Mass transportation revised the social and economic fabric of the American city in three fundamental ways. It catalyzed physical expansion, it sorted out people and land uses, and it accelerated the inherent instability of urban life. By opening vast areas of unoccupied land for residential expansion, the omnibuses, horse railways, commuter trains, and electric trolleys pulled settled regions outward two to four times more distant form city centers than they were in the premodern era. In 1850, for example, the borders of Boston lay scarcely two miles from the old business district; by the turn of the century the radius extended ten miles. Now those who could afford it could live far removed from the old city center and still commute there for work, shopping, and entertainment. The new accessibility of land around the periphery of almost every major city sparked an explosion of real estate development and fueled what we now know as urban sprawl. Between 1890 and 1920, for example, some 250,000 new residential lots were recorded within the borders of Chicago, most of them located in outlying areas. Over the same period, another 550,000 were plotted outside the city limits but within the metropolitan area. Anxious to take advantage of the possibilities of commuting, real estate developers added 800,000 potential building sites to the Chicago region in just thirty years - lots that could have housed five to six million people.
　　Of course, many were never occupied; there was always a huge surplus of subdivided, but vacant, land around Chicago and other cities. These excesses underscore a feature of residential expansion related to the growth of mass transportation: urban sprawl was essentially unplanned. It was carried out by thousands of small investors who paid little heed to coordinated land use or to future land users. Those who purchased and prepared land for residential purposes, particularly land near or outside city borders where transit lines and middle-class inhabitants were anticipated, did so to create demand as much as to respond to it. Chicago is a prime example of this process. Real estate subdivision there proceeded much faster than population growth.
　　1. With which of the following subjects is the passage mainly concerned?
　　[A] Types of mass transportation.
　　[B] Instability of urban life.
　　[C] How supply and demand determine land use.
　　[D] The effect of mass transportation on urban expansion.
　　2. Why does the author mention both Boston and Chicago?
　　[A] To demonstrate positive and negative effects of growth.
　　[B] To exemplify cities with and without mass transportation.
　　[C] To show mass transportation changed many cities.
　　[D] To contrast their rate of growth.
　　3. According to the passage, what was one disadvantage of residential expansion?
　　[A] It was expensive.
　　[B] It happened too slowly.
　　[C] It was unplanned.
　　[D] It created a demand for public transportation.
　　4. The author mentions Chicago in the second paragraph as an example of a city
　　[A] that is large.
　　[B] that is used as a model for land development.
　　[C] where the development of land exceeded population growth.
　　[D] with an excellent mass transportation system.
　　Vocabulary
　　1. revise 改變
　　2. fabric 結(jié)構(gòu)
　　3. catalyze 催化，
　　4. 加速
　　5. sort out 把……分門別類，
　　6. 揀選
　　7. omnibus 公共汽車/馬車
　　8. trolley （美）有軌電車，
　　9. （英）無軌電車
　　10. periphery 周圍，
　　11. 邊緣
　　12. sprawl 建筑物無計(jì)劃延伸，
　　13. 蔓延，
　　14. 四面八方散開
　　15. lot 小片土地
　　16. underscore 強(qiáng)調(diào)，
　　17. 在下面劃?rùn)M線
　　18. transit lines 運(yùn)輸線路
　　19. subdivision （出售的）小塊土地，
　　20. 再劃分小區(qū)
　　寫作方法與文章大意
　　文章論述了“公共交通從三方面改變了城市的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)。”采用分類寫法。文章一開始就提出三方面：第一，促進(jìn)城市實(shí)質(zhì)性的擴(kuò)展；第二，把人和土地分民別類加以利用；第三，加速了城市生活的不穩(wěn)定性。然后就是三方面的具體內(nèi)容。
　　答案詳解
　　1. D 公共交通運(yùn)輸對(duì)城市擴(kuò)展的影響。文章開門見山提出這一點(diǎn)“公共交通運(yùn)輸從三個(gè)根本方面改變了美國(guó)城市的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)。”后面文章內(nèi)容就是三方面的具體化。
　　A. 公共交通運(yùn)輸類型。 B. 城市生活的不
　　2. 穩(wěn)定性。 C. 供需如何決定土地利用。這三項(xiàng)文中作為具體問題提到，
　　3. 并不
　　4. 是文章涉及的主要題目。
　　5. C 說明公共交通改變了許多城市。答案箭第一段第四句“舉例說，
　　6. 1850年，
　　7. 波士頓市界離老的商業(yè)地區(qū)幾乎不
　　8. 到2英里，
　　9. 到了這世紀(jì)末，
　　10. 其半徑擴(kuò)至10英里�，F(xiàn)在供得起的人們可以住得很遠(yuǎn)，
　　11. 遠(yuǎn)離老的城市中心，
　　12. 仍然來回去那里上班、購物和娛樂”。第七句，
　　13. “舉例說，
　　14. 在1890至1920年期間，
　　15. 據(jù)記載，
　　16. 芝加哥市界內(nèi)有約250，
　　17. 000個(gè)新的住宅樓區(qū)大多數(shù)設(shè)在郊區(qū)。經(jīng)過同
　　18. 樣這段時(shí)期，
　　19. 市區(qū)外，
　　20. 但仍在芝加哥大都市地區(qū)內(nèi)，
　　21. 又計(jì)劃建造了550，
　　22. 000個(gè)住宅樓區(qū)。”
　　A. 表示成長(zhǎng)的正反兩方面效果。B. 舉有無公共交通運(yùn)輸?shù)某鞘袨槔��?D. 對(duì)比兩者成長(zhǎng)率；都不
　　23. 是本文中舉兩城市例子的目的。
　　24. C 沒有計(jì)劃。見第二段第三句起“城市擴(kuò)展蔓延根本無計(jì)劃，
　　25. 好幾千個(gè)小的投資商進(jìn)行擴(kuò)展，
　　26. 毫不
　　27. 考慮相互協(xié)調(diào)配合利用土地，
　　28. 也不
　　29. 考慮未來土地利用。”
　　A. 太貴 和 B.太慢，
　　30. 兩個(gè)選項(xiàng)，
　　31. 文內(nèi)沒有提。D. 它創(chuàng)造了對(duì)公共交通運(yùn)輸?shù)男枨�。這不
　　32. 是住宅擴(kuò)展的一個(gè)缺點(diǎn)，而
　　33. 是三個(gè)根本改變城市的一個(gè)方面。見第一段第三句：“通過大量開發(fā)未占土地?cái)U(kuò)建住宅，
　　34. 公共汽車、馬車、鐵路、來回火車，
　　35. 有軌電車把已有人定居的居住區(qū)向外擴(kuò)展了三四倍，
　　36. 比他們先現(xiàn)代時(shí)期的市中心更遠(yuǎn)。”
　　37. C（第二段中以芝加哥城市例子說明）土地開發(fā)超過人口增長(zhǎng)速度。答案詳見第二段“這些購買和置備
　　38. 土地建設(shè)住宅，
　　39. 特別是購置臨近城市或就在市界外的土地，
　　40. 搶在交通線路和中產(chǎn)階層的居民進(jìn)去之前。他們這樣做的目的是創(chuàng)造一種需求，
　　41. 也是響應(yīng)這種需求。芝加哥就是這種過程的典型例子。那里的房地產(chǎn)小塊土地比人口增長(zhǎng)快得很多很多。”
　　A. 城市大。B. 用作土地開發(fā)的樣板。 D. 具有優(yōu)越的公共的交通系統(tǒng)。