2018年经济学人 城市公共交通脱离正轨(2)（在线收听）

This is a headache for the operators of public-transport systems.

这就是令公共交通运营者头疼的地方。

It is also a problem for cities.

对于城市来说，也是一个问题。

Like it or not—and many people do not—mass public transport does some things very well.

不管你喜欢公共交通与否（很多人都不喜欢），公共交通都确实在某些方面做得很好。

It provides a service for people who are too old, too young, too poor, too fearful or too drunk to drive or ride a bike.

公共交通为老人、稚子、穷人、害怕开车或骑单车的人、醉酒的人提供服务。

Trains and subways cause less pollution than cars and move people at far higher densities.

火车和地铁造成的污染比汽车要少，而且人们的出行密度要高得多。

The danger is that public transport could become a rump service,

而风险就是，公共交通可能成为一种剩余服务，

ever less popular and ever less good, partly because of its unpopularity.

没有以前那么受人喜爱，也没有以前那么好用，部分原因是它不受欢迎。

Fewer passengers mean fewer trains and buses,

乘客更少意味着火车更少，公共汽车也更少，

which leads to longer waits for those who persist with them.

这就导致坚持使用公共交通工具的人等待的时间也就越来越长。

Cars, whether driven or driverless, will clog the roads.

无论是有人驾驶还是无人驾驶的汽车，都会堵塞道路。

To some extent, that dystopian future can be seen off by pricing road use properly.

在某种程度上，通过合理收取公路运输管理费，可避免以上反乌托邦未来的出现。

Many cities, particularly in America, generously subsidise driving by forcing developers to provide lots of parking spaces.

许多城市，尤其是美国的城市，通过强令开发商提供大量的停车位，以此大力补贴开车。

Elsewhere, cities have created congestion-charging zones.

在其他地方，城市建立了拥堵收费区。

But that is a hopelessly crude tool.

但该制度不够严谨，收效甚微。

Most congestion zones in effect sell daily tickets to drive around as much as you like within the zone,

实际上，大多数拥堵区每天都在出售进区券，只有有了此券才能在这个区域任意驾车，

and charge nothing to vehicles such as taxis and minicabs.

对出租车和小型出租车等车辆不收费。

It would be much better to charge for each use of a road, with higher prices for busy ones.

如果每条道路都收费，而拥堵路段收费更高，这样收效可能会更好。

Transport agencies should also embrace the upstarts, and copy them.

交通运输机构也应接纳并效仿新兴运输方式。

Cities tend either to ignore app-based services or to try to push them off the streets.

在大城市，要么倾向于忽略基于应用程序的交通服务，要么想将之驱离。

That is understandable, given the rules-are-for-losers attitude of firms like Uber.

鉴于优步这样的公司秉持“输家才谈规则”的态度，这种做法可以理解的。

But it is an error.

但是这是不对的。

Although new forms of transport often compete with old ones in city centres,

虽然在市中心，新旧交通方式时有竞争，

they ought to complement each other in suburbs.

但在郊区，两种交通方式却应实现互补。

Taxi services and e-bikes could get people to and from railway stations and bus stops,

火车站和公交车站往往远离市中心，不便到达，

which are often inconveniently far apart outside the urban core.

出租车服务和电动自行车可以让人们快捷出入这些站点。

It is doubtful that most people make hard distinctions between public and private transport.

多数人是否能够将公共交通工具和私人交通工具辨别清楚还很难说。

They just want to get somewhere, and there is a cost in time, money and comfort.

人们就是想去一个地方，花费时间、金钱，并忍受出行的不适。

An ideal system would let them move across a city for a single payment,

一个理想的系统可以让他们只需支付一笔钱就能在城市中穿梭，

transferring from trains to taxis to bicycles as needed.

根据需要选择火车或出租车或自行车。

Building a platform to allow that is hard, and requires much sweet-talking of legacy networks as well as technology firms—though a few cities, like Helsinki and Birmingham, in England, are trying.

尽管如赫尔辛基和英国的伯明翰等一些城市正在尝试这种做法，但搭建这样一个平台是十分困难的，而且还需要同时迎合传统交通部门和新型技术公司。

It is probably the secret to keeping cities moving.

这可能是保持城市运转的秘诀。