...
首页> 外文期刊>Transport Reviews >Response to the Responses
【24h】

Response to the Responses

机译:对回应的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

I am grateful both to the Editor of Transport Reviews for inviting distinguished experts to respond to my paper 'The Myth of Travel Time Saving', and to these experts for their illuminating contributions. I discuss briefly some of the main concerns. Most respondents are sympathetic, to varying degrees, to the central proposition of the paper - that the long-run benefit of investment in transport infrastructure is taken in the form of additional access, rather than travel time saving. Givoni finds this argument convincing. Lyons is of the view that economic and social prosperity is underpinned not by motorized mobility, but by access. Drawing on the urban economics literature, Noland notes that while enhanced accessibility changes the economic value of land use, transport investment that results in changes to land use, such as sprawl development, may be politically less attractive than if proposed on the basis of time savings to current travellers. Mackie asserts that there is little conceptual difference between the value of travel time savings and the value of accessibility benefits, recognizing that 'value of accessibility change' would be a better label for these benefits that can end up in changes in wages, profits or land rents, rather than accruing to travellers.
机译:感谢运输评论的编辑邀请杰出的专家回应我的论文“节省旅行时间的神话”,并感谢这些专家的杰出贡献。我简要讨论一些主要问题。大多数受访者在不同程度上同情该论文的中心命题-投资于交通基础设施的长期利益是以增加交通的方式获得的,而不是节省旅行时间。吉沃尼认为这一论点令人信服。里昂认为,经济和社会繁荣不是通过机动出行而是通过交通来支撑。根据城市经济学文献,诺兰德指出,虽然交通便利性提高了土地使用的经济价值,但导致土地使用发生变化的运输投资(如无序发展)在政治上可能比基于节省时间的提议更具吸引力。给目前的旅行者。 Mackie断言,节省旅行时间的价值与可获取性收益的价值之间在概念上几乎没有区别,认识到“可访问性变化的价值”将是这些收益的更好标签,这些收益最终会导致工资,利润或土地的变化租金,而不是吸引旅行者。

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