老式体系的落幕 英国应向香港学习

What London should do about its airports has not figured much in the UK election campaign so far. That is no surprise: the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all riven on the issue, particularly over whether Heathrow should have a third runway.

伦敦该采取哪些措施来完善其机场？这个问题迄今还未在英国的竞选活动中被太多提及。这并不意外：保守党(Conservative)、工党(Labour)和自由民主党(Liberal Democrat)在这个问题上各有各的主张，在希思罗机场(Heathrow)是否该建第三条跑道的问题上分歧尤其大。

Meanwhile Hong Kong, which as long ago as 1998 opened a new airport on an island away from the city centre, is about to run out of space.

与此同时，香港面临着即将无闲地可用的局面。香港上次建新机场还是在1998年，当时它把新机场建在了远离市中心的一座岛上。

Dead set on holding on to its status as Asia’s premier business hub, Hong Kong’s governors had no doubt what to do: last month its executive council approved a third Hong Kong runway.

为了坚决守住香港作为亚洲最重要商业中心的地位，香港政府对于该做什么心中没有半点犹豫：上月，香港行政会议(Executive Council)批准兴建香港国际机场(Hong Kong International Airport)第三条跑道。

UK business lobbyists and airlines can only despair. While Britain debates, others act.

英国商业游说人士及航空公司能做的却只有失望。英国还在争论的时候，别人已采取行动了。

For Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, Conservative parliamentary candidate and pretender to the Tory leadership, it is worse than this.

在伦敦市长、保守党议员候选人、觊觎保守党领袖宝座的鲍里斯•约翰逊(Boris Johnson)看来，情况比这还要糟。

A fierce opponent of a third Heathrow runway, Mr Johnson has long championed a Hong Kong solution: a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Just as Hong Kong realised it could not continue with its cramped Kai Tak Airport, where landing passengers could see into people’s apartments, Mr Johnson argues Heathrow’s position in densely populated west London makes expansion there impossible.

约翰逊强烈反对希思罗机场建第三条跑道，他长久以来一直倡导采用香港的解决办法：在泰晤士河口(Thames Estuary)建一座新机场。正如香港意识到无法继续使用其窄小的启德机场（Kai Tak Airport，乘客在该机场降落时能看到附近居民公寓内的景象），约翰逊认为，由于希思罗机场位于人口密集的西伦敦，在那里扩建是不可能实现的。

On a visit to Hong Kong in 2013, Mr Johnson pushed his claim for a London airport on what has been dubbed “Boris Island”, saying: “Ambitious cities such as Hong Kong have stolen a march on us.”

2013年访问香港时，约翰逊兜售了其在伦敦某地新建一座机场的主张——该地如今已被人们戏称为“鲍里斯岛”(Boris Island)——他当时说道：“香港等雄心勃勃的城市已偷偷抢在我们前面。”

The most galling part is that the UK companies and architects who should be planning a new London airport have been doing Hong Kong’s work instead.

最令人难堪的是，原本应该在为伦敦规划新机场的英国公司和建筑师，反而一直在为香港的机场建设工作。

When Mr Johnson toured Hong Kong’s airport he heard about the UK firms that built it: Mott MacDonald and Arup engineers, and Foster+Partners architects, the would-be designers of a Thames Estuary airport.

约翰逊参观香港的机场时，获悉有英国人参与了该机场的建设：莫特麦克唐纳(Mott MacDonald)和奥雅纳(Arup)的工程师，以及渴望成为泰晤士河口机场设计者的福斯特建筑事务所(Foster & Partners)的建筑师。

Hong Kong’s new runway is not without its critics. At HK$141.5bn, it is expensive. Hong Kong also has a construction worker shortage.

香港的新跑道并非没有招致非议。1415亿港元的建造费用，实在是成本不菲。香港还面临建筑工人短缺的问题。

Still, the former colony is going ahead while the UK dithers. The outgoing Conservative-Liberal coalition appointed the Davies Commission to tell it what to do about London’s airports, but only after the election.

尽管如此，在英国踌躇不前时，这块前英国殖民地却在向前迈进。任期即将结束的保守党-自由民主党联合政府，委派戴维斯委员会（Davies Commission，由经济学家霍华德•戴维斯爵士(Sir Howard Davies)任主席的机场委员会——译者注）来告诉它该怎么解决伦敦机场问题，但只能等到大选后再公布答案。

The commission has already, unwisely in my view, dismissed Mr Johnson’s airport. It will probably recommend a third Heathrow runway or a second at Gatwick. While I believe the next government should accept the recommendation and get on with it, I realise that the expected indecisive election outcome makes that unlikely.

该委员会已经摒弃了约翰逊的机场方案，在我看来这么做并不明智。它很可能会建议在希思罗机场建第三条跑道，或在盖特威克机场(Gatwick)建第二条跑道。虽然我认为下届政府应该接受建议并着手落实，但我明白，预期中的分不出明显胜负的大选结果会使这种想法变得很难实现。

Is there anything UK politicians can unite around in the meantime? I think there is: a move to bigger aircraft.

另一方面，是否存在某种让英国政治人士能够一致认可的方案？我认为存在，那就是改用更大的飞机。

I was struck by Hong Kong’s account of why its two runways had run out of space. The planners had assumed that the vast majority of aircraft would be large, with an average of 300 people on board. Instead, airlines have used smaller narrow-bodied planes with an average of 190 passengers on each.

香港对其两条跑道为何不够用的解释令我深有感触。规划者原以为绝大多数客机会是大飞机，平均载客量300人。事实正好相反，航空公司使用了较小的窄体客机，平均载客量190人。

This is part of a worldwide move towards point-to-point flights, rather than connecting passengers feeding into large aircraft at hub airports.

这反映出，全球正转向点对点直飞，而不是让旅客乘坐大飞机在枢纽机场中转。

This is why the giant Airbus A380 has struggled to find customers.

这正是巨型客机空客A380 (Airbus A380)很难找到顾客的原因。

Hong Kong says it is consumer choice. Yes. But flying has a huge impact on pollution, noise levels and neighbourhoods. Governments can influence how people fly.

香港方面表示，这是顾客的选择。这没错，但飞行对污染、噪声水平和机场附近居民区有着巨大影响。政府可以影响人们的飞行方式。

For a city such as London, with huge visitor numbers and constrained airport capacity, bigger planes are environmentally preferable, particularly with the old Boeing 747s reaching the end of their lives and the availability of quieter replacements such as the A380, extensively used at Dubai airport by Emirates.

对于伦敦这样游客数量巨大、机场容量有限的城市而言，更大的飞机从环保角度讲更为适用一些，尤其是考虑到老式的波音747 (Boeing 747)已快退役、市面上已经出现了更为宁静的替代者——比如阿联酋航空(Emirates)在迪拜机场大量使用的空客A380。

The Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 election pledging to replace the UK’s air duty, which is imposed on each departing passenger, with a tax on each aircraft instead. Labour has discussed it too. In coalition, the Conservatives initially agreed, before saying a per-plane tax appeared to be against international law.

2010年，自由民主党在参加竞选时曾承诺，以针对每架飞机征收的税项取代英国的航空旅客税(Air Passenger Duty)，后者是针对每名离港旅客征收。工党也讨论过这个问题。在联合政府内部，保守党最初同意了自由民主党的主张，但后来表示针对每架飞机征税似乎违反国际法。

The Lib-Dems talked about a tax that would increase with the weight of the aircraft and the distance flown.

自由民主党说的是一种税额与飞机重量和飞行距离正相关的税。

Why not a flat per-plane tax? That would encourage airlines to fly with larger, fuller aircraft and to prioritise long over short journeys, encouraging more people to travel by rail on those.

为何不征单一税呢？征单一税会鼓励航空公司使用更大、更宽体的飞机，优先发展长程而非短程航班，从而鼓励更多的人在短途旅行时乘坐火车。

As a House of Commons Library note said, it was not clear what law a per-plane tax contravened. It is worth looking into. If Britain is no longer an airports pioneer it can at least lead the way to more sustainable flying.

正如英国下议院图书馆(House of Commons Library)一份报告所指出的那样，尚不清楚针对每架飞机征税违反哪部法律。这值得研究研究。如果英国不再是“机场先锋”，那么它最起码能在更可持续的飞行方面走在前列。