促进主动交通:路径和价格比较评估

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Darja Mihailova, Colin Vance
{"title":"促进主动交通:路径和价格比较评估","authors":"Darja Mihailova, Colin Vance","doi":"10.1007/s11116-024-10520-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The time people spend traveling has far reaching implications for their health and for environmental outcomes. Urban planning paradigms—such as that of the \"15-minute city\"—have consequently endeavoured to bring key services and amenities to residents within a walkable or cycleable 15–20-minute distance. These efforts notwithstanding, the policy levers that influence travel-related time allocation remain poorly understood. Drawing on a panel of household travel data from Germany covering 2005–2020, the present study analyses the role of 2 such levers—bicycle/pedestrian paths and fuel prices—as determinants of time allocation across modes. We start with a descriptive analysis that identifies a stable average travel time expenditure ranging between 65–70 min for women and 75–80 min for men until 2020, when it dropped precipitously as COVID-19 spread. We subsequently estimate fractional response models to identify the influence of the policy variables on time expenditures across motorized, nonmotorized, and public transit modes. We complete the analysis by feeding the model estimates into the World Heath Organization’s on-line Health and Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) to quantify the health and environmental impacts of the planned expansion of the bike path network in the city of Munich, comparing this with the impact of Germany’s recently introduced carbon tax on fuel. Both measures result in substantial benefits, with the implementation of the tax yielding a considerably higher benefit/cost ratio owing to its lower cost of implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49419,"journal":{"name":"Transportation","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promoting active transportation: A comparative assessment of paths and prices\",\"authors\":\"Darja Mihailova, Colin Vance\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11116-024-10520-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The time people spend traveling has far reaching implications for their health and for environmental outcomes. Urban planning paradigms—such as that of the \\\"15-minute city\\\"—have consequently endeavoured to bring key services and amenities to residents within a walkable or cycleable 15–20-minute distance. These efforts notwithstanding, the policy levers that influence travel-related time allocation remain poorly understood. Drawing on a panel of household travel data from Germany covering 2005–2020, the present study analyses the role of 2 such levers—bicycle/pedestrian paths and fuel prices—as determinants of time allocation across modes. We start with a descriptive analysis that identifies a stable average travel time expenditure ranging between 65–70 min for women and 75–80 min for men until 2020, when it dropped precipitously as COVID-19 spread. We subsequently estimate fractional response models to identify the influence of the policy variables on time expenditures across motorized, nonmotorized, and public transit modes. We complete the analysis by feeding the model estimates into the World Heath Organization’s on-line Health and Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) to quantify the health and environmental impacts of the planned expansion of the bike path network in the city of Munich, comparing this with the impact of Germany’s recently introduced carbon tax on fuel. Both measures result in substantial benefits, with the implementation of the tax yielding a considerably higher benefit/cost ratio owing to its lower cost of implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10520-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10520-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们花费在出行上的时间对其健康和环境影响深远。因此,城市规划范例--如 "15 分钟城市"--致力于为居民提供 15-20 分钟步行或骑行距离内的关键服务和便利设施。尽管做出了这些努力,但人们对影响出行相关时间分配的政策杠杆仍然知之甚少。本研究利用德国 2005-2020 年的家庭出行数据面板,分析了自行车/步行道和燃料价格这两个杠杆对不同出行方式时间分配的决定性作用。我们首先进行了描述性分析,发现女性和男性的平均出行时间支出在 65-70 分钟和 75-80 分钟之间保持稳定,直到 2020 年,随着 COVID-19 的扩散,平均出行时间支出急剧下降。我们随后估算了分数响应模型,以确定政策变量对机动车、非机动车和公共交通模式的时间支出的影响。最后,我们将模型估算结果输入世界卫生组织的在线健康与经济评估工具(HEAT),以量化慕尼黑市计划扩大自行车道网络对健康和环境的影响,并将其与德国最近推出的燃料碳税的影响进行比较。这两项措施都带来了可观的收益,而碳税由于实施成本较低,收益/成本比要高得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Promoting active transportation: A comparative assessment of paths and prices

Promoting active transportation: A comparative assessment of paths and prices

The time people spend traveling has far reaching implications for their health and for environmental outcomes. Urban planning paradigms—such as that of the "15-minute city"—have consequently endeavoured to bring key services and amenities to residents within a walkable or cycleable 15–20-minute distance. These efforts notwithstanding, the policy levers that influence travel-related time allocation remain poorly understood. Drawing on a panel of household travel data from Germany covering 2005–2020, the present study analyses the role of 2 such levers—bicycle/pedestrian paths and fuel prices—as determinants of time allocation across modes. We start with a descriptive analysis that identifies a stable average travel time expenditure ranging between 65–70 min for women and 75–80 min for men until 2020, when it dropped precipitously as COVID-19 spread. We subsequently estimate fractional response models to identify the influence of the policy variables on time expenditures across motorized, nonmotorized, and public transit modes. We complete the analysis by feeding the model estimates into the World Heath Organization’s on-line Health and Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) to quantify the health and environmental impacts of the planned expansion of the bike path network in the city of Munich, comparing this with the impact of Germany’s recently introduced carbon tax on fuel. Both measures result in substantial benefits, with the implementation of the tax yielding a considerably higher benefit/cost ratio owing to its lower cost of implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transportation
Transportation 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.70%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: In our first issue, published in 1972, we explained that this Journal is intended to promote the free and vigorous exchange of ideas and experience among the worldwide community actively concerned with transportation policy, planning and practice. That continues to be our mission, with a clear focus on topics concerned with research and practice in transportation policy and planning, around the world. These four words, policy and planning, research and practice are our key words. While we have a particular focus on transportation policy analysis and travel behaviour in the context of ground transportation, we willingly consider all good quality papers that are highly relevant to transportation policy, planning and practice with a clear focus on innovation, on extending the international pool of knowledge and understanding. Our interest is not only with transportation policies - and systems and services – but also with their social, economic and environmental impacts, However, papers about the application of established procedures to, or the development of plans or policies for, specific locations are unlikely to prove acceptable unless they report experience which will be of real benefit those working elsewhere. Papers concerned with the engineering, safety and operational management of transportation systems are outside our scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信