评论
打印
If you want a problem solved, beware politicians bearing gimmicks. For more than seven years, Boris Johnson has made the bicycle the symbol of his mayoralty and an emblem of his political style: reassuringly traditional but green and modern. That is politics for you. But it has nothing to do with the pressing problems London faces in transport policy.
如果你希望问题得到解决，就要小心那些玩弄花招的政客。7年多来，鲍里斯•约翰逊(Boris Johnson)让自行车成为了他作为伦敦市长的标志以及他政治风格的象征：可靠、传统，但环保、现代。这是给你们看的政治。但它与伦敦在交通政策上面临的紧迫问题毫无关系。
It is 12 years since the congestion charge was introduced in London — yet the centre of the city is often at a standstill, sometimes for reasons that defy common sense. I recently counted 15 buses on the Strand, which runs east from Trafalgar Square all the way to the Law Courts. Six of them were empty. The capital has more than 66,000 private hire drivers [IS THERE A SOURCE FOR THIS?], distinct from black cabs, summoned all over the city centre by iPhone apps or controllers in grubby offices. Do we need so many? And who truly believes the planned “cycle superhighway” along Victoria Embankment will do anything but slow the miserable snake of cars along the river to a near standstill? Not everyone cycles, Mr Johnson.
12年前，伦敦开收拥堵费，然而伦敦市中心现在还经常出现交通瘫痪，有时其原因显得有违常理。我最近数了数岸滨街(Strand)上的15辆公交车，其中6辆是空车（岸滨街从特拉法尔加广场向东，一直延伸到皇家司法院(Royal Courts of Justice)）。在伦敦，除了常见的黑色出租车，还有总共逾6.6万名持有私人出租车辆(PHV)牌照的司机，可以通过iPhone应用或乱糟糟的办公室的控制员叫他们的车。我们需要这么多出租车辆吗？谁真的相信，规划中沿着维多利亚堤岸(Victoria Embankment)修建的“自行车高速公路”会真的有用？它只会让泰晤士河沿岸原本行进缓慢的车流几乎停止前进。约翰逊，不是所有人都骑车。
London’s often imbecilic transport arrangements are a serious problem for a global city that is the engine of the British economy and a magnet to commercial companies and creative geniuses who want to live and work in the country. That allure remains powerful. But we dare not take it for granted. A city that is impossible to move around rapidly loses its charm for men and women who can afford to live anywhere.
作为一个拉动着英国经济，吸引着商业公司和希望在英国生活和工作的创意天才前来的全球城市，伦敦经常显得愚蠢的交通安排是一个严重问题。这种吸引力现在仍然强烈。但我们岂敢把这视为理所当然。一个无法提供便捷交通的城市，会迅速失去对那些有能力居住在全球任何一个地方的人的吸引力。
Consider the buses, grinding their way pointlessly around the city’s 19,500 bus stops. The contracting out of London’s bus services was launched 30 years ago, when London Buslines took over route 81. Now private operators run all 700 of the capital’s routes.
以公交车为例，它们漫无目的地辛苦穿梭在伦敦1.95万个公交车站点之间。30年前，London Buslines承包了81路，由此开启了伦敦公交车服务的外包。如今，伦敦总共700条公交路线全部由私人运营商经营。
Strictly speaking, this is not privatisation but competitive tendering; though private companies handle the running of the routes, they still receive subsidy from the taxpayer, which in 2013 worked out at about 15p every time someone made a journey[IS THERE A SOURCE FOR THIS?]. Yet empty buses on the Strand contribute nothing except gridlock. The contracts for operators ought to penalise such failures. A company that routinely sends out buses to tour London without a single passenger should face financial sanctions.
严格来说，这并非私有化，而是竞争招标：尽管私营企业负责这些路线的运营，但它们仍接受纳税人的补贴，对乘车人每次乘车的补贴金额在2013年约为15便士。然而，跑在岸滨街上的空车没有任何用处，徒然增加拥堵。与运营商签订的合同应惩罚此类错误。那些让定时发出的公交车在伦敦四处空驶的公司，应被处以罚款。
The same logic should apply to roadworks. Transport for London, the government body responsible for most of the capital’s public transport, collates a central register of disruption on its website. This is pointless; it is near the works themselves that the warnings need to be displayed and well in advance. Too often they are not. Worse, the works are frequently unmanned and, like empty buses, contribute nothing but inertia.
同样的逻辑应适用于道路施工。负责伦敦多数公共交通的政府机构伦敦运输局(Transport for London)会在网站上集中公布道路施工信息。这是毫无意义的；警示标识应该设在施工道路附近，并且应提前足够长时间设好。很多时候施工道路附近根本没有警示标识。更糟糕的是，施工现场经常无人管理，与空车一样，没有任何用处，徒然增加拥堵。
We should limit much more clearly the length of time that can be spent digging up a road, with tough fines for those who miss their targetsThe next mayor should commit herself or himself to halving the number of holes[IE POTHOLES? OR HOLES THAT ARE BEING DUG UP?] in the road.
我们应对道路施工的时限进行明确得多的限制，对那些没有按期完工的工程应处以高额罚金。
When distilled to its very basics, modern political discourse is often the same question rephrased in many ways: when is it appropriate for the government or other public authorityies to be involved in the operations of the market, and when not? Transport is an area of policy where the energy of competition and efficiency of the private sector should be harnessed. But public regulation is just as important. Would it not make sense, say, for delivery trucks over a certain size to be told to deliver between midday and 5pm, and not in daytime at all for the largest vehicles? Of course, there would be exceptions: medical supplies, for example. And it might be feasible for the regulations to be waived in return for a hefty antisocial delivery charge, with proceeds going to London’s public transport budget.
本质上，现代政治话语往往是用很多方式表述的同一个问题：政府或其他公共部门什么时候应该参与到市场运营中，什么时候又该置身事外？在交通政策领域，应对竞争的活力和私营部门的效率加以利用。但公共监管也同样重要。例如，要求体积超过某种标准的货车须在中午至下午5点之间送货，并完全禁止那些最大型的车辆在白天送货，这不是很合理吗？当然，应该允许例外：例如医疗用品。或许还可以允许货车缴纳一笔高额的妨碍社会秩序运输费，以换取豁免于这一规定。收费所得可用于补贴伦敦的公共交通预算。
What is woefully apparent is that these questions have not been seriously addressed. London’s transport policy is a national issue. The next mayor needs to tackle this problem head on, take hard decisions and seek legislation if necessary. Let us hope she or he offers more than a winning smile and a bike.
悲哀的是，这些问题显然没有得到认真解决。伦敦的交通政策是一个国家问题。下一任伦敦市长需要迎难而上解决这个问题、做出艰难决定，在必要时可求助于立法。让我们期待，她或他给我们带来的不仅仅是一个迷人的微笑和一辆自行车吧。
The writer is chairman of EL Rothschild
本文作者是EL Rothschild董事长
