剑桥雅思6Test2Passage1译文

雅思为各位考生推荐复习材料-剑桥英语6Test2Passage1译文-公共交通的优势,相应的解析，请点击：剑桥雅思6test2阅读passage1原文+题目+答案解析。

PASSAGE 1 参考译文：

Advantages of public transport

公共交通的优势

A new study conducted for the World Bank by Murdoch University’s Institute for Science and Technology Policy (ISTP) has demonstrated that public transport is more efficient than cars. The study compared the proportion of wealth poured into transport by thirty-seven cities around the world. This included both the public and private costs of building, maintaining and using a transport system.

默多克大学的科技政策研究所(ISTP)为世界银行做的最新研究表明，公共交通工具的效率髙于小汽车。该研究比较了全世界37座城市公共交通投人资金所占的比例。这其中包括修建、维护和使用公交系统时的政府投人和个人开销。

The study found that the Western Australian city of Perth is a good example of a city with minimal public transport. As a result, 17% of its wealth went into transport costs. Some European and Asian cities, on the other hand, spent as little as 5%. Professor Peter Newman, ISTP Director, pointed out that these more efficient cities were able to put the difference into attracting industry and jobs or creating a better place to live.

研究显示，西澳大利亚的首府珀斯是最低限度发展公交系统的典型例子。结果是，该市的交通成本竟占政府收人的17%。然而，某些欧洲和亚洲城市的交通成本则仅有5%。研究所主任彼得?纽曼教授指出，后面这些效率更高的城市能够将更多资金投人到发展工业、扩大就业和创造更好的生活环境中去。

According to Professor Newman, the larger Australian city of Melbourne is a rather unusual city in this sort of comparison. He describes it as two cities: ‘A European city surrounded by a car-dependent one’. Melbourne’s large tram network has made car use in the inner city much lower, but the outer suburbs have the same car-based structure as most other Australian cities. The explosion in demand for accommodation in the inner suburbs of Melbourne suggests a recent change in many people’s preferences as to where they live.

纽曼认为，如此进行比较的话，规模相对较大的澳大利亚城市墨尔本则显得格外与众不同。他将其形容为双层城市：“一座欧洲城市外面裹着另一座汽车代步城。”墨尔本规模庞大的有轨电车网络大大降低了市内的汽车使用率，但远郊地区则同大多数其他澳大利亚城市一样依赖汽车交通。而该市近郊住房需求的激增正显示出近年来人们在选择居住地点时观念的变化。

Newman says this is a new, broader way of considering public transport issues. In the past, the case for public transport has been made on the basis of environmental and social justice considerations rather than economics. Newman, however, believes the

study demonstrates that ‘the auto-dependent city model is inefficient and grossly inadequate in economic as well as environmental terms’.

据纽曼教授称，这是一种更广泛考虑公共交通问题的新方式。过去在解决公共交通问题时，我们通常关心的是环境和社会的合理性，而不是经济情况。除此之外，纽曼教授认为该研究显示了“依赖汽车作为交通工具的城市发展模式不仅效率低下，而且在经济与环境发展方而也相当不足”。

Bicycle use was not included in the study but Newman noted that the two most ‘bicycle friendly’ cities considered — Amsterdam and Copenhagen — were very efficient, even though their public transport systems were ‘reasonable but not special’.

自行车没有包含在此项研究范围之内。然而，纽曼教授指出在考察研究的37座城市中，阿姆斯特丹和哥本哈根这两座自行车普及率最高的城市效率也非常高，即便他们的公共交通系统“特色全无，相当一般”。

It is common for supporters of road networks to reject the models of cities with good public transport by arguing that such systems would not work in their particular city. One objection is climate. Some people say their city could not make more use of public transport because it is either too hot or too cold. Newman rejects this, pointing out that public transport has been successful in both Toronto and Singapore and, in fact, he has checked the use of cars against climate and found ‘zero correlation’.

公路网的拥护者们普遍反对以发达的公共交通系统为标志的城市发展模式。他们坚持认为该系统在个别城市并不适用。气候是反对的理由之一。有些人说他们的城市要么夏天太热，要么冬天太冷，以至于无法充分利用公交系统。纽曼教授则否定了这一观点，他指出公交系统的发展在多伦多和新加坡地区均获得了巨大成功。事实上，他调查过是否天气糟糕人们就会使用汽车，结果发现两者之间毫无关联。

When it comes to other physical features, road lobbies are on stronger ground. For example, Newman accepts it would be hard for a city as hilly as Auckland to develop a really good rail network. However, he points out that both Hong Kong and Zurich have managed to make a success of their rail systems, heavy and light respectively, though there are few cities in the world as hilly.

当我们考虑到其他硬件条件时，公路网的支持者们就有了更充分的理由。例如，纽曼认同，对于山地城市奥克兰来说，开发真正成功的轨道交通网是一件困难的事情。然而，他指出，虽然全世界的山地城市为数不多，但香港和苏黎世都分别设法成功地建成了重型和轻型轨道交通系统。

A In fact, Newman believes the main reason for adopting one sort of transport over another is politics: ‘The more democratic the process, the more public transport is favored.’ He considers Portland, Oregon, a perfect example of this. Some years ago, federal money was granted to build a new road. However, local pressure groups forced a referendum over whether to spend the money on light rail instead. The rail proposal won and the railway worked spectacularly well. In the years that have followed, more and more rail systems have been put in, dramatically changing the nature of the city.