登录    注册    个人中心    ENGLISH
   
过刊检索
年份
《城市交通》杂志
2014年 第4期
非机动交通方式服务水平探讨 ——应对步行和自行车服务水平评价问题
点击量:2566

文章编号: 1672-5328(2014)04-0077-18

Zohreh Asadi-Shekari1, Mehdi Moeinaddini1, Muhammad Zaly-Shah1 著,钮志强2 译
(1.马来西亚理工大学建筑环境学院城市与区域规划系,马来西亚柔佛州士姑来81310;2.中国城市规划设计研 究院,北京100037)

摘要: 关于机动车运行状况的评价研究已有很多,相比之下,针对处于弱势的非机动交通方式使用 者的研究非常有限,例如行人和骑车者,特别是老人、小孩和残疾人。鉴于此,通过综述道路运行 评价方面既有研究,识别出表征非机动交通方式出行状况的主要指标为自行车服务水平和步行服务 水平。现有研究中已使用各种不同的方法来评价服务水平,主要存在以下不足之处:首先,行人和 骑车者被等同于机动车一样看待;其次,大多数方法较复杂且耗时长,利用其构建道路设计流程也 相当困难;此外,这些方法仅适用于有限数量的步行和自行车设施使用者,对不同年龄、不同体能 的更广泛人群来说不一定有效。针对该现状,主要讨论步行和自行车服务水平研究面临的挑战,并 尝试为今后的研究引入新的目标与途径,以完善上述不足。

关键词: 道路评价;非机动交通方式;步行服务水平;自行车服务水平;评价模型;道路设施

中图分类号: U491

文献标识码:A

Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service

Written by Zohreh Asadi-Shekari1, Mehdi Moeinaddini1, Muhammad Zaly-Shah1, Translated by Niu Zhiqiang2
(1.Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Malaysia;2.China Academy of Urban Planning & Design, Beijing 100037, China)

Abstract: Motorised vehicle conditions have been evaluated by many researchers. In contrast,there are very limited studies on vulnerable and non-motorised users, such as cyclists and pedestrians, specifically children, the elderly and the disabled. Thus, this paper reviews prominent studies on street evaluations to identify effective indicators for non-motorised trips. The street condition for these trips is measured by the bicycle level of service (BLOS) and the pedestrian level of service (PLOS). In previous studies, different methods have been introduced for PLOS and BLOS.However, these methods have several major shortcomings. First, pedestrians and cyclists are assumed to be users who can share street facilities with motorised vehicles and thus are considered equivalent to cars. Second, the majority of these methods are complicated and time-consuming,and it is difficult to connect them to a design process. Furthermore, these methods support only a limited number of walking and cycling facilities; therefore, they may not be valid for a wide range of pedestrians and cyclists with a diverse variety of abilities and ages. This study discusses the challenges in the BLOS and PLOS research and attempts to introduce new objectives for further studies in this field to eliminate the aforementioned shortcomings.

Keywords: street evaluation;non-motorised;pedestrian level of service;bicycle level of service;evaluation model;street facilities