解决伦敦交通需要的不是自行车_时事

解决伦敦交通需要的不是自行车

The same logic should apply to roadworks. Transport for London, the government bodyresponsible for most of the capital’s public transport, collates a central register of disruptionon its website. This is pointless; it is near the works themselves that the warnings need to bedisplayed and well in advance. Too often they are not. Worse, the works are frequentlyunmanned 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, withtough fines for those who miss their targetsThe next mayor should commit herself or himself tohalving 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 questionrephrased in many ways: when is it appropriate for the government or other publicauthorityies to be involved in the operations of the market, and when not? Transport is an areaof policy where the energy of competition and efficiency of the private sector should beharnessed. But public regulation is just as important. Would it not make sense, say, fordelivery trucks over a certain size to be told to deliver between midday and 5pm, and not indaytime 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 heftyantisocial delivery charge, with proceeds going to London’s public transport budget.