passengers can have another activity during the ride, an option which is limited in road transport, even for non-drivers, as the comfort and space available is much lower. (Unfortunately some trains can also be uncomfortable but this is due to bad wagon design and not an inherent flaw of rail transport)

火车乘客可以在乘车期间进行另一项活动,这种选择在公路运输中受到限制,即使对于非驾驶员也是如此,因为可用的舒适性和空间要低得多。 (不幸的是,有些火车也不舒服,但这是由于车辆设计不良而不是铁路运输的固有缺陷)

• Rail transport is resistant to poor weather condition: fog, frost, snow, rain causes fewer problem than with road transportation.

铁路运输可抵御恶劣天气条件:雾,霜,雪,雨比公路运输引起的问题更少。

Theoretically, by mechanism of economic freedom and concurrence, offer and demand, capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.

从理论上讲,通过经济*和共生,供给和需求的机制,资本主义自动找到最优解。这似乎不适用于运输,因为最佳的交通方式(能量方面)在经济上无利可图,需要*放弃,而极其次优的解决方案(公路运输)在经济上更为可取。

What is the capitalist solution to make rail passenger transportation economically profitable again, like it used to be before road transport was a thing?

什么是资本主义解决方案,使铁路客运再次获得经济利润,就像过去公路运输之前一样?

19 个解决方案

#1

The idea that "trains are unprofitable" is quite a bit more complex.

“火车无利可图”的想法要复杂得多。

First of all it's necessary to look at the main "problem" with trains: They tend to lead to natural monopolies. Setting up a rail network requires a lot of government involvement (otherwise you will never be able to get your hands on all the land you need) and once a rail network is set up it's practically impossible to set up a competing rail network. The result of this is that whoever controls the rails controls the entire market. This causes the government to always be involved with train companies, thus bringing with it the inherit government inefficiency (even though not involving the government at all would be worse, so it's not a case of government failure).

首先,有必要用火车来看待主要的“问题”:它们往往导致自然垄断。建立铁路网络需要*的大量参与(否则你将永远无法掌握所需的所有土地),一旦建立了铁路网络,建立竞争铁路网络几乎是不可能的。结果是控制轨道的人控制着整个市场。这导致*总是与火车公司打交道,从而带来继承*的低效率(尽管根本不涉及*会更糟,所以这不是*失败的情况)。

Next it's important to look at the primarily socioeconomical benefits (the positive externalities) of having a rail network. Having a strong public transport system allows skills to move more freely throughout a country and allows employment demands to be met more flexibly. This is especially important for people who are less economically well off. And beyond that trains provide a well developed electric transport option, thus keeping greenhouse gas emissions at a minimum. And also importantly trains are amazing at decreasing peak loads on important roads, thus it's often economical to invest a bit in train travel to prevent a lot more investments in a road network for those two peak hours a day.

接下来,重要的是要考虑拥有铁路网络的主要社会经济效益(正外部性)。拥有强大的公共交通系统可以让技能在全国范围内更*地移动,从而可以更灵活地满足就业需求。这对经济状况较差的人来说尤为重要。除此之外,火车还提供完善的电力运输选择,从而将温室气体排放保持在最低水平。而且重要的是,列车在减少重要道路上的峰值负荷方面是惊人的,因此在火车旅行中投入一点经济以防止在一天的两个高峰时段对道路网络进行更多投资是经济的。

The reason why trains failed in the US was primarily for political rather than economical reasons. Trains (and other public transport solutions) became "unsexy" politically, whilst at the same time car travel became extremely popular (linked to the "american dream") and subsidized. Both explicitly through investments in the road network and implicitly

火车在美国失败的原因主要是出于政治原因而非经济原因。火车(和其他公共交通解决方案)在政治上变得“不合时宜”,同时汽车旅行变得非常受欢迎(与“美国梦”相关)并获得补贴。两者都明确地通过对道路网络的投资而且是隐含的

Road travel is massively subsidised in the sense that the negative externalities of travelling by car, including the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, are not fully offset, and most major highways—which cost tens of billions to maintain—are still free of tolls. [...] Petrol is cheaper than in Europe (mostly because of much lower taxes).

公路旅行得到了大量补贴,因为汽车旅行的负面外部因素,包括二氧化碳和其他温室气体的释放,并未完全抵消,大多数主要高速公路 - 维持数百亿美元 - 仍然没有过路费。 [...]汽油比欧洲便宜(主要是因为税收低得多)。

Source: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/08/29/why-dont-americans-ride-trains

So the real economical question would be: If all roads would be toll based to account for the road building costs + fuel would be properly taxed, how would that affect train travel? Right now train travel faces economically "unfair" competition in a lot of countries and that's without even considering the positive externalities that train travel brings.

因此,真正的经济问题是:如果所有道路都是以收费为基础来计算道路建设费用+燃料将适当征税,那将如何影响火车旅行?目前,火车旅行在许多国家经济上“不公平”竞争,甚至没有考虑到火车旅行带来的积极外部因素。

#2

Japan is a counter-example. Rail is profitable there, not least because the rail companies don't just run the trains. Train stations become hubs, often with a shopping centre built around them (owned by or in partnership with the train company), even parts of new towns. All this extra revenue helps keep the transport side profitable, and helps justify a high level of service by viewing it as a feed for the other profit sources.

日本是一个反例。铁路在那里是有利可图的,尤其是因为铁路公司不只是运营火车。火车站成为枢纽,通常有一个围绕它们建造的购物中心(由火车公司拥有或与火车公司合作),甚至是新城镇的一部分。所有这些额外收入有助于保持运输方面的盈利,并通过将其视为其他利润来源的供稿来帮助证明高水平的服务。

#3

The answer is to stop subsidizing its rival: roads. You say that passenger rail stopped being profitable around the 50's or so: look up when the Dwight Eisenhower freeway project really hit its stride. Your tax dollars are hard at work building a vast, free to use (as opposed to actually free), and convenient transportation network.

答案是停止补贴竞争对手:道路。你说乘客铁路在50左右的时候就停止了盈利:当德怀特艾森豪威尔高速公路项目真正步入正轨时抬头看看。您的税金很难建立庞大,免费使用(而不是实际免费),以及便利的交通网络。

While rail does have some limitations, most of them could be solved with technology and scale, both of which are beyond the resources of companies moving bulk materials at rock bottom prices against a virtually free rival.

虽然铁路确实存在一些局限性,但其中大部分都可以通过技术和规模来解决,这两者都超出了公司以最低价格将原材料运送到几乎免费的竞争对手的资源。

For better or worse, we picked the winner in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

无论好坏,我们在1956年选出了胜利者.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

(While this answer is incredibly US-centric you can pretty strongly see governments choosing rail or road, rather than the market, in most countries).

(虽然这个答案令人难以置信地以美国为中心,但你可以非常强烈地看到*选择铁路或公路,而不是大多数国家的市场)。

#4

What is the capitalist answer to rail passenger transportation being non financially profitable?

什么是铁路客运的资本主义解决方案是非财务盈利?

The same as a capitalist answer to anything that is being non financially profitable; such as horse drawn buggies; or hand-written manuscripts; or film based personal photo cameras. The exact answer depends on economic circumstances, the options being:

资本家对任何非经济上有利可图的回答都是一样的;如马拉车;或手写的手稿;或基于电影的个人照相机。确切的答案取决于经济环境,选项是:

• Either completely cease investing in, and producing, the good due to lack of demand. For example, horseshoe industry basically died out once horses ceased to be a meaningful means of transportation/farming.

  由于缺乏需求,要么完全停止投资和生产商品。例如,一旦马匹不再是一种有意义的交通/耕作方式,马蹄铁工业就基本消失了。

• Or, if the demand still exists but is served cheaper by a substitute good/service, invest in and produce that better competing service. Examples are too numerous to list (digital cameras replacing film, cars replacing horses, pertinent to your question, commercial air travel replacing passenger rail in sparsely populated country like USA, etc...)

  或者,如果需求仍然存在但是通过替代商品/服务更便宜,则投资并生产更好的竞争服务。例子太多而无法列出(数码相机取代电影,汽车取代马匹,与您的问题相关,商业航空旅行取代美国等人口稀少的国家的客运铁路......)

• Turn into niche/custom mini pocket industry ("artisanal" goods of Etsy type, horse-drawn carriage ridea around New York City's Central Park, audiophile targeted turntables).

  转变为小众/定制迷你口袋行业(Etsy类型的“手工”商品,纽约市*公园周围的马车,以发烧友为目标的转盘)。

• Reinvent your product so it becomes financially profitable, via new technology or process or business model. I can't come up with a perfect example of the latter at the moment but budget airlines (Ryan Air in Europe and Jet Blue in USA) come to mind.

  通过新技术或流程或业务模式重塑您的产品,使其在财务上获利。我现在无法想出后者的完美例子,但预算航空公司(欧洲的Ryan Air和美国的Jet Blue)让人想到。

rail passenger transportation is, in a purely engineering point of view, much more efficient than road transportation (both private vehicles and buses)

从纯粹的工程角度来看,铁路客运比公路运输(私家车和公共汽车)更有效率

As other answers pointed out, that is not universally true. It is especially false in the large sparsely populated areas like United States of America, outside of Acela-corridor (and, ironically, Acela corridor is named that way... after a hugely profitable rail line) and possibly areas of California coast.

正如其他答案所指出的那样,这并非普遍存在。在美国的大型人口稠密地区,在Acela走廊之外(具有讽刺意味的是,Acela走廊以这样的方式命名......在一条利润丰厚的铁路线之后)以及可能的加利福尼亚海岸地区尤其错误。

... capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.

......资本主义自动找到最佳解决方案。这似乎不适用于运输,因为最佳的交通方式(能量方面)在经济上无利可图,需要*放弃,而极其次优的解决方案(公路运输)在经济上更为可取。

OK, this way of looking at the problem can be addressed in one of two ways; depending one what your view of "energetically optimal" means.

好的,这种看待问题的方式可以通过以下两种方式之一来解决;取决于你对“能量最优”的看法意味着什么。

1. If it's just an engineering quirk, the capitalist answer is "who cares"? The objective value of being "energetically optimal" from engineering standpoint - even if true (as noted above, it isn't in most of USA) - is very small. If that's the case, capitalism did find optimal solution, it just isn't one that your own personal value function prefers.

   如果这只是一个工程怪癖,资本主义的回答是“谁在乎”?从工程角度来看,“能量最优”的客观价值 - 即使是真的(如上所述,它不在美国大部分地区) - 都非常小。如果是这样的话,资本主义确实找到了最佳解决方案,那就不是你自己的个人价值功能更喜欢的解决方案。

2. If "energetically optimal" is just another way of saying "lower negative externalities in the form of negative impact of high energy usage on the environment"; then the answer is to price said negative externalities (impact on the environment) correctly; if they are truly too high, their price will be high enough to make road transport less economically preferable. This is, for example, basically, the economic and political basis for carbon tax.

   如果“能量最优”只是另一种说法“以高能源使用对环境的负面影响的形式降低负外部性”;那么答案就是正确地对所述负外部性(对环境的影响)进行定价;如果它们真的太高,它们的价格就会高到足以使公路运输在经济上更不可取。例如,这基本上是碳税的经济和政治基础。

#5

What is the capitalist solution to make rail passenger transportation economically profitable again, like it used to be before road transport was a thing?

什么是资本主义解决方案,使铁路客运再次获得经济利润,就像过去公路运输之前一样?

There is no capitalist solution.

没有资本主义的解决方案。

All extant capitalist systems exist in an environment of infrastructure for which construction and maintenance is publicly paid (road taxes count as public, users in densely populated area subsidise the ones in sparsely populated areas, the system thus relies on solidarity).

所有现存的资本主义制度都存在于基础设施环境中,其中建设和维护是公共支付的(公路税计为公共税,人口稠密地区的用户补贴人口稀少地区的用户,因此系统依赖于团结)。

Privately owned roads are very rare. Entire road networks built privately from scratch do not exist. Therefore, the question on how railways and roads would compete in a purely capitalist environment is entirely theoretical, and not answerable based on the real world.

私人拥有的道路非常罕见。从头开始私人建造的整个道路网络都不存在。因此,关于铁路和公路如何在纯粹的资本主义环境中竞争的问题完全是理论上的,而不是基于现实世界的责任。

I would speculate that in a fully private system, both the road and railway networks would be much more limited than they are in reality. The 100-inhabitant village would be served by neither road nor rail, therefore soon become a 0-inhabitant village. With the road network much worse under a theoretically fully capitalist system, rail may be relatively more profitable for the rest. But as stated, this is speculation as no such system exists anywhere.

我推测,在一个完全私人的系统中,公路和铁路网络将比实际上更加有限。这个拥有100个居民的村庄既不是公路也不是铁路,因此很快就会成为一个0居民的村庄。在理论上完全资本主义的制度下,道路网络更加糟糕,其余的铁路可能相对更有利可图。但正如所述,这是猜测,因为任何地方都不存在这样的系统。

#6

Just because governments operate passenger rail systems at a loss does not mean that it is an inherently unprofitable enterprise. It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.

仅仅因为*亏损运营客运铁路系统并不意味着它本身就是一个无利可图的企业。只是*对该行业拥有合法垄断权,因此私营运营商不可能存在。

I don't know enough about the history of rail transportation in Europe to say how it got the way it is, but in the United States they have AmTrak. AmTrak was started in the 1970s precisely because it had become unprofitable for private carriers to operate. So that kind of proves your point...

我不太了解欧洲铁路运输的历史,说它是如何实现的,但在美国他们有AmTrak。 AmTrak始于20世纪70年代,正是因为私营运营商无法运营。所以这证明了你的观点......

Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. The capitalist answer was to abandon rail transportation because it's almost always better, cheaper, and faster to fly. Even though rail transportation may be more efficient from an engineering perspective, air travel (at least in the U.S.) is far more efficient logistically and economically speaking. Rail freight, however, is still big business in the U.S. because planes have limited cargo capacity, so there is still a niche that air travel can't fill.

除了在美国之外,客运铁路几乎没有任何意义,纯粹是因为地理位置。资本主义的回答是放弃铁路运输,因为飞行几乎总是更好,更便宜,更快。尽管从工程角度来看铁路运输可能更有效,但航空旅行(至少在美国)在后勤和经济方面的效率要高得多。然而,铁路货运在美国仍然是一项重要业务,因为飞机的货运量有限,因此航空旅行仍然无法填补空白。

In Economics, this process is called creative destruction; society changes and newer technologies come along and render the old ways of doing things obsolete.

在经济学中,这个过程被称为创造性破坏;社会的变化和新技术的出现,使旧的做事方式过时了。

Now again, I can't say what would work or not work in Europe. The geography is much different there and it very well could be potentially profitable for private carriers to operate. We'll never know because the option is legally off the table. But that's a public policy problem rather than a free market problem.

再说一遍,我不能说在欧洲会起作用或不起作用。那里的地理位置差异很大,私人航空公司的运营也很有可能获利。我们永远不会知道,因为该选项在法律上不在谈判桌上。但这是一个公共政策问题而不是*市场问题。

So to summarize, the capitalist answer to passenger rail not being profitable anymore is to just stop doing it. Inevitably, the new thing that replaces the old usually makes society better off for it.

总而言之,资本主义对乘客铁路不再有利可图的回应就是停止这样做。不可避免的是,取代旧旧的新东西通常会让社会变得更好。

#7

The pure capitalist answer would be simply to stop investing in public transport, and instead invest in profitable alternatives.

纯粹的资本主义回答只是停止投资公共交通,而是投资于有利可图的替代方案。

Declining investment in public transport is not a problem that 'pure capitalism' can (or even should) attempt to solve.

公共交通投资的减少不是“纯资本主义”能够(甚至应该)试图解决的问题。

If public transport should to be maintained, and I believe it should, then it's the responsibility of governments to intervene, and ensure the alternatives are appropriately taxed to reflect their true social and environmental costs.

如果应该保持公共交通,我认为应该这样做,那么*有责任进行干预,并确保对替代方案进行适当的征税,以反映其真实的社会和环境成本。

Private vehicular transport has been shown to have very negative impact on human health, due to air pollution, and encouraging low levels of physical activity.

私人车辆运输已被证明由于空气污染而对人类健康产生非常不利的影响,并且鼓励低水平的身体活动。

Private vehicular transport is very damaging to the environment for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here.

私人车辆运输对环境造成了极大的破坏,原因有很多,我不会在这里讨论。

If governments appropriately taxed the car industry to reflect it's true costs to society, and the environment, then it would very quickly become much less profitable, and consequently public transport would become more profitable.

如果*对汽车行业征收适当的税,以反映它对社会和环境的真实成本,那么它很快就会变得不那么有利可图,因此公共交通将变得更有利可图。

#8

To answer your original question, capitalism's answer to passenger train travel not being economically viable is to not provide passenger train travel where it isn't profitable.

为了回答你原来的问题,资本主义对旅客列车旅行在经济上不可行的答案就是不提供无利可图的旅客列车旅行。

Capitalism can only react to changing economic conditions, and it reacts in an economically efficient manner, not necessarily in a socially conscious manner.

资本主义只能对不断变化的经济条件作出反应,并以经济有效的方式作出反应,而不一定是以社会意识的方式。

Passenger train travel exists where it is economically viable. In the northeast corridor of the US, where trains operate profitably in the major metropolitan areas, it's the cost of parking, cost of auto insurance, and time dealing with auto congestion that makes the train a viable alternative. To reproduce the added expense of heavy urban areas to make passenger train travel viable elsewhere, you'd have to raise the price of gasoline substantially.

旅客列车旅行存在于经济可行的地方。在美国的东北走廊,火车在主要大城市地区实现盈利,这是停车费用,汽车保险费用以及处理汽车拥堵的时间,这使得火车成为可行的替代方案。为了重现繁忙的城市地区增加的费用,使旅客列车旅行在其他地方可行,你必须大幅提高汽油价格。

However, capitalist societies are also typically democratic societies. Tell the voters you are doubling the cost of gasoline, and they'll set a world record voting you out of office.

然而,资本主义社会通常也是*社会。告诉选民你将汽油的成本增加一倍,他们将创造一个世界纪录,让你不在办公室。

A capitalist who wanted to boost train travel might consider addressing the less pleasant aspects of air travel: claustrophobic, occasionally smelly, delays at checkin, delays on the runway, being treated like a criminal... air travel today has become a truly wretched experience. If one can get train speed up to cut the time, then the more reliable scheduling could translate into near aircraft travel time, once one factors in the inevitable delays in air travel today. And infinitely more pleasant.

想要提高火车旅行的资本家可能会考虑解决航空旅行中不那么令人愉快的问题:幽闭恐惧症,偶尔发臭,登记延误,跑道延误,被当作罪犯对待......今天的航空旅行已经成为一种真正的悲惨经历。如果可以让火车加速以缩短时间,那么更可靠的调度可以转化为接近飞机的旅行时间,一旦导致今天航空旅行不可避免的延误。而且更加愉快。

#9

A Libertarian would say the problem is not an economic one, it is a regulatory one. The reason railroads have limited scope and profitability in the United States is that they were destroyed by Congress and the president Woodrow Wilson. In 1917, Wilson simply seized by * all the railroads in the country and put them under government control. Ever since then, US railroads have been much less important than if they were privately owned and controlled.

*主义者会说问题不是经济问题,而是监管问题。铁路在美国的范围和盈利能力有限的原因是它们被国会和总统伍德罗威尔逊摧毁。 1917年,威尔逊简单地将*政权占领了该国的所有铁路,并将其置于*控制之下。从那时起,美国铁路的重要性远远低于私人拥有和控制的铁路。

In 1920, the railroads were "returned" to private ownership, but in fact there are government "boards" that decide what people railroads can hire, how much they have to pay them, and control every aspect of railroad development. So, even though railroads are "privately owned", in reality they serve at the whim of bureaucrats in Washington. Needless to say, this does not result in a profitable situation.

1920年,铁路被“归还”私有制,但实际上有*“委员会”决定人们可以雇用什么铁路,他们需要支付多少钱,以及控制铁路发展的各个方面。因此,即使铁路是“私人拥有的”,实际上它们也是华盛顿官僚们的心血来潮。毋庸置疑,这不会带来有利可图的情况。

This situation could be immediately fixed at any time by repealing the Transportation Act of 1920 and the Railroad Labor Act. Those two bodies of laws are 95% of the problem.

通过废除1920年的“运输法”和“铁路劳工法”,可以随时立即解决这一问题。这两个法律体系是问题的95%。

The cost of this oppression of the railroads is heart sickening. Our country has literally lost trillions of dollars in lost productivity due to these two statutes and the attitude in Washington that demands control over railroads. It is absolutely sickening. Our country could have been far larger and wealthy and more successful at every level if not for these laws. In fact, I would go far as to say that if the US government had not seized the railroads and shipping industry of the country in 1917, World War II, a war that cost 40 million lives, might never have occurred, or would have been much less destructive.

压制铁路的代价令人心碎。由于这两项法规和华盛顿要求控制铁路的态度,我们国家的生产力损失实际上已经损失了数万亿美元。这绝对令人作呕。如果不是这些法律,我们的国家本可以在各个层面上更大,更富有,更成功。事实上,我要说的是,如果美国*在1917年第二次世界大战中没有占领该国的铁路和航运业,这场耗资4000万人的战争可能永远不会发生,或者本来就是更具破坏性。

#10

What is the capitalist answer to rail passenger transportation being non financially profitable?

什么是铁路客运的资本主义解决方案是非财务盈利?

There is a capitalist solution at work as we speak: SELF-DRIVING CARS

正如我们所说,有一种资本主义解决方案在起作用:自驾车

In addition to all the other answers out there, I will take a more futuristic (hypothetical) outlook.

除了所有其他答案之外,我将采取更具未来感(假设性)的观点。

No matter how you see it, trains are inflexible compared to cars. In a near future, when cars will have to be able to communicate with one another about their speed and other metadata (effectively forming a train on the highway), some traffic problems might be solved. This means that in a country like the U.S. with approximately 2 vehicles per household, the free market would choose the cheaper (time and cost) option.

无论你如何看待,与汽车相比,火车都不灵活。在不久的将来,当汽车必须能够彼此就其速度和其他元数据(在高速公路上有效地形成火车)进行通信时,可能会解决一些交通问题。这意味着在像美国这样每个家庭大约有2辆车的国家,*市场会选择更便宜(时间和成本)的选择。

I can speak from personal experience (U.S.) that it takes me 75 minutes to go "door-to-door" from where I live, to my work place, all using trains. The equivalent 'door-to-door' distance via roads and highways is 30 miles. In a future where I could be in the comfort of my own car, with all the privacy that comes with it, and with the time saving I would get from the car driving on average 40 mph, I would definitely pick driving. The cost now is almost the same (tolls + gas + parking) almost exactly as all the monthly train passes I need.

我可以从个人经历(美国)说,我需要75分钟才能“挨家挨户”地从我居住的地方,到我的工作地点,都使用火车。通过道路和高速公路相当于“门到门”的距离是30英里。在未来,我可以舒适地驾驶自己的汽车,拥有它带来的所有隐私,并且节省时间,我将从平均40英里/小时的车辆驾驶,我肯定会选择驾驶。现在的费用差不多(通行费+汽油+停车费)几乎与我需要的每月火车通票一样。

#11

The accepted answer makes the good point that there are socioeconomic externalities governments consider when they invest in an "unprofitable" mode of transport. However, this gives the impression of the state as some kind of guardian angel/incompetent bungler acting out of some kind of saintly intention against capitalism.

公认的答案是,*在投资“无利可图”的交通方式时会考虑社会经济外部性。然而,这给人的印象是,国家是某种守护天使/无能的笨蛋,是出于某种对资本主义的圣洁意图。

In fact, it's more appropriate to notice that the state is a capitalist actor like a company and with profit maximising incentives like a company. The difference is simply the wider avenues through which a state can receive such profits.

事实上,更合适的是要注意到国家是像公司一样的资本主义行为者,并且像公司一样利润最大化。差异只是一个国家可以获得这种利润的更广泛途径。

A private rail company can only profit from the cash its customers are prepared to pay above the cost of its provision. However, thanks to the magic of competition (or regulation in the case of a rail monopoly) the market price of a service is usually lower than its actual utility to the consumer. The difference with a state is that its consumers are also its shareholders so this marginal consumer utility is an extra financial component pushing the endeavour into the black.

私营铁路公司只能从其客户准备支付的现金中获利,超过其提供的成本。然而,由于竞争的魔力(或铁路垄断的监管),服务的市场价格通常低于其对消费者的实际效用。与国家的不同之处在于其消费者也是其股东,因此这种边际消费者效用是一个额外的金融组成部分,将努力推向了黑色。

One might reasonably object that the marginal utility of train over car is already fully priced in by consumer choice. With a simple model supposing perfect rationality, information and capital in the hands of consumers this would be true. As it is, investment in infrastructure is more analogous to a large company with individual subdivisions (like citizens) who are rational to organise their work inefficiently with adhoc spreadsheets rather than buy expensive software their budget will not allow. However, the head office has the capital for a long term IT project which will help keep its subdivisions efficient over the long haul.

有人可能会合理地反对火车对汽车的边际效用已经完全由消费者选择定价。通过一个简单的模型,假设消费者手中的完美理性,信息和资本,这将是真实的。事实上,对基础设施的投资更像是一个拥有个体细分的大公司(如公民),他们理所当然地使用自组织电子表格低效地组织他们的工作,而不是购买他们的预算不允许的昂贵软件。但是,总部有一个长期IT项目的资金,这将有助于保持其细分长期有效。

In summary, there are many train networks which are in the end financially profitable for the capitalist actor known as "the state" which wouldn't be for smaller capitalists.

总而言之,有许多列车网络最终在资本主义行为者中被称为“国家”,而不是小资本家。

#12

Theoretically, by mechanism of economic freedom and concurrence, offer and demand, capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.

从理论上讲,通过经济*和共生,供给和需求的机制,资本主义自动找到最优解。这似乎不适用于运输,因为最佳的交通方式(能量方面)在经济上无利可图,需要*放弃,而极其次优的解决方案(公路运输)在经济上更为可取。

You are confusing two types of optimality. One of the reasons I love capitalism is that it optimizes profit, not engineering efficiency. And by profit, we mean whether customers are willing to pay for it, as davidbak notes. Since customers are not willing to pay for it, they do not consider the rail system optimal.

你混淆了两种类型的最优性。我喜欢资本主义的原因之一是它优化了利润,而不是工程效率。而且,就盈利而言,我们的意思是客户是否愿意为此付费,正如davidbak指出的那样。由于客户不愿意为此付费,因此他们不认为铁路系统是最佳的。

And so the capitalist solution is don't invest in trains unless it is profitable. More generally, don't invest in things consumers don't want. Instead, invest in things they do want.

因此资本主义解决方案是不投资火车,除非它是有利可图的。更一般地说,不要投资消费者不想要的东西。相反,投资他们想要的东西。

#13

For train passengers, raise the price.

对于火车乘客,提高价格。

Of course, this will lead to substitution - like automobiles, etc. Customers will choose the quickest, most affordable method of transportation.

当然,这将导致替代 - 如汽车等。客户将选择最快,最实惠的运输方式。

The "capitalist," therefore, will not be married to the idea of commuting via 19th century means, if it means costing him more money and consuming more of his time.

因此,“资本家”不会与通过19世纪通勤的想法结合,如果这意味着他花费更多的钱并且消耗更多的时间。

#14

As theresawalrus notes, markets optimize for collective utility, not energy efficiency. But the American experience is not an example of this.

正如theresawalrus指出的那样,市场优化集体效用,而不是能源效率。但美国的经验并不是这方面的一个例子。

The United States has a passenger rail system so lightly used that it could be safely ignored. But it also has the the world's most advanced and profitable freight rail system, and the energy savings from freight rail far exceed the energy savings it would get from a European-style state passenger rail system.

美国的客运铁路系统使用得很轻,可以安全地忽略它。但它也拥有世界上最先进和最有利可图的货运铁路系统,货运铁路的节能远远超过了欧洲国家铁路客运系统所节省的能源。

In fact, expansion of the passenger rail system in North America would increase freight rail congestion, driving freight only the highways. This would waste much more energy than it would save. So, at least in North America, the market solution did, in fact, come up with the optimal energy solution. Furthermore, by keeping trucks off the road, freight rail has a measurable beneficial effect on highway safety.

事实上,北美客运铁路系统的扩张将增加货运铁路的拥堵,仅推动货运高速公路。这会浪费比节省更多的能量。因此,至少在北美,市场解决方案确实提出了最佳能源解决方案。此外,通过使卡车远离公路,货运铁路对公路安全具有可衡量的有益效果。

https://www.bts.gov/bts-publications/freight-facts-and-figures/freight-facts-figures-2017-chapter-6-safety-energy-and

#15

As background I am very much pro-rail. I don't own a car and my daily commute is on a rail line. I like rail very much, it is a premium mode of transportation.

作为背景,我非常支持。我没有车,我的日常通勤是在铁路线上。我非常喜欢铁路,这是一种优质的交通方式。

That said, I have put a lot of thought into this and have to confront the following. Since the OP is focused on engineering efficiency, let's talk about manufacturing and the mechanical engineering that goes into the vehicles. I have a theory that the efficiency of car and truck manufacturing (and internal combustion engines) gained orders of magnitude on locomotive and rail car manufacturing at about WWII. Both railcar makers and auto makers built armored tanks for the US Army in WWII. Budd, Brill and American Car and Foundry simply were not as good at economies of scale as General Motors (at the end of the war, ACF was only the 36th biggest military contractor)

也就是说,我已经考虑了很多,并且必须面对以下问题。由于OP专注于工程效率,让我们谈谈制造和车辆的机械工程。我有一个理论认为,汽车和卡车制造(和内燃机)的效率在第二次世界大战期间在机车和轨道车制造方面获得了数量级。铁路车制造商和汽车制造商都在第二次世界大战中为美国陆军制造了装甲坦克。 Budd,Brill和American Car and Foundry在规模经济方面不如通用汽车(在战争结束时,ACF只是第36大军事承包商)

This leads to the marketplace today:

这导致了今天的市场:

A new Siemens ACS-64 locomotive cost Amtrak $466 million for 70, at $6.6 million per unit. An unpowered coach car is between $500k and $1 million, and can seat about 120.

一台新的西门子ACS-64机车70架共计4.65亿美元,每台660万美元。一辆无动力的长途汽车售价在50万美元到100万美元之间,可以容纳120辆左右。

A Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V EMU cost Septa (Philadelphia) $274 million for 120 cars, and RTD (Denver) $300 million for 66 cars, for unit costs of $2.2M-4.5M. These seat 91-107 passengers each.

现代-Rotem Silverliner V EMU成本为Septa(费城),为120辆汽车提供2.74亿美元,而RTD(丹佛)为66辆车提供3亿美元,单位成本为220万-450万美元。这些座位各有91-107名乘客。

A transit bus such as the largest supplier to US transit systems, "New Flyer" has an average new cost of $506.5K in 2017 and can seat about 60 passengers.

作为美国运输系统最大供应商的公交巴士,“新飞行者”2017年的平均新成本为$ 506.5万,可容纳约60名乘客。

So at a back-of-envelope level the equipment for a 500 passenger train (whether locomotive plus 5 coach cars or 5 EMUs) will cost on the order of $8-15 million. The opportunity cost of $8 million is 16 transit buses with capacity for 960 passengers, so in round numbers nearly double the passenger capacity, and with the operational flexibility to run 16 routes (or 16 headways) instead of 1.

因此,在一个封闭的水平,500列车(无论是机车加5辆长途汽车还是5辆动车组)的设备将耗资8-15百万美元。 800万美元的机会成本是16辆公交车,可容纳960名乘客,所以总数几乎是乘客容量的两倍,并且操作灵活性可以运行16条路线(或16条车头)而不是1条。

This ignores operating costs as part of the total cost of ownership (e.g. additional fuel and labor for so many buses on the pro-rail side, but also track maintenance of way and the notable manufacturing shakeout issues that e.g. Silverliner V and Acela had in their first decade on the anti-rail side). I would note that once the * brute-force R&D for battery powered buses enters the western market, or a self driving car service that will move a passenger 10 miles for $6, it could be over on the economics for commuter rail systems.

这忽略了运营成本作为总拥有成本的一部分(例如,在亲铁路方面为这么多公共汽车提供额外的燃料和劳动力,但也跟踪维护方式以及例如Silverliner V和Acela在其中的显着制造震荡问题反铁路方面的第一个十年)。我要注意的是,一旦中国*对电池供电的公共汽车进行强力研发进入西方市场,或者自动驾驶汽车服务将以6美元的价格将乘客移动10英里,那么通勤铁路系统的经济效益可能会超过。

#16

In developed countries, rail transport is usually made at financial loss

在发达国家,铁路运输通常是由于经济损失

I dispute the whole notion of the question, since capitalists in the US love the railroads.

我对这个问题的整个概念提出质疑,因为美国的资本家喜欢铁路。

In fact, the US carries much more stuff via rail than does the vaunted EU.

事实上,美国通过铁路运输的东西比吹嘘的欧盟要多得多。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_freight_transport#Statistics

In 2010, North America (an integrated rail system) moved 2.8 trillion ton-km of freight, while the EU only moved one seventh that amount.

2010年,北美(综合铁路系统)的运费增加了2.8万亿吨公里,而欧盟仅增加了七分之一。

Within the U.S. railroads carry 39.9% of freight by ton-mile, followed by trucks (33.4%), oil pipelines (14.3%), barges (12%) and air (0.3%).

在美国铁路运输中,按吨公里运输39.9%的货物,其次是卡车(33.4%),石油管道(14.3%),驳船(12%)和空运(0.3%)。

Railways carried 17.1% of EU freight in terms of tonne-km,[29] compared to road transport (76.4%) and inland waterways (6.5%).

与公路运输(76.4%)和内陆水道(6.5%)相比,铁路运输的欧盟货运量为吨公里的17.1%[29]。

It's obvious that Europe loves roads and the US loves trains.

很显然,欧洲喜欢公路,美国喜欢火车。

#17

History answers this question and corrects its invalid premise - namely: that passenger rail, as such, is not financially profitable.

历史回答了这个问题并纠正了它的无效前提 - 即:这样的客运铁路在经济上无利可图。

Capitalism is the as yet untried system where the sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Under capitalism there are no government subsidies for individuals or firms. Savers and investors back entrepreneurs and those who are most able at producing are those who create the greatest profits. Excluding *s like N. Korea and Iran, all countries today operate under "mixed economies" - mixtures of freedom and controls (mixtures of capitalism and socialism). 19th century America following the civil war came closest to pure capitalism.

资本主义是尚未尝试过的体系,*的唯一目的是保护个*利。在资本主义制度下,个人或公司没有*补贴。拯救者和投资者支持企业家和那些最有能力生产的人是创造最大利润的人。不包括朝鲜和伊朗等*国家,今天所有国家都在“混合经济”下运作 - *与控制的混合体(资本主义与*的混合体)。内战后的19世纪美国最接近纯粹的资本主义。

In the 1850s, Congress passed the Pacific Railroad Act which led to the formation of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads. Although both firms enjoyed massive government subsidies including loans and land, and although the UP and SP joined in the first transcontinental railroad, they have gone bankrupt multiple times (despite having been combined as Amtrak).

在19世纪50年代,国会通过了“太平洋铁路法案”,该法案促成了联合太平洋和南太平洋铁路的形成。虽然两家公司都享有大量的*补贴,包括贷款和土地,虽然UP和SP加入了第一条横贯大陆的铁路,但它们已多次破产(尽管已被合并为Amtrak)。

The Great Northern, by contrast, accepted no subsidies, yet completed its transcontinental road and operated profitably for decades with never a bankruptcy. Its focus on profit caused it to choose land and materials that were cheaper and better for building and operating a railroad. The GN would simply build a section of road, run spurs to areas occupied by productive farmers, merchants and others; develop profitable freight and passenger traffic along those spurs to feed its main line; then reinvest some of the profits to extend the main line further West. Eventually, the GN connected St. Paul to Seattle, and operated as the best built, lowest cost, most reliable and least corrupt transcontinental road.

相比之下,大北方没有接受任何补贴,但却完成了横贯大陆的道路,经营了几十年,从未破产过。它对利润的关注使它选择了更便宜,更适合建设和运营铁路的土地和材料。 GN只会建造一段道路,将马刺带到生产性农民,商人和其他人所占据的地区;沿着这些马刺发展有利可图的货运和客运,以满足其主线;然后将部分利润再投资,以进一步扩大西线的主线。最终,GN将圣保罗连接到西雅图,并作为最佳建造,成本最低,最可靠和最不腐败的横贯大陆道路运营。

Had the U.S. government not subsidized losing railroads beginning in the 19th century, the U.S. today would likely have superlative private rail. Ditto for its having subsidized the grossly inefficient Interstate Highway System and Federal Aviation Administration.

如果美国*在19世纪开始没有补贴失去铁路的补贴,那么今天的美国可能拥有*的私营铁路。它同样补贴了效率极低的州际公路系统和联邦航空管理局。

To end the corruption, waste, impoverishment, and legalized grand larceny which central planning spreads, the government and the economy should be completely separated. Then, like cheaper, faster, better computers, most people would enjoy cheaper, faster, better transportation.

为了结束*计划传播的腐败,浪费,贫困和合法化的盗窃罪,*和经济应该完全分开。然后,像更便宜,更快,更好的电脑,大多数人会享受更便宜,更快,更好的交通。

#18

Rails isn't necessarily unprofitable. Private rail lines can, have, and do exist.

Rails不一定无利可图。私人铁路线可以,拥有并且确实存在。

Japan has a privately funded maglev rail line.

日本拥有私人资助的磁悬浮铁路线。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen

JR Central announced in December 2007 that it planned to raise funds for the construction of the Chuo Shinkansen on its own, without government financing. Total cost, originally estimated at 5.1 trillion yen in 2007,[23] escalated to over 9 trillion yen by of 2011.[4] Nevertheless, the company has said it can make a pretax profit of around 70 billion yen in 2026, when the operating costs stabilize.[24]

JR*于2007年12月宣布计划在没有*融资的情况下自行筹集资金用于建设*新干线。总成本,原先估计在2007年为5.1万亿日元,[23]到2011年升级到超过9万亿日元。[4]尽管如此,该公司已表示,当运营成本稳定时,它可以在2026年实现约700亿日元的税前利润。[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

Development of the Shinkansen by the privatised regional JR companies has continued, with new train models developed, each generally with its own distinctive appearance. ... The privatized JRs eventually paid a total of ¥9.2 trillion to acquire JNR's Shinkansen network.[18] After privatization, the Shinkansen network continues to see significant expansion to less populated areas, but with far more flexibility to spin off unprofitable railways or cut costs than in JNR days.

私有化的区域性JR公司继续开发新干线,开发了新的火车模型,每个模型通常都有自己独特的外观。 ......私有化的JR最终总共支付了9.2万亿日元来收购JNR的新干线网络。[18]私有化后,新干线网络继续在人口较少的地区大规模扩张,但与JNR时期相比,可以更灵活地剥离无利可图的铁路或削减成本。

The NYC Subway was private until the city instituted price controls and forced the companies to sell to the city (like Venezuela).

纽约地铁是私营的,直到该市实施价格管制并迫使公司向该市出售(如委内瑞拉)。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Subway#Independent_System

Mayor John F. Hylan was a strong advocate of public operation of the subway. ... he tried to push the two operators out of business. To that end, Hylan had denied allocating money for the BRT by refusing to build new lines, refusing to raise fares (thereby putting the BRT in more debt), denied building permits so that some major building work lasted longer than planned.

市长John F. Hylan是地铁公共运营的坚定拥护者。 ......他试图推动两家运营商破产。为此,Hylan拒绝为BRT分配资金,拒绝建立新线路,拒绝提高票价(从而使BRT承担更多债务),拒绝建造许可证,以便一些重要的建筑工程持续时间超过计划。

General Motors lobbied and bribed politicians to eliminate streetcars in favor of buses, built by General Motors of course. This reduced access and use of rail lines.

通用汽车公司游说和贿赂政客,以消除有轨电车的有轨电车,当然是通用汽车公司制造的。这减少了铁路线的使用和使用。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to convictions of General Motors (GM) and other companies for monopolizing the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines (NCL) and its subsidiaries, and to allegations that this was part of a deliberate plot to purchase and dismantle streetcar systems in many cities in the United States as an attempt to monopolize surface transportation.

通用汽车的有轨电车阴谋是指通用汽车(GM)和其他公司因垄断向National City Lines(NCL)及其子公司出售公共汽车和物资而被定罪的指控,以及指控这是故意收购和在美国许多城市拆除有轨电车系统,试图垄断地面运输。

To me, the solution is obvious. Eliminate government. Government is used, bribed, and controlled to eliminate competition, and interferes in natural prices and market demands. Without government, companies will have no one to lobby for subsidies or regulating their competitors, nor will they have to fear price controls and bureaucrat manipulation.

对我来说,解决方案是显而易见的。消除*。*被使用,贿赂和控制以消除竞争,并干扰自然价格和市场需求。没有*,公司就没有人游说补贴或管制竞争对手,他们也不必担心价格控制和官僚操纵。

So the premise of the question is flawed. Rail can be financially profitable, when it doesn't have to contend with government interference.

所以这个问题的前提是有缺陷的。当铁路不必与*干预时,它可以在经济上获利。

#19

Firstly land (homes and offices) near to stations sells for more, therefore tax this increase in property value.

首先,车站附近的土地(住宅和办公室)售价更高,因此对房产价值的增加征税。

In the UK most "commuting" trains are empty after 9am, therefore give large discounts to people who travel as these times. But to get this to work the season ticket needs changing, as most people need to travel at peak times a few days of the week.

在英国,大部分“通勤”列车在上午9点之后都是空的,因此给那些旅行的人们提供了很大的折扣。但要实现这一点,季票需要改变,因为大多数人需要在一周的几天高峰时间旅行。