扩建机场，别再犹豫

伦敦需要增加飞机场的容量，人们开始讨论各种各种方案。现在没法像二战时那样迅速做出决策，因为要考虑的因素太多了。选择哪种方案好呢？FT在社论中给出了建议。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

laconically [lə'kɔnikli] 简洁地

sludge disposal 粪泥处理

Westminster [ˈwestminstə] 威斯敏斯特，指英国国会

estuary ['estjʊ(ə)rɪ] 入海口

Crossrail ['krɔːs,reɪl] 伦敦和英国东南部的快速铁路

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.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

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

解释：作者认为最不靠谱的方案是利用英国其他地方的现有机场，在泰晤士河口新建机场也不靠谱。扩建伦敦的希斯罗和盖特威克机场是最好的两个方案。

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

解释：第一段中说，希斯罗机场是在43年提议，3年后完工的，计划中列出了农业部门对占用蔬菜用地的担忧。

第二段中说，差不多半个世纪来，各种在英国东南部扩大机场容量的计划都被搁置了。目前的反对声（文章后面提到）主要是对噪声和房价的担忧，不是农业生产了。

D，英国与这些国家交往日益密切显示出了机场扩容的重要性，但不是说这些国家呼吁扩建。

(3)答案：C.Complicated and costly.

解释：这句说的是“Victorian is in its vision, but ultimately too disruptive and costly”.

关于维多利亚风格，读者请脑补《唐顿庄园》中女士们穿着的庞大花哨复杂的裙子和胸饰。

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

解释：文章用最后一段反复强调这个理由：拖延不是个选项，英国需要维持竞争力，而竞争对手（比如其他欧洲国家）已经“赢在起跑线”上了，英国没必要“再多系一遍鞋带了”。