2012年7月底，倫敦將迎來舉世矚目的第30屆奧運(yùn)會(huì)。按理說，這是讓所有倫敦人乃至英國人都引以為豪的盛事。但事實(shí)是，自倫敦申奧成功以來，不少英國民眾對之嗤之以鼻、埋怨不已、質(zhì)疑不斷，更有甚者還計(jì)劃著奧運(yùn)期間“大逃亡”。這不免讓人疑惑：英國人如此“恐奧”究竟為哪般？

Everyone from politicians to pole vaulters1) has waxed2) lyrical about the amazing London Olympics that is going to take place this summer， bringing together a nation in a blaze of feverish excitement and sporting pride. But there are those who are not quite convinced. There are criticisms from people in London that the Games will cause chaos， disrupt business and make life more difficult for many people. And there are critics hundreds of miles away from London who still can’t quite work out why they’re paying for the Games. So what are the reasons behind some people’s lack of enthusiasm?

The “Zil” lanes3)

The organisers of London 2012 are creating 30 miles of Games Lanes for use by the “Olympic family4).” The lanes apply to major routes across London that have two or more carriageways5) and will be used by 4，000 BMWs and 1，500 coaches6) ferrying around Olympic VIPs， athletes， sponsors and the media. It has created anger about congestion7) and the preferential treatment of Olympic dignitaries8) and sponsors over ordinary Londoners. Anyone using the lane without authorisation will be fined heavily.

Critics have nicknamed them “Zil” lanes， a reference to the special treatment given to Zil limousines9) used by senior officials in the Soviet Union. Often it will be the bus lane that is used， and in about half of such cases， buses will be pushed into the lane for general traffic.

Cost

For some， the Games are a huge waste of public money. Originally estimated at a cost of ￡2.4bn， the budget had by 2007 ballooned10) to ￡9.3bn. Now that it looks likely to come in at11) just over ￡9.2bn， organisers are claiming that the Games are “on time and on budget.”

“It’s a colossal waste of dough12)，” says Sam Leith， a columnist for the London Evening Standard. “Imagine a builder coming to your house， giving you a quote13) for ￡300， revising it to ￡1，500 and then saying it had come in under budget. You’d be outraged.” If there was evidence to show that the Olympics boosted the host nation’s economy then that might help. But this is not the case， Leith says.

The Department of Culture， Media and Sport says: “The budget for the Games was finalised and set in 2007 at ￡9.3bn and we have been completely transparent about the anticipated final cost， giving regular， quarterly financial updates. The benefits from hosting the Games are major in social， economic and sporting terms and will be a boost to the country.”

But the economic benefits of hosting an Olympics are much disputed. Some cities， like Montreal， have suffered financially. And there have been theories that the Athens 2004 Olympics may have contributed to Greece’s catastrophe14).

What about the rest of the country?

As the last major site left in the capital， the land used for the Olympic park would have been redeveloped anyway by the private sector， says Edwin Heathcote， an architect and Financial Times writer. With London booming and short of land， it seems strange that a vast sum is being poured in， he argues. Far better to invest the money reviving deprived15) northern cities， he believes. Prof Michael Parkinson， Director of the European Institute for Urban Affairs， supports the London Olympics but regrets the repeated focus on London and the South East. “Look at the major infrastructure projects in the UK—high speed rail， Crossrail16) and the Olympics. They’re all jolly good things but they all constitute very considerable investment in London and the South East.”

Public transport chaos

In London， even for those who avoid the roads completely， there will be chaos on public transport. The Tube will get even busier and with major delays or hot summer weather could become unpleasant. The most likely black spots17) are key interchanges on the Central， Jubilee， District and Hammersmith and City lines， which feed18) two stations—Stratford and West Ham—near the Olympic Park.

King’s Cross is another potential problem as the Javelin trains19) serving Stratford International will leave from the adjacent St Pancras International. Earlier this year， Network Rail chief executive Sir David Higgins warned that “bad things will happen” to London’s transport system during the Olympics.

White elephants20)

There’s already been much talk of impressive facilities becoming white elephants once the Olympics have finished. All previous Olympics have left behind a trail of expensive， often huge， amphitheatres21) of sport which cease to have a purpose once the Games have left town.

Athens is a notorious example but even the more successful hosts like Barcelona and Sydney have their fair share of empty arenas and “tumbleweed22)” spaces. Heathcote says that the sporting infrastructure is hard to justify for a few moments of national pride.

The cost of upkeep of other facilities is another worry. The Aquatics Centre， which is being taken over by Greenwich Leisure after the Games， will be one of the most expensive pools in the world to maintain， according to Heathcote. Legacy uses have been found for the majority of the venues but the success of such arrangements will only be known in years to come.

Blanket coverage

The media will be providing blanket coverage that will be hard to escape. World Cup widows23) find the barrage24) of football for a month every four years hard to stomach25). But the Olympics is bigger and crucially is being hosted in Britain. “Any of the big sporting events tends to swamp you，” says Annie Chipchase， who campaigned against the Olympics before 2005 with NoLondon2012. “But the Olympics is even more over the top than the World Cup. I’ve been dreading this year.” The BBC as official Olympic broadcaster is using BBC One and BBC Three to cover every sport from every venue during the Olympic Games.

Roger Mosey， the BBC’s director of London 2012， argues that a balance will be maintained and that there will be “sanctuaries26) for people who don’t want to go Olympic-crazy.” But critics may respond that it won’t just be the dedicated coverage of the events but all the surrounding hype and bombast27) that makes the Olympics hard to ignore.

Grassroots sport may actually suffer

The Sport and Recreation Alliance， which tries to raise sporting participation， is backing the Games. But Tim Lamb， the group’s chief executive， says mistakes were made. “The overall budget should have contained realistic provision for achieving the legacy of participation. No Games has achieved it before and there was no reason to think that we could achieve it without careful planning and without the right funding in place.” The build-up to London 2012 has not led to mass take-up of sport and last year youth participation in sport fell， according to Sport England. Indeed critics argue the huge cost of hosting the Games has diverted money away from local sports facilities.

Natural beauty

The Olympic site is concreting over a unique urban wilderness， one of the last major undeveloped sites in London. There was something wonderful about the landscape that the Olympic site was built upon， says Chipchase. “It was this derelict28) area of east London but the wildlife had come back. You walked off Stratford High Road and you were suddenly in the country with interesting habitats and species.” It was a place for families to go and reflect away from the crowds—crowds who are a feature of what has replaced it， she argues.

Control freakery29) and sponsorship

To some， the organisers are control freaks. Critics complain that only certain food and drinks will be allowed in， items of clothing that annoy sponsors will be banned and heavy-handed30) security will prevent political expression. The Olympics Act of 2006 protects London 2012 from companies associating themselves with the Games when they’re not allowed to， something which small firms object to.

The author Iain Sinclair， who lives in Hackney， told Prospect magazine: “The only water you are allowed to buy is [sold by] Coca-Cola. The only food you are allowed to buy is McDonald’s. The access to the site is through the Westfield shopping mall … It is like an invasion.”

Lack of real regeneration

The Games may not deliver real regeneration. The London 2012 masterplan31) has led to rebuilding rather than regeneration， says Heathcote. The plan missed the chance of creating a living， working neighbourhood. “When the Victorians built new bits of London there was industry， workshops and crafts. But the economic infrastructure is not being built there today.”

Instead there is a Westfield shopping mall and a “vacuous32)” plan to develop a creative hub at the Olympic media centre， he suggests. The London Games of 1948 created a sense of “we’re all in it together，” whereas the 2012 version has a corporate feel， symbolised by the sale of the athletes’ village to the Qatari Sovereign Wealth Fund， he argues.

倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)即將于今夏拉開帷幕，這一體育盛會(huì)讓整個(gè)國家都激動(dòng)萬分并引以為榮，從政治家到撐竿跳高運(yùn)動(dòng)員，無不對之充滿熱情、滿心期待。不過，也有人不以為然。有些倫敦居民批評說，奧運(yùn)會(huì)將招致混亂，擾亂商業(yè)活動(dòng)，并且會(huì)給許多人的生活帶來不便。而遠(yuǎn)離倫敦的一些英國人也有意見，稱他們至今仍然想不通為何自己要為奧運(yùn)會(huì)埋單。那么，這些人態(tài)度如此冷淡，到底是為什么呢？

特權(quán)車道很氣人

倫敦2012年奧運(yùn)會(huì)的組織者正在為“奧林匹克大家庭”開辟長達(dá)30英里的奧運(yùn)專用車道，這些專用車道覆蓋倫敦全市的主要交通干線，設(shè)有雙車道或者更多車道，屆時(shí)可供專門接送奧運(yùn)會(huì)貴賓、運(yùn)動(dòng)員、贊助商和媒體的4000輛寶馬和1500輛大巴通行。有人對此感到憤怒，擔(dān)心這將引發(fā)交通擁堵，并且認(rèn)為這是在向奧運(yùn)會(huì)的達(dá)官顯貴和贊助商提供普通倫敦市民所沒有的特權(quán)。任何人未經(jīng)授權(quán)使用專用車道都將遭到重罰。

有批評人士借用前蘇聯(lián)高官乘坐“吉爾”豪華轎車出行時(shí)享有的特殊待遇對這些奧運(yùn)專用車道進(jìn)行譏諷，稱之為“吉爾”車道。通常情況下被征用的都是公交車道，所以大約半數(shù)情況下，公交車都將被迫改道至普通車道上行駛。

花銷巨大很窩火

有人認(rèn)為，奧運(yùn)會(huì)是對納稅人的錢的極大浪費(fèi)。主辦奧運(yùn)會(huì)最初的預(yù)算是24億英鎊，到2007年時(shí)，已猛增至93億英鎊。由于目前看實(shí)際開支可能剛剛超過92億英鎊，因此組織者稱，奧運(yùn)會(huì)籌備工作是如期展開并按預(yù)算進(jìn)行的。

“真是太浪費(fèi)錢了，”《倫敦旗幟晚報(bào)》專欄作者山姆·雷斯說，“試想一下，建筑商來給你裝修房子，開價(jià)300英鎊，后來改為1500英鎊，然后說開支控制在預(yù)算之內(nèi)。你不被氣死才怪。”假如有證據(jù)表明奧運(yùn)會(huì)確實(shí)能夠推動(dòng)主辦國的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，那還好說。但雷斯認(rèn)為事實(shí)并非如此。

英國文化、媒體和體育部稱：“奧運(yùn)會(huì)的費(fèi)用預(yù)算在2007年已經(jīng)最終確定為93億英鎊。對于預(yù)期的最終開支，我們一直堅(jiān)持完全透明的原則，每季度都會(huì)定期公布最新財(cái)務(wù)情況。舉辦奧運(yùn)會(huì)將主要惠及我國的社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和體育事業(yè)，并將推動(dòng)整個(gè)國家的發(fā)展。”

然而，關(guān)于主辦奧運(yùn)會(huì)是否有利于經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展，尚存在很大爭議。比如，像蒙特利爾(編注：1976年曾舉辦過第21屆奧運(yùn)會(huì))這樣的城市就曾蒙受過經(jīng)濟(jì)上的損失。還有理論認(rèn)為，2004年雅典奧運(yùn)會(huì)可能就是造成希臘債務(wù)危機(jī)的原因之一。

倫敦以外很郁悶

建筑師兼《金融時(shí)報(bào)》作者埃德溫·希思科特稱，作為首都剩下的最后一個(gè)重要地塊，用于建造奧林匹克公園的那片土地本來也是會(huì)交給私營企業(yè)重新開發(fā)的。他認(rèn)為，隨著倫敦急速發(fā)展和土地日趨緊張，繼續(xù)往這里投入大量資金有點(diǎn)不可思議。他相信，如果把這些資金用于振興貧困的北方城市，結(jié)果會(huì)好很多。歐洲城市事務(wù)研究學(xué)院院長邁克爾·帕金森教授支持倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)，但對過分關(guān)注倫敦和東南部地區(qū)感到有些惋惜?！翱纯从闹饕A(chǔ)設(shè)施工程——高速鐵路、軌道交通以及奧運(yùn)場館。這些工程本身都是極其利民的，但建設(shè)它們就等于把相當(dāng)大一部分資金都投入到了倫敦和東南部地區(qū)?！?/p>

交通混亂很煩人

在倫敦，即使那些徹底避開公路出行的人也將面臨公共交通方面的混亂。地鐵會(huì)變得更加繁忙，再加上嚴(yán)重延誤或酷暑天氣，乘地鐵會(huì)成為令人不快的出行經(jīng)歷。最可能出現(xiàn)混亂的將會(huì)是中央線、銀禧線、區(qū)域線和漢默史密斯及城市線的主要換乘站。這些線路均通往臨近奧林匹克公園的兩個(gè)車站——斯特拉特福德和西漢姆。

屆時(shí)，國王十字車站也將成為另一個(gè)可能發(fā)生問題的地方，因?yàn)殚_往斯特拉特福德國際車站的標(biāo)槍高速列車將從圣潘克拉斯國際車站發(fā)車，而圣潘克拉斯國際車站就緊挨著國王十字車站。今年年初，軌道交通網(wǎng)公司首席執(zhí)行官大衛(wèi)·希金斯爵士曾提出警告，奧運(yùn)期間倫敦交通系統(tǒng)“會(huì)出現(xiàn)糟糕狀況”。

“白象”負(fù)擔(dān)很傷神

一直以來，很多人都在談?wù)撨@樣一個(gè)問題：一旦奧運(yùn)結(jié)束，那些宏偉壯觀的奧運(yùn)設(shè)施將成為華而不實(shí)的累贅之物。以往的歷屆奧運(yùn)會(huì)都留下了一大堆造價(jià)昂貴并且常常是氣勢恢弘的比賽場館。奧運(yùn)結(jié)束后，這些場館就不再有任何用途。

在這方面，雅典可謂是眾所周知的前車之鑒。但即便是做得比較成功的巴塞羅那、悉尼等主辦城市同樣有不少閑置的場館和長滿野草的荒廢場地。希思科特說，為了轉(zhuǎn)瞬即逝的民族自豪感而去建造這些體育基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，這很難讓人認(rèn)同。

其他設(shè)施的維護(hù)成本也令人擔(dān)憂。希思科特稱，倫敦的水上運(yùn)動(dòng)中心將會(huì)是全世界維護(hù)成本最高的游泳池之一，奧運(yùn)會(huì)后，該中心將由格林威治休閑娛樂公司接管。絕大多數(shù)場館在賽后作何用途已經(jīng)都安排好了，但這樣的安排能否見效，只有等多年之后才能見分曉。

新聞轟炸很兇猛

在奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間，媒體將進(jìn)行鋪天蓋地的新聞報(bào)道，這會(huì)讓人無所遁形。在四年一次的世界杯期間，持續(xù)一個(gè)月的足球新聞的狂轟濫炸已然讓“世界杯寡婦”們“吃不消”了，而如今奧運(yùn)會(huì)的規(guī)模更大，關(guān)鍵在于它還是在英國舉辦?！叭魏未笮腕w育賽事往往都讓人招架不住，”2005年之前就加入“反2012倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)”組織以抵制奧運(yùn)會(huì)的安妮·奇普切斯說，“奧運(yùn)會(huì)比世界杯更要命。今年來我一直都提心吊膽的。”奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間，BBC作為奧運(yùn)會(huì)官方轉(zhuǎn)播商，將動(dòng)用BBC第一頻道和第三頻道報(bào)道所有場館的每一項(xiàng)賽事。

BBC主管2012年倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)賽事轉(zhuǎn)播的總監(jiān)羅杰·莫塞稱，他們將平衡觀眾的需求，會(huì)為那些“不愿陷入奧運(yùn)狂熱的人們提供‘避難所’”。但批評人士會(huì)認(rèn)為，讓人無法對奧運(yùn)會(huì)視而不見的不僅僅是媒體對賽事進(jìn)行的熱切報(bào)道，還有周遭那些無處不在的宣傳炒作和虛張聲勢。

草根體育很受傷

致力于促進(jìn)大眾參與體育運(yùn)動(dòng)的體育與娛樂聯(lián)合會(huì)一直力挺奧運(yùn)會(huì)。不過，該組織負(fù)責(zé)人蒂姆·蘭姆認(rèn)為有些事情做得不對?！皧W運(yùn)會(huì)的整體預(yù)算中原本應(yīng)該包含切實(shí)的資金準(zhǔn)備來實(shí)現(xiàn)賽事過后全民運(yùn)動(dòng)的目標(biāo)。以前，沒有任何一屆奧運(yùn)會(huì)在促進(jìn)全民運(yùn)動(dòng)方面有所成就。而如果沒有認(rèn)真的規(guī)劃和合理的資金分配，我們就沒有理由相信倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)?！睋?jù)《英格蘭體育》報(bào)道，為倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)大造聲勢并沒有推動(dòng)民眾廣泛參與體育，而且去年參與體育運(yùn)動(dòng)的青年人數(shù)還有所減少。事實(shí)上，有批評人士認(rèn)為，主辦奧運(yùn)會(huì)所花的巨額費(fèi)用等于是挪用了本應(yīng)投入到地方體育設(shè)施建設(shè)的資金。

自然之美很難尋

奧運(yùn)會(huì)的場址選在市內(nèi)唯一的一片荒地上，而這也是倫敦最后幾片尚未開發(fā)的重要地段之一。奇普切斯說，這一奧運(yùn)會(huì)場址所在地本來有著獨(dú)特的自然風(fēng)光?！耙苍S正是有了倫敦東區(qū)這片被遺忘的角落，才有了野生動(dòng)植物的回歸。從斯特拉特福德公路上下來，驀然間你會(huì)覺得置身在一個(gè)滿是有趣的動(dòng)植物棲息地和物種的鄉(xiāng)村之中?！彼J(rèn)為，這個(gè)地方本來可以讓許多家庭遠(yuǎn)離擁擠的人群靜思冥想——而如今這里也變得擁擠繁忙。

觀看奧運(yùn)很不便

在有些人看來，奧運(yùn)會(huì)的組織者們都是“控制狂”。批評人士抱怨說，只有特定的食品和飲料才允許帶入奧運(yùn)賽場，衣物上不能有引起贊助商不快的標(biāo)識，而且異常嚴(yán)格的安保措施不會(huì)允許任何人表達(dá)政治訴求。根據(jù)2006年簽署的《奧林匹克協(xié)議》，在未經(jīng)批準(zhǔn)的情況下，企業(yè)不得擅自將自己與2012年倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)關(guān)聯(lián)起來，這遭到眾多小公司的反對。

居住在哈克尼的作家艾因·辛克萊爾對《展望》雜志說：“買水只能買可口可樂(售出的)；買食物只能買麥當(dāng)勞的。進(jìn)入奧林匹克公園必須經(jīng)過西田購物中心……這簡直就像侵略。”

經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇成空談

奧運(yùn)會(huì)或許并不能帶來真正的經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇。希思科特認(rèn)為，倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)的總體規(guī)劃的著眼點(diǎn)是重建而不是復(fù)蘇。這一規(guī)劃錯(cuò)失了創(chuàng)建有利于生活與工作的社區(qū)的機(jī)遇?！熬S多利亞女王時(shí)代的人們在一磚一瓦建造新倫敦的同時(shí)，也孕育了工業(yè)、工廠以及各種行業(yè)。但現(xiàn)在，我們卻沒有看到任何經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施被建造起來?！?/p>

他指出，取而代之的是建立一座西田購物中心以及在奧運(yùn)媒體中心修建一個(gè)創(chuàng)意中心的“空洞”計(jì)劃。他表示，1948年的倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)曾給人以“我們都是其中一分子”的感覺，而2012年的這一屆卻讓人感到濃重的商業(yè)意味，其突出表現(xiàn)就是連運(yùn)動(dòng)員村都賣給了卡塔爾主權(quán)財(cái)富基金公司。

1.pole vaulter：撐竿跳高者

2.wax [w?ks] vi. (講話的口氣)變得

3.“Zil” lanes：“吉爾”專用通道，這里代指特權(quán)車道。在前蘇聯(lián)時(shí)期，莫斯科在主要交通干線上曾設(shè)有專供載有高級官員的吉爾牌豪華轎車行駛的通道，因而這些通道被稱為“吉爾”通道。

4.Olympic family：奧林匹克大家庭，這是對所有參與奧林匹克運(yùn)動(dòng)的個(gè)人和組織的統(tǒng)稱，主要成員包括國際奧委會(huì)、國際單項(xiàng)體育聯(lián)合會(huì)、國家和地區(qū)奧委會(huì)、夏季和冬季奧運(yùn)組委會(huì)以及參與奧林匹克運(yùn)動(dòng)的運(yùn)動(dòng)員、教練員、官員、高級贊助商以及對奧運(yùn)會(huì)進(jìn)行報(bào)道的媒體等。

5.carriageway [?k?r?d??we?] n. 車道

6.coach [k??t?] n. 長途汽車，巴士

7.congestion [k?n?d?est?(?)n] n. 堵塞，擁塞

8.dignitary [?d?ɡn?t(?)ri] n. 高官，顯要人物

9.limousine [?l?m??zi?n] n. 豪華轎車

10.balloon [b??lu?n] vi. 激增，飛速增長

11.come in at：花費(fèi)(一定數(shù)量)

12.dough [d??] n. 〈美俚〉錢，金錢

13.quote [kw??t] n. 報(bào)價(jià)，開價(jià)

14.Greece’s catastrophe：指希臘債務(wù)危機(jī)。2009年末，希臘財(cái)政赤字嚴(yán)重，公共債務(wù)占GDP的比重十分高，這導(dǎo)致希臘的長期主權(quán)信貸評級下調(diào)一檔，從而引發(fā)了這場危機(jī)。

15.deprived [d??pra?vd] adj. 貧困的，困乏的

16.Crossrail：倫敦正在建設(shè)的一個(gè)鐵路項(xiàng)目，該鐵路連接著倫敦的東部與中西部，西至梅登黑德(Maidenfield)與希思羅機(jī)場(Heathrow)，東至謝菲爾德(Shenfield)與阿貝伍德(Abbey Wood)，并將并入倫敦地鐵網(wǎng)中。

17.black spot：(危機(jī)等的)焦點(diǎn)；不景氣地區(qū)；發(fā)生困難的地區(qū)；(道路的)交通事故多發(fā)地段

18.feed [fi?d] vt. 駛向，通往

19.Javelin train：標(biāo)槍高速列車，指英國2009年從日本引進(jìn)的高鐵列車，往返于倫敦的圣潘克勒斯國際車站與肯特郡的阿什福德車站，倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間還將往返于圣潘克勒斯國際車站和倫敦東部奧運(yùn)場館所在地斯特拉特福德之間。

20.white elephant：累贅物，尤指耗費(fèi)巨額資金但卻毫無用處的事物

21.amphitheatre [??mf??θ??t?(r)] n. 圓形劇場

22.tumbleweed [?t?mb(?)l?wi?d] n. [植]風(fēng)滾草

23.World Cup widow：世界杯寡婦，指每當(dāng)四年一次的世界杯來臨時(shí)，熱愛足球的男士們紛紛離家去看世界杯比賽，使得在家的女士好像成了“寡婦”似的。

24.barrage [?b?rɑ??] n. 齊射式的攻擊

25.stomach [?st?m?k] vt. 容忍，忍受

26.sanctuary [?s??kt?u?ri] n. 庇護(hù)所，避難所

27.bombast [b?m?b?st] n. 夸大的言辭

28.derelict [?der?l?kt] adj. 被遺棄的

29.freakery [?fri?kiri] n. 奇怪的行為，狂熱分子

30.heavy-handed：嚴(yán)厲的，苛刻的

31.masterplan [?mɑ?st?(r)pl?n] n. 總體設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)劃

32.vacuous [?v?kj??s] adj. 空虛的，空洞的