金融時報:擴建機場，別再猶豫

擴建機場，別再猶豫

倫敦需要增加飛機場的容量，人們開始討論各種各種方案?，F(xiàn)在沒法像二戰(zhàn)時那樣迅速做出決策，因為要考慮的因素太多了。選擇哪種方案好呢？FT在社論中給出了建議。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

laconically [l?'k?nikli] 簡潔地

sludge disposal 糞泥處理

Westminster [?westminst?] 威斯敏斯特，指英國國會

estuary ['estj?(?)r?] 入?？?/p>

Crossrail ['kr??s,re?l] 倫敦和英國東南部的快速鐵路

No more delays for London airports（743 words）

FT editorial

When Britain's war cabinet decided to build a new airport at Heathrow in 1943, its intentions were conveyed in a four-page document comprising just 28 paragraphs. The paper noted laconically the Ministry of Agriculture's concerns about the loss of arable land for the cultivation of fresh vegetables and bemoaned the need to demolish a recently completed sludge disposal works. The government was convinced that an airfield would “certainly be needed for civil purposes”. Less than three years later one was built.

These days, politicians do not of course have the excuse of war to take sweeping decisions. The hesitancy the current crop has displayed over infrastructure projects is depressing, however. For about five decades, plans to expand airport capacity in the southeast have been successively dropped after opposition at Westminster and beyond. The fate of the interim report published yesterday by Howard Davies' Airport Commission is therefore uncertain. But its central recommendation, that Britain needs two extra runways – one by 2030, the other by 2050 – is sensible and should be heeded.

London's airport facilities – which also include Gatwick, Stansted, London City and Luton – will be struggling to cope with an ever-increasing number of passengers. Heathrow, which operates at 98 per cent capacity, is overstretched, forcing travellers to endure long waits ahead of take-off and landing. The commission estimates that as things stand the capital's airports will be full by 2041.

The air crunch makes it harder to add new flight routes to fast-growing countries, such as Brazil, India and China. In the long run, this will dent Britain's competitive edge as a global corporate hub. One of the reasons businesses opt to locate their headquarters in London is the number of destinations within easy reach. Sir Howard calculates that failing to act could cost the UK £30-45bn over the next 60 years.

The commission has carefully sifted many proposals suggesting how to add capacity. Some, such as using the UK's other regional airports, were fanciful. It is hard to see why a passenger heading for London would want to land in Bristol and then take an onward train. The shortlist includes only three projects: two at Heathrow and one at Gatwick. There will also be an additional investigation into the option of building a brand new hub on the Isle of Grain in the Thames estuary, as advocated by Boris Johnson, mayor of London. Mr Johnson's £112bn dream is Victorian is in its vision, but ultimately too disruptive and costly.

The option of expanding Gatwick is, in principle, more realistic. A second runway would cost only £10-13bn and may allow London's second-largest airport to pitch itself as a credible competitor against Heathrow. For Gatwick to become a hub, however, a major airline or alliance would need to move there. While Heathrow remains open, Gatwick will always be second best.

This leaves expanding Heathrow as the only serious option. It is closer to central London than Gatwick and already hosts British Airways, the UK's flag carrier. Its connections are by far the best and will further improve as a result of the completion of Crossrail and of the western link from the Great Western Main Line. While still expensive, at £13-18bn the project offers good value for money.

The snag is its location. Heathrow is close to densely populated neighbourhoods in west London. Residents are rightly concerned about the effects that more flights would have on the levels of noise in the area – and especially on house prices. All three main political parties have acknowledged the strength of these concerns and vowed not to take a decision on airport capacity until after the next general election.

The two options shortlisted by Sir Howard – which both involve expanding the airport towards the less densely populated west – may go some way towards mitigating noise pollution – if only at the cost of annoying voters elsewhere. Were the Airport Commission to give its nod to a Heathrow expansion when it takes its final decision in 2015, supporting the plan would require political courage.

A new runway at Heathrow would not be ready until 2030 at best. Its economic benefits would not be felt for decades. Yet, delay should not be an option. If Britain wants to remain competitive in the global race – as David Cameron, prime minister, likes to describe it – the public must recognise that its rivals are already out of the blocks and halfway along the track. This is no time to be double-knotting our shoelaces.

請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.The writer considers several options, which of the following is correct in order of preference?

A.expanding Heathrow > expanding Gatwick > new hub on Thames estuary > using other UK airports

B.expanding Gatwick > expanding Heathrow > new hub on Thames estuary > using other UK airports

C.using other UK airports > expanding Heathrow > expanding Gatwick > new hub on Thames estuary

答案(1)

2.What do we know about Southeast Britain's airport projects?

A.The last time Heathrow got expanded was during the WWII.

B.New London airport proposals have been suspended for decades.

C.Food production is the major concern of the opposition.

D.Countries like Brazil, India and China are calling for new runways.

答案(2)

3.The editorial sees Mayor Johnson's new airport plan on the Thames estuary as “Victorian”, what does this mean?

A.Classic and retro.

B.Exotic and weird.

C.Complicated and costly.

D.Magnificent and grand.

答案(3)

4.What is the strongest argument for “no more delays”?

A.The Heathrow project is the most cost-efficient.

B.Next general election would be a good chance to push it forward.

C.Rivals are already expanding their airport capacity.

D.Heathrow is already overstretched.

答案(4)

* * *

(1)答案：A.expanding Heathrow > expanding Gatwick > new hub on Thames estuary > using other UK airports

解釋：作者認為最不靠譜的方案是利用英國其他地方的現(xiàn)有機場，在泰晤士河口新建機場也不靠譜。擴建倫敦的希斯羅和蓋特威克機場是最好的兩個方案。

(2)答案：B.New London airport proposals have been suspended for decades.

解釋：第一段中說，希斯羅機場是在43年提議，3年后完工的，計劃中列出了農(nóng)業(yè)部門對占用蔬菜用地的擔(dān)憂。

第二段中說，差不多半個世紀(jì)來，各種在英國東南部擴大機場容量的計劃都被擱置了。目前的反對聲（文章后面提到）主要是對噪聲和房價的擔(dān)憂，不是農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)了。

D，英國與這些國家交往日益密切顯示出了機場擴容的重要性，但不是說這些國家呼吁擴建。

(3)答案：C.Complicated and costly.

解釋：這句說的是“Victorian is in its vision, but ultimately too disruptive and costly”.

關(guān)于維多利亞風(fēng)格，讀者請腦補《唐頓莊園》中女士們穿著的龐大花哨復(fù)雜的裙子和胸飾。

(4)答案：C.Rivals are already expanding their airport capacity.

解釋：文章用最后一段反復(fù)強調(diào)這個理由：拖延不是個選項，英國需要維持競爭力，而競爭對手（比如其他歐洲國家）已經(jīng)“贏在起跑線”上了，英國沒必要“再多系一遍鞋帶了”。