北京運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)-畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

1、附件 1：外文資料翻譯譯文北京運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)摘要：運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)提供了與城市郊區(qū)顯著不同的服務(wù)，這通常會(huì)導(dǎo)致有關(guān)用戶選擇交通方式的不同假設(shè)。本文所提到的仿真模型，提出了評(píng)估影響運(yùn)輸服務(wù)的政策。運(yùn)輸方式被認(rèn)為是公共交通工具，包括輕型軌道交通（輕軌）和公共汽車，加上私人轎車。在三步旅行者行為仿真模型中，使用了廣義運(yùn)輸成本的概念。它提出各類交通以及對(duì)居民的出行選擇和郊區(qū)住宅社區(qū)形態(tài)量化的建議，并使用了源自于中國北京一個(gè)典型走廊的數(shù)據(jù)。仿真結(jié)果表明：票價(jià)降低，增加公共交通的綜合能力，以及對(duì)私家車的懲罰是很有必要的，以此來提高系統(tǒng)效率和郊區(qū)的吸引力，特別是對(duì)那些低收入的人；沒有公路定價(jià)，將鼓勵(lì)中等收入居民轉(zhuǎn)向私人轎

2、車，同時(shí) , 高收入者可能因?yàn)榈缆窊頂D離開郊區(qū)；然而公共交通的改善可以吸引更多短距離和中距離的旅客，但轎車用戶對(duì)于旅行距離并不敏感。關(guān)鍵詞 ：廣義成本，公共交通，擁擠定價(jià)，運(yùn)輸服務(wù)，北京從上世紀(jì) 90 年代，中國大中城市已經(jīng)歷郊區(qū)化，而且這些城市的空間結(jié)構(gòu)逐步形成，在很大程度上依賴于交通運(yùn)輸?shù)倪M(jìn)步。由于人口爆炸和改造中心城市，許多郊區(qū)城鎮(zhèn)發(fā)展為住宅區(qū)，這些新發(fā)展城鎮(zhèn)的大部分居民受雇于中心城市或附近的工業(yè)區(qū)。例如， 80%多回龍關(guān)郊區(qū)社區(qū)的居民在北京或發(fā)達(dá)地區(qū)中心城市工作，幾乎有一半的北京社區(qū)居民受雇于朝陽區(qū)中央商務(wù)區(qū)。這些領(lǐng)域在交通系統(tǒng)規(guī)劃與提供經(jīng)營效率方面對(duì)交通政策制定者和城市規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)師提出

3、了新的挑戰(zhàn)。在許多情況下，邊沿城鎮(zhèn)通過高速公路和城市軌道連接中心城市或工業(yè)園區(qū)。相比傳統(tǒng)的城市， 郊區(qū)展覽更穩(wěn)定的運(yùn)輸使用模式， 更加依賴公共交通， 私人汽車，較少使用機(jī)動(dòng)模式（自行車，步行）。工作距離比任何單一因素對(duì)人們的交通方式的影響都大。 這樣的特點(diǎn)，可以深刻影響的人口郊區(qū)化， 并限制一些人移民到郊區(qū)。本文利用西北地區(qū)的北京作為一個(gè)測(cè)試案例，分析了運(yùn)輸服務(wù)的政策，主要是費(fèi)用和服務(wù)質(zhì)量，將影響整體運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)與城市空間結(jié)構(gòu)。本文的組織如下：第二節(jié)簡(jiǎn)要回顧最近一些有關(guān)運(yùn)輸方式選擇的文獻(xiàn)，并與海城市海城走廊案件，特別是中國的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行比較。第三部分討論廣義運(yùn)輸成本的概念，并建立了新的概念，包括利用廣

4、義成本和轉(zhuǎn)移成本預(yù)算的障礙。第四節(jié)在公共運(yùn)輸和駕駛之間介紹旅客運(yùn)輸方式選擇行為仿真模型，然后轉(zhuǎn)向注意中國經(jīng)驗(yàn)運(yùn)輸服務(wù)政策與海城市海城出行方式選擇。在第五節(jié)中，特別提到的情況是，利用北京的輕軌和高速公路，西北地區(qū)迅速郊區(qū)化。在第六節(jié)中，得出主要研究結(jié)果和政策啟示。大量的研究機(jī)構(gòu)在研究運(yùn)輸方式和個(gè)體出行方式的選擇。一般來說，有三種常見的方法來確定這個(gè)問題。第一部分著重研究影響選擇決策的每個(gè)模式的特點(diǎn)，所采用的實(shí)證研究狀況用于改變結(jié)果，研究人與旅游目的等。例如， travel-to-work 行為在阿克拉 （加納）主要由知覺服務(wù)品質(zhì)、 商業(yè)通勤車以及員工的個(gè)人情況決定，而不是通過訪問，等待時(shí)間或車載

5、。在英國，為了走親訪友而決定行程，經(jīng)濟(jì)因素在很大程度上解釋模式的選擇，使用私人交通工具時(shí)定性的理由往往是次要的（科恩、哈里斯， 1998）。約翰松等使用瑞典上班者的圖片案例表明了靈活性和舒適性這兩個(gè)感覺影響個(gè)人的選擇模式。根據(jù)在法蘭克福，德國的實(shí)驗(yàn)領(lǐng)域研究和統(tǒng)計(jì)分析，認(rèn)為有四類人。一類人很少重視金錢和時(shí)間因素，第二種人非常重視金錢但很不重視時(shí)間，第三種人都重視，第四種人很少重視金錢但很重視時(shí)間。林坦庫等人選自來自 1998 年的數(shù)據(jù)，即荷蘭國家旅游調(diào)查組確認(rèn)空間配置，土地利用和交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，對(duì)長(zhǎng)途旅行模式比如通勤，商務(wù)和休閑旅行具有重大影響。廣義運(yùn)輸成本的概念經(jīng)常用于評(píng)估和解釋的旅游行為。廣義

6、旅行成本包括旅行時(shí)間，超過時(shí)間，金錢成本，停車收費(fèi)，和一些令人忽視的小費(fèi)。然而，這一概念在不同的文獻(xiàn)因?yàn)椴煌难芯磕康氖遣煌摹＠?，廣義騎自行車費(fèi)用如下：旅行時(shí)間，物理需要，舒適，交通安全，自行車被盜的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，停放自行車的費(fèi)用以及維護(hù)費(fèi)用，個(gè)人安全。貨幣化的廣義概念通常是將旅行時(shí)間轉(zhuǎn)換成貨幣費(fèi)用，增加的費(fèi)用，收取的費(fèi)用，在這項(xiàng)研究中，模擬通勤出行行為，三個(gè)運(yùn)輸關(guān)于概念費(fèi)用是相通的。第一個(gè)可以被定義為預(yù)算障礙，包括經(jīng)營費(fèi)用，養(yǎng)路費(fèi)以及停車場(chǎng)收費(fèi)。第二個(gè)是貨幣化的廣義成本和時(shí)間成本，包括經(jīng)營費(fèi)用，以及停車費(fèi)用。用戶被假定為盡量減少個(gè)人的貨幣化成本，把自己的出行方有別于旅行時(shí)間和費(fèi)用成本。廣義貨幣化

7、成本的公共交通是計(jì)算訪問到火車站的時(shí)間，等候時(shí)間，這是計(jì)算的基礎(chǔ)上的進(jìn)展，等車時(shí)間，以及票價(jià)。貨幣化費(fèi)用包括旅行時(shí)間，收費(fèi)，汽車運(yùn)行成本和在工作地方的停車場(chǎng)收費(fèi)。第三個(gè)概念是確定模式轉(zhuǎn)移成本即擁擠造成不適的成本。據(jù)推測(cè)，如果乘客在車輛已遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過容量，新來的旅客會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)移到其他負(fù)擔(dān)得起的運(yùn)輸方式。貫穿城市及鄉(xiāng)村的公路通常是不僅僅可以通私人轎車，也可以通公共汽車。介于以前的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，道路定價(jià)可以大大提高用戶的剩余地區(qū)，公共交通的費(fèi)用可以大大減少因長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的旅行而造成的擁擠， 特別是，如果用戶很大程度上鐘情于公共交通。方案 2 表明高收入的旅客不得不放棄定期遷移到郊區(qū)的計(jì)劃，主要由于免費(fèi)使用的情況下所造成的嚴(yán)

8、重?cái)D塞。另一組是深深影響了中等收入的旅客，她他們從公共運(yùn)輸方式換成了私家車駕駛。公共汽車票價(jià)降低和公交線路的增加使得許多中等收入居民轉(zhuǎn)移去坐公交車，同時(shí)小汽車用戶轉(zhuǎn)移到輕軌，特別是那些短距離旅行。此外，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，一個(gè)綜合改善公共交通服務(wù)和一些私人汽車懲罰措施的政策，有利于提高系統(tǒng)效率和郊區(qū)社區(qū)的吸引力。這種綜合系統(tǒng)包括輕軌、公共汽車票價(jià)的降低，服務(wù)質(zhì)量的提高和公路通行費(fèi)的征收。應(yīng)該指出，輕軌已旨在增加公交扶手使公共交通更吸引用戶，從而，減少道路擁擠。根據(jù)模擬結(jié)果，輕鐵及巴士票價(jià)減少以及客容量的增加，使這一模式對(duì)于那些中低收入旅行者更有吸引力。最后的結(jié)果是，越來越多的人移民到郊區(qū)，不論是低收入到

9、高收入階層。當(dāng)然，公共交通服務(wù)的改善需要政府補(bǔ)貼，這也是一個(gè)世界性的現(xiàn)象。每個(gè)模式的經(jīng)濟(jì)旅行距離幾乎不受不同的運(yùn)輸服務(wù)的政策影響。公共汽車是用于短距離的旅行，而中、長(zhǎng)距離者喜歡輕鐵。反之，小汽車用戶則是無所謂。結(jié)果表明，這些低收入公民因現(xiàn)有運(yùn)輸服務(wù)的政策限制遷移到郊區(qū)的經(jīng)濟(jì)房屋，包括相對(duì)高收費(fèi)的公共交通和公路，以及有限的輕軌和公交線路。當(dāng)然，所有運(yùn)輸模式對(duì)于在家工作的人在一定程度上都有影響。城市交通在整個(gè)世界中都是是政府政策的一個(gè)主要領(lǐng)域。運(yùn)輸政策也會(huì)影響城市形態(tài)，尤其是郊區(qū)化。 在北京，許多經(jīng)濟(jì)公寓是專為那些低收入居民建造準(zhǔn)備的。在重大問題的決策之前有兩個(gè)主要的問題。首先，從過去的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，大量

10、在郊區(qū)社區(qū)中的永久居民都是中等或更高收入的人。而且很多的業(yè)主仍然居住在城市中心，郊區(qū)房子只用來去度假。此外，居民不斷投訴交通擁堵和相對(duì)高的收費(fèi)公路，特別是在繁忙時(shí)間。本研究的模擬結(jié)果解釋了這些現(xiàn)象并嘗試給出了相應(yīng)的政策含義。附件 2：外文原文Transport systemAbstractTransport systems offer substantially different services in city-suburb areas; this usually leads to different assumptions aboutuserbehaviorin transport mo

11、de choice. In this paper a simulation model is proposed to assess the effect of transportservice policies on mode choice. The transport modes considered are public transport, including light rail transit (LRT) andbus, together with the private auto.In the three step traveler behaviour simulation mod

12、el, the concept of generalised transport costs is used. Various transitincentives are proposed and their impacts on residents travel choice andsuburban residential community form are quantified, using data on a typical city-suburb corridor in Beijing, China.The simulation results show that: the fare

13、 reduction and capacity increase of public transport integrated with private cardisincentives is necessary to improve system efficiency and suburb community attractiveness, particularly for those lowincome people; without highway pricing, medium income residents will be encouraged to shift to privat

14、e car while morehigh income persons might leave the suburb because of road congestion; public transport improvement can attract moreshort and medium distance travelers, but the car users are not sensitive to travel distance.Keywords: generalised cost, public transport, congestion pricing, transport

15、service, BeijingFrom the middle of 1990s, metropolitans in China havebeen experiencing suburbanization, and the spatialstructures of these cities are shaped, in large measure, bythe advances of transportation. Many suburban towns weredevelopment only for residential areas because of thepopulation ex

16、plosion and renovation in central cities.Mostof the residents in these new development towns areemployed in the central city or near industrial parks. Forexample, more than 80% residents of Huilongguansuburban community in Beijing have jobs in central cityor developedCBD areas. And almost halfof the

17、 residents in Wangjing community are employed inCBD in Chaoyang District. Theseareaspresentnew challengesfor transport policy makersand urban planning designers to plan and operate efficienttransportation systems.In many cases the edge towns are connected to the centralcity or industrial parks by hi

18、gh-speed highways and urbanrails. Compared to traditional urban areas, the suburbantowns exhibit more stable transport mode use, morereliance on public transport and private automobile, lessuse of non-motorized modes (bicycle, walking). Home towork distances have a stronger bearing on people stransp

19、ortmode to work than any single factor. Such characteristics can deeply influence thepopulation suburbanization, and restrict some people fromimmigrating to the suburb.This paper analyses how the transport service policy,mainly fare and service quality, will impact the overalltransport system perfor

20、mance and urban spatial structure,using the North-west area of Beijing as a test case. Thepaper is organized as follows. Section II briefly reviewssome of the recentliteratures on transport mode choice,and compares these studies with the city-suburban corridorcases, especially the current conditions

21、 in China. SectionIII discussesthe concept of generalised transport costs, andestablishesthe new concepts including budget barrier,monetized generalised cost and shift cost. Section IVpresents the traveler behaviour simulation model oftransport mode choice between public transport and driving.Attent

22、ion is then turned to the Chinese experience oftransport service policy and city-suburban travel modechoice in section V, with special reference to the case ofNorth-west area which is a rapidly suburbanized regionserved by light rail and highway in Beijing. Major findingsof the research and the poli

23、cy implications are concludedand discussed in section .A substantial body of research exists on transport modeand individual travel mode choice. In general, there arethree common approaches to identify this issue. The firstpart of researches focuses on determining thecharacteristics of each mode whi

24、ch influence the choicedecision. The results change with the adopted empiricalcase condition, studiedperson and travel purpose, etc.Forexample,travel-to-work behavior in Accra (Ghana) isinfluenced mainly by perceived service quality of thecommercial commuter vehicles as well as employeespersonalcirc

25、umstances rather than by access, waiting orin-vehicle times (Abane, 1993). For trips made to visitfriends and relatives in Britain, the economic reasonslargely explain mode choice, and qualitative reasons forusing private transport are often secondary (Cohen andHarris, 1998). Vredin Johansson et el.

26、 used a sample ofSwedishcommuters to prove that both attitudes towardsflexibility and comfort influencing the individuals choiceof mode (Vredin Johansson, Heldt et al., 2006). Basedonan experimental field study and statistical analysisconducted in Frankfurt Main, Germany, four classes ofindividuals

27、were identifed. One class allocates a lowimportance to both monetary and time considerations, thesecond allocates high importance to money and lowimportance to time, the third allocates high importance toboth, and the fourth allocates a low importance to moneyand a high importance to time (Davidov,

28、Yang-Hansen etal., 2006). And Limtanakool etel. employed data from the1998 Netherlands National Travel Survey to confirm thespatial configuration of land use and transportinfrastructure has a significant impact on mode choiceprocesses for medium and long distance trips for allpurposes: commute, busi

29、ness, and leisure tripsGeneralised transport costs is a concept frequently used forassessing and explaining travel behaviour. The generalisedcosts of travel include the travel time, excess time, money cost,parking charge, and the discomfort and lesser connivance. However, this concept is diverse ind

30、ifferent literatures for varying research purposes. Forexample, the generalised costs of cycling are the following:travel time, physical needs, comfort, traffic safety, risk ofbicycle theft, costs of parking bicycles and maintenancecosts,personal security. Andthe concept of monetized generalised cos

31、t is usuallycalculated by converting travel time into monetary cost,and adding the cost of the fare chargedIn this study, for simulating the commuter travelbehaviour,s three transport costs related concepts areadopted in order. The first can be defined as budget barrier,including the fare or toll ch

32、arged together with parking costwhich all means cash payment in the trip. The second oneis monetized generalized cost including fare, parking andtime cost. Users are assumed to minimize individualmonetized generalized trip cost and dividethemselvesamong the travel modes that are differentiated in tr

33、aveltime and fare cost. The monetized generalized costs ofpublic transport is computed as a function of the accesstime to the station, the waiting time which is calculatedbased on the line s headway, in-vehicle travel time, and thefare. The monetized generalized cost of driving includestravel time,

34、toll, car operation cost and parking charge inwork place. The third concept is identified as mode shiftcost which means discomfort cost caused by congestion. Itis assumed that if the passengers in vehicle have farexceeded the capacity, the new coming passenger will shiftto other affordable transport

35、 mode.The city-suburb highway is usually used not only byprivate auto, but the bus. Usingthe previous experience，road pricing can greatly increase users surplus in the areawhere the cost of public transport can be significantlyreduced by decreasing congestion becauseof the longtravel distances invol

36、ved, Particularly, if a substantialportion of users are captive to public transport. The results of scenario 2 show that more highincome travelers have to abandon the plan of migrating tosuburb mainly owing to the serious congestion on thecondition of free use. Another deeply influenced group ismedi

37、um income travelers who shift from public transportmodes to car driving.Bus fare reduction and bus lines increase make manymedium income residents shift tobustransport, meanwhilethe car users shift to light rail, particularly those who travelfor short distances. Furthermore, the research finds that

38、anintegrated policy of improved public transport service andsome private car disincentives is beneficial to improvesystem efficiency andsuburbcommunityattractiveness.The integration consists of light rail and bus fare reduction,service quality improvement and highway toll imposition.It should be poi

39、nted out that light rail has been designed toincrease transit rider ship by making public transport moreattractive to users and, thus, to reduce road congestion.According to the simulation result, the light rail and busfare reduction and capacity increase makes this mode moreattractive to those low

40、and medium income travelers whoare captive to bus mode before. The final outcome is thatmore people can migrant to the suburb, from low to highincome classes. Of course, the public transport serviceimprovement requires government subsidization, which isa worldwide phenomenon.The economic travel distance of each mode is almost notaffectedby different transport service policies. Bus is usedmore by short distance travele