期刊文献+

交通系统与交通项目评估——北美的经验及其对中国的启示 被引量:3

Evaluation of Transportation System and Project——Experiences in North American and Its Implications to China
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 从总体印象,国家层面评估框架、原则、有关法律和地方具体使用的评估方法等问题出发,本文梳理和总结北美在交通系统与交通项目评估方面的有关历史和部分经验。在此基础上,结合中国有关实践,作者探求了这些北美历史、经验的启示及其对中国的相关实践的指导意义。作者指出,合理的交通规划体制和法定过程、交通数据采集、交通资助可能性等5个因素,是保证交通系统和交通项目评估具有一定水准的前提。同时,针对这几个方面,结合中国有关情况,作者给出了相应的建议。 Economic growth as a result oftransportation investment (Or transportationinvestment as a stratagem of triggering economicgrowth) has been given more and more attention inChina by the governments at all levels. But sincemoney is always limited, one of the greatest challengesfaced by Chinese planners and decision makers ishow to correctly evaluate multiple projects or differenttransportation system plans then select the rightalternative(s). Based on the classification and analysisof selected experiences (For example, national-levellegislative framework and principles for transportationsystem or project evaluation, and the technologiesand methods used by the local-level governments orconsultant companies) of transportation system andproject evaluation in North American, taking China'srelated practices into consideration, the authors havedeveloped several implications from the NorthAmerican's experiences as well as some relatedsuggestions for China. From the author's point ofview, a rational and appropriate process oftransportation planning, systematic and long-termtransportation data collection, the relationship oftransportation funding to the quality of the relatedtransportation project/system evaluation, etc are thekey to a successful transportation project/systemevaluation.
出处 《国外城市规划》 2004年第3期62-68,共7页 Urban Planning Overseas
关键词 北美 交通系统 交通项目 数据采集 中国 交通规划 North American Transportation system Transportation Project Evaluation China Implications
  • 相关文献

参考文献22

  • 1Atlanta Regional Commission (2000), Regional Transportation Plan. Atlanta.
  • 2Brand, D. et al. (2000), Cross-harbor freight movement major investment study. Task 11 -transportation impact and benefit methodology and analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Systematics. January.
  • 3Bureau of the Budget ( 1967), Coordination of Federal Aid in Metropolitan Areas Under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitans Development Act of 1966. Circular No, A-82, Washington, D.C.
  • 4Cabot Consulting Group (1982), Transportation Energy Contingency Planning, US DOT (US Department of Transportation),Washington D.C.
  • 5Cambell, B., and Humphrey T. ( 1978 ), Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis for highway projects. NCHRP Synthesis 142. Washington D.C.: Nation',d Academy Press.
  • 6Cambridge Systetmafics. Inc. et al. (1996) Measuring and valuing transit benefits and disbenefits, TCRP Report 20. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
  • 7Cohen et al. (1978) Evaluating urban transportation system alternatives, Report DOT-P-30-78-44. Washington D.C. November.
  • 8HilI,M. (1973), Planning for multiple objectives. Regional Science Research Institute Monograph Series No.5. Amerst, MA.
  • 9Hudson,R, Wachs M. and Schoter, J. (1974) Local impact evaluation in the design of large-scale urban systems. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. 40. No.4.
  • 10ISTEA(1991,见: FWHA (1991), ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, 134(f).

同被引文献68

引证文献3

二级引证文献10

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部