基于虚拟对比控制组的交通拥堵费安全影响研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-0696.2020.09.03

重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2020, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (09): 17-24.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-0696.2020.09.03

• 交通+大数据人工智能 • 上一篇下一篇

基于虚拟对比控制组的交通拥堵费安全影响研究

李科君1，李豪杰2，3，4，朱曼曼2，3，4

(1.中电科大数据研究院有限公司，贵州贵阳 550000； 2. 东南大学交通学院，江苏南京 211189； 3. 东南大学交通学院城市智能交通江苏省重点实验室，江苏南京 211189； 4. 现代城市交通技术江苏高校协同创新中心，江苏南京 211189)

收稿日期:2018-12-29 修回日期:2019-04-11 出版日期:2020-09-18 发布日期:2020-09-22
作者简介:李科君（1987—），男，贵州贵阳人，工程师，主要从事大数据创新应用技术方面的研究。E-mail：likejun@cetcbigdata.com 通信作者：李豪杰（1986—），男，江苏南京人，副教授，博士，主要从事交通安全及大数据等方面的研究。E-mail：h.li@seu.edu.cn

Safety Effects of Congestion Charge Based on Virtual Synthetic Control Group

LI Kejun1, LI Haojie2,3,4, ZHU Manman2,3,4

(1. Urban CLP Big Data Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guiyang 550000, Guizhou, China; 2. Transportation College, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, China; 3. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS, Transportation College, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, China;4. Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Center of Modern Urban Traffic Technologies, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, Jiangsu, China)

Received:2018-12-29 Revised:2019-04-11 Online:2020-09-18 Published:2020-09-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以伦敦为研究案例，采用虚拟对比控制组的因果效应方法，估计伦敦中心区实施拥堵收费对交通事故伤亡人数的影响。通过对比伦敦实际发生的伤亡人数和虚拟对比控制组估计的伤亡人数，分析发现交通拥堵收费区的交通事故总伤亡人数减少了4.29%，其中轻伤和重伤数量各自减少了5.05%和12.12%。采用安慰剂试验对模型进行验证，结果显示伦敦交通拥堵费的评估效应达到95%的置信水平。研究结果表明：在交通安全分析研究中，当没有合适的对比控制组的情况下，虚拟对比控制方法可作为一个有效的研究方法。

关键词: 交通运输工程, 伦敦交通拥堵费, 虚拟对比控制组, 因果效应, 交通政策, 安慰剂试验

Abstract: Taking London as a case study, the causal effect method of virtual synthetic control group was used to estimate the impact of congestion pricing on traffic accident casualties in central London. By comparing the actual number of casualties in London and the number of casualties estimated by the virtual synthetic control group, the total number of casualties in traffic congestion toll area decreased by 4.29%, in which the number of minor injuries and serious injuries decreased by 5.05% and 12.12% respectively. The proposed model was validated by placebo test. The results show that the evaluation effect of congestion charge in London reaches 95% confidence level. The results show that the virtual synthetic control method can be used as an effective research method when there is no suitable comparative control group in traffic safety analysis.

Key words: traffic and transportation engineering, London congestion charge, virtual synthetic control group, causal effect, traffic policy, placebo-controlled study

中图分类号:

U121

李科君1，李豪杰2，3，4，朱曼曼2，3，4. 基于虚拟对比控制组的交通拥堵费安全影响研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 39(09): 17-24.

LI Kejun1, LI Haojie2,3,4, ZHU Manman2,3,4. Safety Effects of Congestion Charge Based on Virtual Synthetic Control Group[J]. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University(Natural Science), 2020, 39(09): 17-24.

参考文献

［1］ OLSZEWSKI P, XIE L T. Modelling the effects of road pricing on traffic in Singapore ［J］. Transportation Research Part A : Policy and Practice, 2005, 39(7-9):
755-772.
［2］ LORD D, MANAR A, VIZIOLI A. Modeling crash-flow-density and crash-flow-V/C ratio relationships for rural and urban freeway segments ［J］. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 2005,37(1): 185-199.
［3］徐曌, 欧国立. 交通拥堵收费的理论依据和政策分析［J］. 中国工业经济, 2012(12):18-30.
XU Zhao, OU Guoli. Theoretical basis and policy analysis on congestion charge［J］. China Industrial Economics, 2012(12):18-30.
［4］张钟允, 李春利. 交通拥堵治理及拥堵费制度的机理分析与探究［J］. 城市发展研究, 2014, 21(9):103-109.
ZHANG Zhongyun, LI Chunli. Analysis and discussion on mechanisms of pricing policy and management of congestion［J］. Urban Development Studies, 2014, 21(9):103-
109.
［5］ HAUER E. Observational Before-after Studies in Road Safety［M］. Wagon Lane, Bingley，England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1997.
［6］ PERSAUD B, LYON C. Empirical Bayes before-after safety studies: lessons learned from two decades of experience and future directions ［J］. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 2007,39(3): 546-555.
［7］赵利苹, 许金良, 杨宏志,等. 经验贝叶斯法在安全设施效果评估中的应用［J］. 公路交通科技, 2013, 30(4):112-140.
ZHAO Liping, XU Jinliang, YANG Hongzhi, et al. Application of empirical Bayes method in effectiveness evaluation of safety facilities［J］. Journal of Highway and
Transportation Research and Development, 2013, 30(4):112-140.
［8］ CARD D, KRUEGER A B. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania ［J］. American Economic Review,
1994，84(4): 772-793.
［9］ FNKELSTEIN A. The effect of tax subsidies to employer-provided supplementary health insurance: Evidence from Canada ［J］. Journal of Public Economics, 2002
，84(3): 305-339.
［10］ MDONALD T L, ERICKSON W P, MCDONALD L L. Analysis of count data from before-after control-impact studies ［J］. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Statistics, 2000,5(3): 262-279.
［11］ ABADIE A, GARDEAZABAL J. The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque country ［J］. American Economic Review. 2003,93(1): 113-132.
［12］ Transport for London. Central London Congestion Charging :Impacts Monitoring ［R］. Fifth Annual Report. London: London Transport Museum, 2005.
［13］ Transport for London. Central London Congestion Charging: Impacts Monitoring ［R］. Second Annual Report. London: London Transport Museum, 2004.
［14］ TUERK A, GRAHAM D. Traffic Impacts of the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme ［R］. London: Imperial College London, 2010.
［15］ ELIASSON J, MATTSSON L G. Equity effects of congestion pricing quantitative methodology and a case study for Stockholm ［J］. Transportation Research Part A
: Policy and Practice, 2006,40(7): 602-620.
［16］ WICHIENSIN M, BELL M G H, YANG H. Impact of congestion charging on the transit market: An inter-modal equilibrium model［J］. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy & Practice, 2007, 41(7):703-713.
［17］ QUDDUS M A. Time series count data models: An empirical application to traffic accidents. ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2008, 40(5):1732-41.
［18］ NOLAND R B, QUDDUS M A, OCHIENG W Y. The effect of the London congestion charge on road casualties: An intervention analysis［J］. Transportation, 2008, 35
(1):73-91.
［19］ LI H, GRAHAM D, MAJUMDAR A. The effects of congestion charging on road traffic casualties: A causal analysis using difference-in-difference estimation ［J］
. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012, 49(6): 366–377.
［20］ ABADIE A, DIAMOND A, HAINMUELLER J. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of Californias Tobacco control program
［J］. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2010, 105 (490): 493-505.
［21］ MARTIN J L. Relationship between crash rate and hourly traffic flow on interurban motorways［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2002, 34(5):619-29.
［22］ GOLOB T F, RECKER W W, ALVAREZ V M. Freeway safety as a function of traffic flow［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2004, 36(6):933-46.
［23］ GRAHAM D J, GLAISTER S, ANDERSON R. The effects of area deprivation on the incidence of child and adult pedestrian casualties in England ［J］. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 2005,37(1): 125-135.
［24］ AMOROS E, MARTIN J L, LAUMON B. Comparison of road crashes incidence and severity between some French counties ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
2003,35(4): 537-547.
［25］ GRAHAM D J, STEPHENS D A. Decomposing the impact of deprivation on child pedestrian casualties in England ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2008,40
(4): 1351-1364.
［26］ NOLAND R B, QUDDUS M A. A spatially disaggregate analysis of road casualties in England ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2004,36(6): 973-984.
［27］ ABDEL-ATY M A, RADWAN A E. Modeling traffic accident occurrence and involvement ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2000,32 (5): 633-642.
［28］ GRAHAM D J, GLAISTER S. Spatial variation in road pedestrian casualties: The role of urban scale, density and land-use mix ［J］. Urban Studies, 2003,40
(8): 1591-1607.
［29］ WEDAGAMA D M P, BIRD R N, METCALFE A V. The influence of urban land-use on non-motorized transport casualties ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
2006,38 (6): 1049-1057.
［30］ DISSANAYAKE D, ARYAIJA J, WEDAGAMA D M P. Modelling the effects of land use and temporal factors on child pedestrian casualties ［J］. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 2009,41 (5): 1016-1024.
［31］ WIER M, WEINTRAUB J, HUMPHREYS E H, et al. An area-level model of vehicle-pedestrian injury collisions with implications for land use and transportation
planning ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2009,41 (1): 137-145.
［32］ LI H J, GRAHAM D J, MAJUMDAR A. Effects of changes in road network characteristics on road casualties: An application of full Bayes models using panel data
［J］. Safety Science. 2015 (72): 283-292.
［33］ PEI X, WONG S C, SZE N N. The roles of exposure and speed in road safety analysis ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012,48: 464-471.
［34］ WANG X S, JIN Y, ABDEL-ATY M A, et al. Macro level model development for safety assessment of road network structures ［J］. Transportation Research Record,
2012 (2280): 100-109.
［35］ WANG X S, YANG J G, LEE C, et al. Macro-level safety analysis of pedestrian crashes in Shanghai, China ［J］. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2016,96: 12
-21.
［36］ BERTRAND M, DUFLO E, MULLAINATHAN S. How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?［J］. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2004, 119(1): 249
-275.
［37］王中恒, 孙玉嵩, 朱小勇. 关于城市征收交通拥堵费的可行性探讨［J］. 交通科技与经济, 2008, 10(6):94-95.
WANG Zhongheng, SUN Yusong, ZHU Xiaoyong. Study on the urban traffic congestion pricing［J］. Technology & Economy in Areas of Communications, 2008, 10(6):94-95.
［38］庞雨晴, 姜丙毅. 我国实行交通拥堵费政策的可行性分析［J］. 安徽行政学院学报, 2014(4):107-112.
PANG Yuqing, JIANG Bingyi. Feasibility analysis of congestion pricing policy in China［J］. Journal of Anhui Administration Institute, 2014(4):107-112.
［39］ Coverage of the London congestion charge［EB/OL］.（2012-02-10）［2014-12-21］. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/congestion-charge-zone-map.pdf.

[1]	李晶1,2，钟鹏1，吕靖1,2. 基于系统动力学的陆港与城市经济互动研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 1-7.
[2]	李军1，朱云升2. 三角模糊层次分析的综合评价在黄河库区船舶安全评估中的应用[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 16-22.
[3]	邓萍1,2，宋莲1，黄承锋1,2. 三峡坝区过闸船舶拥堵成本测算及对坝区货物总价值影响研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 23-30.
[4]	程谦1 ，朱晓宁2 ，卢万胜3. 中长运距城际旅客出行方式选择行为模型——以高铁、民航为例[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 39-45.
[5]	连齐才1，李涵1，石小林1，闫章存2. 基于面板数据Mixed logit模型的自动驾驶选择行为分析[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 46-52.
[6]	戚春华，王笑男，朱守林，李航天. 基于驾驶员视觉兴趣区域的交通工程设施信息量阈值研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 53-60.
[7]	李升朝，吴越，白雪萌，王玥，张海. 基于TOPSIS与灰色关联的危货车辆违规报警研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 61-66.
[8]	杨庆芳1,2,3，王立强2，郑黎黎1,2,3，孟凡运2. 一种环形交叉口交通排放及燃油消耗模型研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(07): 67-73.
[9]	白翰，张康宇，王修光，燕翔，冯启龙. 合放交通流条件下城市交叉口通行能力研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(06): 12-20.
[10]	张重阳,黄淑萍. 路网抗震可靠性及震后运输调度路径选择研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(06): 43-51.
[11]	郭文文1，计明军2，祝慧灵3，周文杰2. 集装箱码头场桥调度优化模型研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(06): 66-72.
[12]	李广儒，张新，朱庆辉. 基于Adaboost的改进Elman神经网络港口吞吐量预测方法[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(05): 1-5.
[13]	孙元广1，茧敏2，金华2，陈绍宽2. 城市轨道交通列车故障救援延误计算与仿真[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(05): 6-12.
[14]	王宏刚1,2，白朋1，邹庆茹2，赵玲1. 地铁车辆段股道运用优化模型[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(05): 13-18.
[15]	孙延浩1,2，张琦1,2，任禹谋1,2,3，孙鹏举4. 高速铁路列车调度员应急处置能力评价研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(05): 19-25.

基于虚拟对比控制组的交通拥堵费安全影响研究

Safety Effects of Congestion Charge Based on Virtual Synthetic Control Group

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics