老式體系的落幕 英國應向香港學習

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.

倫敦該採取哪些措施來完善其機場？這個問題迄今還未在英國的競選活動中被太多提及。這並不意外：保守黨(Conservative)、工黨(Labour)和自由民主黨(Liberal Democrat)在這個問題上各有各的主張，在希思羅機場(Heathrow)是否該建第三條跑道的問題上分歧尤其大。

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.

與此同時，香港面臨着即將無閒地可用的局面。香港上次建新機場還是在1998年，當時它把新機場建在了遠離市中心的一座島上。

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.

爲了堅決守住香港作爲亞洲最重要商業中心的地位，香港政府對於該做什麼心中沒有半點猶豫：上月，香港行政會議(Executive Council)批准興建香港國際機場(Hong Kong International Airport)第三條跑道。

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

英國商業遊說人士及航空公司能做的卻只有失望。英國還在爭論的時候，別人已採取行動了。

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

在倫敦市長、保守黨議員候選人、覬覦保守黨領袖寶座的鮑里斯•約翰遜(Boris Johnson)看來，情況比這還要糟。

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.

約翰遜強烈反對希思羅機場建第三條跑道，他長久以來一直倡導採用香港的解決辦法：在泰晤士河口(Thames Estuary)建一座新機場。正如香港意識到無法繼續使用其窄小的啓德機場（Kai Tak Airport，乘客在該機場降落時能看到附近居民公寓內的景象），約翰遜認爲，由於希思羅機場位於人口密集的西倫敦，在那裏擴建是不可能實現的。

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年訪問香港時，約翰遜兜售了其在倫敦某地新建一座機場的主張——該地如今已被人們戲稱爲“鮑里斯島”(Boris Island)——他當時說道：“香港等雄心勃勃的城市已偷偷搶在我們前面。”

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.

最令人難堪的是，原本應該在爲倫敦規劃新機場的英國公司和建築師，反而一直在爲香港的機場建設工作。

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.

約翰遜參觀香港的機場時，獲悉有英國人蔘與了該機場的建設：莫特麥克唐納(Mott MacDonald)和奧雅納(Arup)的工程師，以及渴望成爲泰晤士河口機場設計者的福斯特建築事務所(Foster & Partners)的建築師。

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.

香港的新跑道並非沒有招致非議。1415億港元的建造費用，實在是成本不菲。香港還面臨建築工人短缺的問題。

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.

儘管如此，在英國躊躇不前時，這塊前英國殖民地卻在向前邁進。任期即將結束的保守黨-自由民主黨聯合政府，委派戴維斯委員會（Davies Commission，由經濟學家霍華德•戴維斯爵士(Sir Howard Davies)任主席的機場委員會——譯者注）來告訴它該怎麼解決倫敦機場問題，但只能等到大選後再公佈答案。

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.

該委員會已經摒棄了約翰遜的機場方案，在我看來這麼做並不明智。它很可能會建議在希思羅機場建第三條跑道，或在蓋特威克機場(Gatwick)建第二條跑道。雖然我認爲下屆政府應該接受建議並着手落實，但我明白，預期中的分不出明顯勝負的大選結果會使這種想法變得很難實現。

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

另一方面，是否存在某種讓英國政治人士能夠一致認可的方案？我認爲存在，那就是改用更大的飛機。

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.

香港對其兩條跑道爲何不夠用的解釋令我深有感觸。規劃者原以爲絕大多數客機會是大飛機，平均載客量300人。事實正好相反，航空公司使用了較小的窄體客機，平均載客量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.

這反映出，全球正轉向點對點直飛，而不是讓旅客乘坐大飛機在樞紐機場中轉。

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

這正是巨型客機空客A380 (Airbus A380)很難找到顧客的原因。

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，這是顧客的選擇。這沒錯，但飛行對污染、噪聲水平和機場附近居民區有着巨大影響。政府可以影響人們的飛行方式。

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.

對於倫敦這樣遊客數量巨大、機場容量有限的城市而言，更大的飛機從環保角度講更爲適用一些，尤其是考慮到老式的波音747 (Boeing 747)已快退役、市面上已經出現了更爲寧靜的替代者——比如阿聯酋航空(Emirates)在迪拜機場大量使用的空客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，自由民主黨在參加競選時曾承諾，以針對每架飛機徵收的稅項取代英國的航空旅客稅(Air Passenger Duty)，後者是針對每名離港旅客徵收。工黨也討論過這個問題。在聯合政府內部，保守黨最初同意了自由民主黨的主張，但後來表示針對每架飛機徵稅似乎違反國際法。

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

自由民主黨說的是一種稅額與飛機重量和飛行距離正相關的稅。

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.

爲何不徵單一稅呢？徵單一稅會鼓勵航空公司使用更大、更寬體的飛機，優先發展長程而非短程航班，從而鼓勵更多的人在短途旅行時乘坐火車。

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.

正如英國下議院圖書館(House of Commons Library)一份報告所指出的那樣，尚不清楚針對每架飛機徵稅違反哪部法律。這值得研究研究。如果英國不再是“機場先鋒”，那麼它最起碼能在更可持續的飛行方面走在前列。