基于成本效益的三种公路拥挤管理方案比较研究

近年来针对高速公路拥挤问题出现了一些新颖的交通需求管理方案,如高承载率车辆专用车道、高承载率收费道路和＂公平＂道路等。为评价、比较这些方案的实施效果,作者首先定性地比较了三种方案的系统特征,然后在同一实验网络上对方案的成本效益进行了分析。此外,考虑到交通需求总量、高峰持续时间和平均出行距离的变动,对三种方案效果进行了灵敏度分析。研究结论表明：三种收费方案相对不采取任何交通管理措施均有改善,其中高承载率收费道路和＂公平＂道路方案效益更加明显,经济可行性更好;在方案的灵敏度分析中,交通需求量对三种方案的＂效益成本比＂影响最大。基于方案灵敏度分析得出高速公路交通拥挤程度越严重,＂公平＂道路方案的效益成本比越高,并且,该方案利用信用补贴机制兼顾了社会公平性问题,有助于提高该方案的社会接受程度。

Comparison of Three Highway Congestion Management Schemes Based on Cost-benefit Analysis

A few innovative schemes have recently emerged to efficiently manage highway congestion probolem. The high-occupancy vehicle （HOV） lanes, the high-occupancy toll （HOT） roads, and the fast and intertwined regular （FAIR） roads are three typical instances, which are widely adepted or discussed. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the three schemes, a qualitative comparison wets firstly conducted among the three concepts, and then a cost-benefit analysis of the three schemes was executed on at prototype highway network. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was presented to reveal how the variations of traffic demand, peak duration time, and average trip distance influenced the performance of the three schemes. The results showed that： all the three schemes effectively re traffic congestion as compared to the base case without any measures. The HOT and leased the FAIR roads produced higher benefits and thus possessed better feasibility than the HOV lanes. The variation of the traffic demand has significant influence on the benefit-cost ratio （BCR） of the three schemes. The FAIR roads generated higher BCRwhen the highway traffic congestion became more sever, and the FAIR scheme might receive better social acceptance because the design of credit distribution addressed the social equity issues of low income travelers .