• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Transport Reviews >Urban Congestion Charging: A Comparison between London and Singapore
【24h】

Urban Congestion Charging: A Comparison between London and Singapore

机译：城市交通拥堵收费：伦敦和新加坡之间的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The congestion charging schemes in London and Singapore are compared and assessed in the light of guidelines set out in the Smeed Report, published by the UK Ministry of Transport in 1964, and their performance in reducing congestion and raising net revenue. The aim is to draw lessons for other towns and cities considering the introduction of congestion charging. One important result from Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore is that a per-entry charge is more effective at reducing congestion than a per-day charge. It is concluded that although Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore is more in line with the desirable properties outlined in the Smeed Report, both schemes are part of a wider package of transport policies, and that is probably the most important reason for their success. The main lesson for other towns and cities around the world considering the possibility of introducing congestion charging is that any such scheme ought to be accompanied by complementary measures that will provide motorists with a valid alternative to the car.
机译：伦敦和新加坡的拥堵收费方案是根据1964年英国交通部发布的Smeed报告中列出的指南进行比较和评估的，这些指南在减少拥堵和增加净收入方面也发挥了作用。目的是为考虑引入拥堵收费的其他城镇汲取教训。新加坡电子道路收费的一个重要结果是，按入场收费比减少每日收费更为有效。结论是，尽管新加坡的电子道路收费更符合Smeed报告中概述的理想属性，但这两种方案都是更广泛的交通政策的一部分，这可能是其成功的最重要原因。考虑到可能实施拥堵收费的政策，对世界其他城镇的主要教训是，任何此类计划都应辅之以配套措施，为驾车者提供有效的替代汽车服务。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号