解決倫敦交通需要的不是自行車

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.

如果你希望問題得到解決，就要小心那些玩弄花招的政客。7年多來，鮑里斯•約翰遜(Boris Johnson)讓自行車成爲了他作爲倫敦市長的標誌以及他政治風格的象徵：可靠、傳統，但環保、現代。這是給你們看的政治。但它與倫敦在交通政策上面臨的緊迫問題毫無關係。

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，倫敦開收擁堵費，然而倫敦市中心現在還經常出現交通癱瘓，有時其原因顯得有違常理。我最近數了數岸濱街(Strand)上的15輛公交車，其中6輛是空車（岸濱街從特拉法爾加廣場向東，一直延伸到皇家司法院(Royal Courts of Justice)）。在倫敦，除了常見的黑色出租車，還有總共逾6.6萬名持有私人出租車輛(PHV)牌照的司機，可以通過iPhone應用或亂糟糟的辦公室的控制員叫他們的車。我們需要這麼多出租車輛嗎？誰真的相信，規劃中沿着維多利亞堤岸(Victoria Embankment)修建的“自行車高速公路”會真的有用？它只會讓泰晤士河沿岸原本行進緩慢的車流幾乎停止前進。約翰遜，不是所有人都騎車。

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.

作爲一個拉動着英國經濟，吸引着商業公司和希望在英國生活和工作的創意天才前來的全球城市，倫敦經常顯得愚蠢的交通安排是一個嚴重問題。這種吸引力現在仍然強烈。但我們豈敢把這視爲理所當然。一個無法提供便捷交通的城市，會迅速失去對那些有能力居住在全球任何一個地方的人的吸引力。

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.

以公交車爲例，它們漫無目的地辛苦穿梭在倫敦1.95萬個公交車站點之間。30年前，London Buslines承包了81路，由此開啓了倫敦公交車服務的外包。如今，倫敦總共700條公交路線全部由私人運營商經營。

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.

嚴格來說，這並非私有化，而是競爭招標：儘管私營企業負責這些路線的運營，但它們仍接受納稅人的補貼，對乘車人每次乘車的補貼金額在2013年約爲15便士。然而，跑在岸濱街上的空車沒有任何用處，徒然增加擁堵。與運營商簽訂的合同應懲罰此類錯誤。那些讓定時發出的公交車在倫敦四處空駛的公司，應被處以罰款。

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.

同樣的邏輯應適用於道路施工。負責倫敦多數公共交通的政府機構倫敦運輸局(Transport for London)會在網站上集中公佈道路施工信息。這是毫無意義的；警示標識應該設在施工道路附近，並且應提前足夠長時間設好。很多時候施工道路附近根本沒有警示標識。更糟糕的是，施工現場經常無人管理，與空車一樣，沒有任何用處，徒然增加擁堵。

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.

我們應對道路施工的時限進行明確得多的限制，對那些沒有按期完工的工程應處以高額罰金。

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.

本質上，現代政治話語往往是用很多方式表述的同一個問題：政府或其他公共部門什麼時候應該參與到市場運營中，什麼時候又該置身事外？在交通政策領域，應對競爭的活力和私營部門的效率加以利用。但公共監管也同樣重要。例如，要求體積超過某種標準的貨車須在中午至下午5點之間送貨，並完全禁止那些最大型的車輛在白天送貨，這不是很合理嗎？當然，應該允許例外：例如醫療用品。或許還可以允許貨車繳納一筆高額的妨礙社會秩序運輸費，以換取豁免於這一規定。收費所得可用於補貼倫敦的公共交通預算。

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，這些問題顯然沒有得到認真解決。倫敦的交通政策是一個國家問題。下一任倫敦市長需要迎難而上解決這個問題、做出艱難決定，在必要時可求助於立法。讓我們期待，她或他給我們帶來的不僅僅是一個迷人的微笑和一輛自行車吧。

The writer is chairman of EL Rothschild

本文作者是EL Rothschild董事長