This is a headache for the operators of public-transport systems. It is also a problem for cities. Like it or not—and many people do not—mass public transport does some things very well. It provides a service for people who are too old, too young, too poor, too fearful or too drunk to drive or ride a bike. Trains and subways cause less pollution than cars and move people at far higher densities. The danger is that public transport could become a rump service, ever less popular and ever less good, partly because of its unpopularity. Fewer passengers mean fewer trains and buses, which leads to longer waits for those who persist with them. Cars, whether driven or driverless, will clog the roads.

對(duì)公共交通的管理者而言這是讓人頭痛的問(wèn)題马绝。對(duì)城市而言也同樣倚舀。 不論你是否喜歡公共交通，確實(shí)有很多人不喜歡鲫构，大量公共交通的存在確實(shí)有許多益處陋率。它為那些年老佩番、年幼蔓挖、貧窮、害怕或者醉酒后不能駕駛或騎行的人提供了一種出行方式埠戳【火車(chē)和地鐵比汽車(chē)造成的污染更少，同時(shí)運(yùn)輸?shù)娜藛T更多整胃。真正的問(wèn)題在于隨著公共交通越來(lái)越不受歡迎以及服務(wù)品質(zhì)降低使得其不得人心颗圣，最終使得公共交通變得可有可無(wú)。乘客變少意味著火車(chē)和巴士數(shù)量的減少屁使，這就導(dǎo)致選擇公交出行的人需要等待更長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間在岂。汽車(chē)，不論是有人駕駛還是無(wú)人駕駛蛮寂，終將占領(lǐng)道路蔽午。

To some extent, that dystopian future can be seen o? by pricing road use properly. Many cities, particularly in America, generously subsidise driving by forcing developers to provide lots of parking spaces. Elsewhere, cities have created congestion-charging zones. But that is a hopelessly crude tool. Most congestion zones in e?ect sell daily tickets to drive around as much as you like within the zone—and charge nothing to vehicles such as taxis and minicabs. It would be much better to charge for each use of a road, with higher prices for busy ones.

在某種程度上，這個(gè)并非烏托邦的未來(lái)可以通過(guò)合理的對(duì)道路使用進(jìn)行定價(jià)來(lái)避免酬蹋。許多城市及老，特別是美國(guó)的某些城市，慷慨的通過(guò)強(qiáng)制要求開(kāi)發(fā)商提供大量的停車(chē)位來(lái)支持自駕出行除嘹。在別處写半，許多城市出臺(tái)了進(jìn)城費(fèi)岸蜗。但這確實(shí)沒(méi)什么前景的粗糙手段尉咕。大多數(shù)進(jìn)城費(fèi)一次性收取一天的費(fèi)用，然后你就可以在相應(yīng)區(qū)域內(nèi)隨意行駛璃岳，但對(duì)出租車(chē)卻不收取任何費(fèi)用年缎。對(duì)每一條道路單獨(dú)收費(fèi)，并且對(duì)多次通行者收取更高的費(fèi)用將會(huì)更好铃慷。

Transport agencies should also embrace the upstarts, and copy them. Cities tend either to ignore app-based services or to try to push them o? the streets. That is understandable, given the rules-are-for-losers attitude of firms like Uber. But it is an error. Although new forms of transport often compete with old ones in city centres, they ought to complement each other in suburbs. Taxi services and e-bikes could get people to and from railway stations and bus stops, which are often inconveniently far apart outside the urban core. 運(yùn)輸公司同樣應(yīng)當(dāng)擁抱初創(chuàng)企業(yè)单芜，然后模仿他們。城市傾向于要么完全無(wú)視基于 APP 的打車(chē)服務(wù)犁柜，要么嚴(yán)禁其提供服務(wù)洲鸠。考慮到存在認(rèn)為規(guī)則只適用于弱小者的公司諸如 Uber 的存在，這是不可理解的扒腕。但這卻是個(gè)錯(cuò)誤绢淀。盡管許多新公司往往會(huì)在市中心和老公司展開(kāi)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，他們應(yīng)該在城郊補(bǔ)充對(duì)方的存在瘾腰。出租車(chē)和電動(dòng)自行車(chē)可以方便人們從地鐵站和公交站往返皆的，但對(duì)于那些遠(yuǎn)離市中心的人而言依舊不夠方便。

She’s got a ticket to ride, but she don’t care
她只有一張騎車(chē)的車(chē)票蹋盆，卻并不擔(dān)心
It is doubtful that most people make hard distinctions between public and private transport. They just want to get somewhere, and there is a cost in time, money and comfort. An ideal system would let them move across a city for a single payment, transferring from trains to taxis to bicycles as needed. Building a platform to allow that is hard, and requires much sweet-talking of legacy networks as well as technology firms—though a few cities, like Helsinki and Birmingham, in England, are trying. It is probably the secret to keeping cities moving.

許多人刻意強(qiáng)調(diào)公共和私人交通之間的卻別這點(diǎn)很讓人疑惑费薄。人們想要去往某地，而在這個(gè)過(guò)程中會(huì)產(chǎn)生時(shí)間栖雾、金錢(qián)和舒適度的成本楞抡。理想化的體系應(yīng)當(dāng)使得人們只需單次付費(fèi)就可以橫穿城市，并且可以依據(jù)需求換火車(chē)岩灭、出租車(chē)或者自行車(chē)拌倍。構(gòu)建這樣的一個(gè)體系困難重重，并且需要在立法體系和可以公司之間往來(lái)溝通噪径，仍然柱恤，一些城市比如赫爾辛斯基以及伯明翰正在努力嘗試。這或許就是使得城市保持運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的秘密找爱。