1、 外文翻译 原文 Urban Public Transport in an International Perspective Material Source: Urban Transport Development Author: Hans rn Introduction One of the striking characteristics of our time has been the rapid urbanization process in many of the so-called developing countries-a process that is still ongo
2、ing. When the British left India, Dhaka was a town of some 400,000 inhabitants-about the same as Gteborg today. New York, London and Paris were the big cities then. 50 years later, Dhaka belongs to the worlds new megacities with over 10 million inhabitants. Such rapid growth naturally puts pressure
3、on all city functions, not least transportation, which is the circulation system of the urban organism. Everyone agrees that public transport is an essential component, particularly in low-income cities. Advisors and consultants have an important role to play in assisting in the development of susta
4、inable public transport systems. However, the discussion often focuses on technology, such as whether rail or bus is the “best” solution. In reality, the decisive issues are often of a different nature such as: Roles of the private and the public sector? Social service or business? Should politician
5、s or market forces decide? Regulation or deregulation? Is it small that is beautiful-or big? Organizational modes for public transport The South-West Sector-the ”classical European Model” A public transport system can be described in two dimensions, one axis being the network and service structure,
6、the other being the organizational structure. The service structure axis ranges from a “coordinated network” to a “fragmented network”. The “coordinated network” is an integrated combination of routes and services, operated by a fleet of vehicles under organized conditions in an integrated fare syst
7、em. The “fragmented network” is in reality not a network at all but a number of individual routes, separated from each other. The organizational structure axis ranges from a monopoly to a situation with “full competition”. This creates four different combinations which can be seen as representing di
8、fferent possible scenarios for a city. The “classical European model” is represented by the south-west area. This is the predominant system that European cities-East or West have applied for many years, and by and large it has served them well! The public transport system is one single entity (even
9、though it can be composed of different technical sub-systems such as bus or rail), and can, therefore, provide an integrated and coordinated service to the whole city. The flipside of the coin is a public sector monopoly that is often neither cost-effective nor market-oriented. A coordinated route n
10、etwork One characteristic feature of an efficient public transport system is a differentiated route network. In an integrated system, different route types and different vehicle types have different roles to play. In cities with heavy rail systems, buses normally act as feeders. In other cities, hig
11、h-capacity buses form trunk lines, and smaller buses are feeders. It is particularly important that trunk lines are given high mobility, and designated bus lanes are, therefore, often designed along such corridors. Designated bus lanes An efficient public transport system requires mobility, so that
12、a reasonably high operating speed can be achieved. This is for two reasons:(1) to ensure the the best possible economic efficiency and (2) to make the system attractive. This makes it necessary to allocate separate space to buses and trams. In old European cities, however, road space is often limite
13、d due to the existence of a historic city centre. It is, therefore, seldom possible to “build away” the problems with new infrastructure. Instead, existing roads and streets have to be used as efficiently as possible, and this makes it necessary to design bus lanes carefully with as little effect as
14、 possible on other traffic. For high-capacity bus and tramway lines, mid-road lanes are often preferred. But many other solutions have to be considered, such as kerb-side lanes. It is important to realize that there are no tailor-made solutions-each city must find its own optimal system. Efficient a
15、nd attractive transfer terminals In an integrated system, transfers are necessary. This is particularly true when a part of the system consists of high-capacity corridors which, of necessity, cannot cover the whole city. Transfer stations should be designed to offer passengers comfort and also to sp
16、eed up the transfer process, so that economy of operation is preserved. The deregulated model Cities like Stockholm, London and Moscow have shared the same general concept. They have considered public transport to be a service function comparable to electricity, water supply or waste collection-all
17、of which are run as branches of the city administration. In the opposite corner of the graph, the North-East segment, the concept of public transport is radically different. Here public transport is not considered as a social service or a city function, but as a business like any other. Here there i
18、s no monopoly, but free ,and sometimes fierce, competition between different providers of public transports services. It is every man for himself, and as a consequence there is no interest in coordinating services. Each minibus is an economic unit and competes with all others. Each route is independ
19、ent of other routes, and transfers will cost an extra fare payment. The system typically offers the passenger a frequent and much appreciated service along one route from the outskirts to the city centre, but does not offer area coverage or accessibility to the whole city. The concept of free compet
20、ition and a fragmented network includes many cities in developing countries, such as Dhaka , Nairobi and Lima. Leaving the “classical European model” Privatization in the UK The European model faced an increasing dilemma as car ownership increased and the use of public transport decreased. This erod
21、ed the profitability of the sector, and the operations that had to be financed by taxes instead of fare revenues increased alarmingly during the latter part of the last century. The UK became the first European nation to abandon the “Classical European Model” as MRS Thatcher launched a privatization
22、 and deregulation process for the public transport sector in the mid 1980s. Today 80% of bus services in the UK are run by competing operators, allowed to plan their own routes and services and to set their own fares. The requirement is that they register their planned services with the Traffic Comm
23、issioners, specifying their intended routes, timetables and fares. 20% of bus transport in the UK is still financed by the public sector for social reasons, and these services are subcontracted from private operators by the local Public Transport Executive. Deregulation in developing countries The B
24、ritish reform occurred at a time when the “cold war” was at a peak and when public transport was seen as one ideological battlefield. Also, Mrs Thatchers advisor, Sir Alan Walters, had had a successful background at the World Bank, one of his specialities being to question the concept of large bus c
25、ompanies and instead promote the individually operated minibus concept. In many developing countries monopoly bus companies existed, sometimes a heritage from colonial times, sometimes modeled on the European system or the Soviet Union, then still a conceivable alternative to the market economy conc
26、ept. Many of these bus companies were badly run, mismanaged and heavily subsidized to no visible effect. The natural concept for many Western advisors and consultants at the time was to advocate deregulation, and to invite the private sector to operate minibuses. This was seen as a useful complement
27、 to regular bus services, and it was often believed that a trunk line/feeder line system would naturally emerge. In reality the minibus concept proved capable of out-competing bus services, in particular in cities with little monitoring and control. Instead of being a complement and a feeder system,
28、 minibuses soon took over the profitable large passenger flows in the city centres leaving the government buses to become an unappreciated social service in the outskirts. Fragmentation of services-effect on road space efficiency The free competition concept in combination with high unemployment app
29、ears naturally to lead to situations with very large numbers of small, low-cost vehicles. In its extreme form, the free competition/fragmented network concept can lead to a quite inefficient use of the road and street network. When public transport takes the form of many small vehicles where street
30、capacity is limited, then it is obviously no longer justified on the grounds that it relieves congestion. In fact, while public transport is promoted in the West because it is hoped that people will leave their cars at home, in many developing countries the best potential for improving congestion as
31、 well as the environment is if people can be shifted from small public transport vehicles to large buses. The Controlled Competition Model Moving North-the Swedish reform In 1989 Sweden too a decisive step in order to reform and restructure its public transport sector. The idea of a public sector mo
32、nopoly for public transport had become obsolete-not least because of the irreversible change in the ideological climate that came about as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. “Competition” now became a slogan, as it was considered that the efficiency and drive if the private sector would help
33、reduce the large subsidies. But Sweden did not want to give up the positive side of the old system-namely the coordinated network and service structure that was by now required by the voters. Thus public transport had to be reformed, but not destroyed! The resulting policy direction was clear; Swedi
34、sh cities like Stockholm should move upwards from the South-West to the North-West sector in the “policy graph”. They should not be allowed to move North-East and introduce unlimited competition with a resulting fragmented network and service structure. But how could this be done? New roles for the
35、public and the private sector The solution to this problem was a new definition of the responsibilities for the public and the private sector, and a new role for the old public transport companies. The public sector now created a separate unit, a Transport Authority, with the responsibility for(i) p
36、lanning the route network in the best interests of the city and the passengers,(ii)providing the necessary infrastructure such as bus stops, separate busways and terminals,(iii)negotiating with and subcontracting operators for routes or route packages, and (iv) monitoring and controlling the the per
37、formance of such operators. Planning thus remains a public sector responsibility in Swedish cities. The operation of bus and rail services will, however, no longer necessarily be undertaken by publicly owned companies. Route packages are designed for, and subject to, competitive bidding. The operato
38、r able to offer the best price will be awarded a contract for a specific period of time. Since planning of routes and services remains within the public sector, the concept of a coordinated network can be preserved. At the same time there is competition, but since it is competition for the market, n
39、ot in the streets, the disadvantages of a totally deregulated system can be avoided. The EU recommended policy In the European Union, specific research and policy development projects have been undertaken to analyze the issue of urban public transport. An initial project, ISOTOPE(“Improves Structure
40、 and Organisation for urban Transport Operations of Passengers in Europe”),was completed in 1997 and a follow-up project, MARETOPE(“Managing and Assessing Regulatory Evolution in local public Transport Operations in Europe”) was undertaken later. The studies carefully evaluate all potential models f
41、or public transport and , based on these, the recommendation by the EU Commission is: A combination of transport authority planning and competition between independent operators for the operation of public transport services on the other has the strongest merit. It is to be noted that the Commission
42、 does not exclude publicly-owned operators from competition, if it is on the same conditions. and the implementation The EU recommendation is thus clear as to the need for, and the direction of, a reform process. However, most Europeans have not yet introduced these reforms, but have kept their publ
43、ic monopolies. This is not so much out of a lack of conviction as for political and other reasons. It should be remembered that it took several years for the UK to deregulate, and far-reaching structural changes may sometimes benefit from a little patience. (This is something that Western advisors o
44、ccasionally appear to neglect when dealing with developing countries). Progress of public transport reform in Europe Generally speaking, the major European countries have still to initiate the recommended reform programs for public transport, as they have maintained their public monopolies. Although
45、 the table above shows Western Europe, the same is true of the majority of new EU members from the former socialist Eastern Europe. (In the countries listed above as having predominantly regulated monopolies, there may be individual cities that have initiated reform.) The forerunners of the controll
46、ed competition scheme in Europe are the Scandinavian countries and, to some extent, France. However, the difference is that in Scandinavia and London, routes or route packages are subject to bidding, while in France management contracts are being tendered. The main deregulated market is still the UK
47、. However, after their independence from the Soviet Union, the Baltic states(Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) have promoted market economy reform and liberalization, including the public transport sector. As a result, the familiar pattern in developing countries has appeared in Baltic cities, now domi
48、nated by minibuses.(This is true of many Russian cities). 译文 国际视野的城市公共交通 资料来源 : 城市交通发展 作者： 汉斯俄里翁 介绍 我们这个时代的显著特点就是城市快速化进程在所谓的发展中国家仍在进行。当英国人离开印度时孟加拉国是一个和哥德堡一样有约 40 万居民的城市。纽约、伦敦和巴黎是当时的大城市， 50 年之后，达卡以超过 1000 万居民被称为世界上新的特大城市。这种自然的快速增长给所有的城市功能造成了压力，尤其是城市交通循环系统。 大家一致认为公共交通是一个重要的组成部分，特别是在低收入城市。 咨询师和 顾问在为公共交
49、通系统可持续发展提供帮助方面起了重要作用。然而，这些讨论经常集中于技术，例如轨道和公共汽车是否是做好的解决方式。实际上，决定性的问题通常是自然不同的，例如： 私营和国营部门的角色是什么？ 这是福利事业还是商业？ 政府或市场力量能够决定吗？ 遵守章程还是解除干预？ 小的是漂亮的还是大的漂亮？ 公共交通工具的组织方式 西南地区的欧洲古典模型 一个公共交通系统可以从两个维度来描述，一个是网络和服务结果，另一个是组织结构。 服务结构轴从一个协调网络到一个分割网络。协调网络是是一个路线和服务的联合组合， 在联合车费系统组织的条件下由车队管理。分割网络实际上根本不是一个网络，而是一定数量的从彼此分离的单独路线。组织结构轴从一个独占的位置到完全竞争。这创造了能被看作为代表一个城市不同可能情形的四个不同组合。 欧洲古典模型由西南地区代表。这是欧洲东部和西部城市用了很多年并且很好地为他们服务的主要系统。 公共交通工具系统是唯一个 个 体 (即使它可以由不同的技术子系统组成 ， 例如公共汽车或轨 道 )，并且可能因此为整个城市提供一项联合和协调的服务。 硬币是由国营部门独占的经常不是影响价格就是面向市场的。 一个协调网络
