毕业论文外文翻译(中英文)

1、 译文交通拥堵和城市交通系统的可持续发展摘要：城市化和机动化的快速增长，通常有助于城市交通系统的发展，是经济性，环境性和社会可持续性的体现，但其结果是交通量无情增加，导致交通拥挤。道路拥挤定价已经提出了很多次，作为一个经济措施缓解城市交通拥挤，但还没有见过在实践中广泛使用，因为道路收费的一些潜在的影响仍然不明。本文首先回顾可持续运输系统的概念，它应该满足集体经济发展，环境保护和社会正义的目标。然后，根据可持续交通系统的特点，使拥挤收费能够促进经济增长，环境保护和社会正义。研究结果表明，交通拥堵收费是一个切实有效的方式，可以促进城市交通系统的可持续发展。一、介绍城市交通是一个在世界各地的大城市迫

2、切关注的话题。随着中国的城市化和机动化的快速发展，交通拥堵已成为一个越来越严重的问题，造成较大的时间延迟，增加能源消耗和空气污染，减少了道路网络的可靠性。在许多城市，交通挤塞情况被看作是经济发展的障碍。我们可以使用多种方法来解决交通挤塞，包括新的基础设施建设，改善基础设施的维护和操作，并利用现有的基础设施，通过需求管理策略，包括定价机制，更有效地减少运输密度。交通拥堵收费在很久以前就已提出，作为一种有效的措施，来缓解的交通挤塞情况。交通拥堵收费的原则与目标是通过对选择在高峰拥挤时段的设施的使用实施附加收费，以纾缓拥堵情况。转移非高峰期一些出行路线，远离拥挤的设施或高占用车辆，或完全阻止一些出行

3、，交通拥堵收费计划将在节省时间和降低经营成本的基础上，改善空气中的质量，减少能源消耗和改善过境生产力。此计划在世界很多国家和地方都有成功的应用。继在20世纪70年代初和80年代中期挪威与新加坡实行收费环，在2003年2月伦敦金融城推出了面积收费;直至现在，它都是已经开始实施拥挤收费的大都市圈中一个最知名的例子。然而，交通拥堵收费由于理论和政治的原因未能在实践中广泛使用。道路收费的一些潜在的影响尚不清楚，和城市发展的拥塞定价可持续性，需要进一步研究。可持续发展通常作为运输政策的评估基本目标。可持续交通的想法已经出现在交通运输部门的可持续发展的概念中，可以定义如下，“可持续发展的交通基础设施和出行

4、政策是服务于经济发展，环境管理和社会公平的多重目标，用这个目标来优化交通运输系统的使用，并达到经济和相关的社会和环境目标，以实现在不牺牲后代的能源的前提下，达到一样的目的。”可持续运输系统的要当前和未来几代的可持续发展的要求，即经济发展，环境保护和社会正义的主要支柱之间的动态平衡。在可持续发展的运输系统背景下，拥挤收费如何能够促进经济增长，环境保护和社会正义，是本文研究的课题。本文的其余部分的结构如下。在第2节，对经济发展对交通挤塞定价的影响进行了阐述。第3节是对保护环境，社会正义和拥挤定价之间的关系进行了分析。有些结论是在第5节二、经济发展交通拥堵，造成旅行时间的增加，交通事故，能源消耗和环

5、境恶化，已经造成了大量的经济损失。据报道，由交通挤塞所造成的经济损失在2003年的和占其国生产总值的1 / 3，每年达4000万元。在许多危害中，交通拥堵已被视为经济发展的障碍。任何可持续的交通管理政策应符合提高交通运输对经济发展的目标的影响，并且没有造成不利的环境影响和经济的进一步增长。那么拥塞的定价策略如何有效减少交通堵塞，减少污染物和温室气体排放，减少燃料使用，并减少当前交通运输系统的其他不利影响呢？交通拥堵收费的基本经济原则，可以在图1所示。从理论上说，个人用户决定是否使用一个特定的道路的成本权衡他们将承担对自己的利益。社会总效益可以由下图1中的面积测量。 MPC的曲线表示用户成本只反

6、映每个用户负担的成本为新用户（即“边缘”的用户）。然而，边际用户的场合，如空气污染，延迟给其他用户，他不承担额外的社会成本。每个边缘用户和他所造成的社会成本的负担的总成本是每次出行的边际社会成本。边际社会成本是由图1中的MSC曲线表示。图1交通拥堵收费的影响如果有车辆在交通运输系统中，意味着用户的成本是由MPC表示，一个边际的用户将增加平均用户成本MPC +MPC。因此，边际社会成本可以表述为：MSC=（N + 1）（MPC +MPC） - nMPC = MPC +MPC+nMPC拥挤收费是交通需求管理的重要手段，最初只是影响交通出行的决定。实践证明拥挤收费能有效地规交通出行时间和空间分布，促

7、进道路资源的有效利用，提高运输业务的效率。在新加坡的拥塞定价实施表明，交通量下降了17，在高峰时段，伦敦的经验也表明，定价方案是成功的。我们可以得出结论，减少交通挤塞，将促进经济的可持续发展。收费会影响旅客的预算，将导致不仅在模式上的转换，而且是更广泛的经济变化，将伴随着地理再分配的过程。一些人担心，交通拥堵收费可能对中部地区的经济产生负面影响，特别是在零售方面。产生了相反的论调，不过，减少交通挤塞，应该是服务于更广泛的业务，以降低成本，使他们成为更具有竞争力的国家。零售活动的位置也是由个人首选的购物场所。众所周知，个人倾向于购买的商店在他们的居住地附近，因此零售企业不能轻易迁出核心区，因为许

8、多人住在中心区。这种方便客户的依赖，解释了为什么零售生产跌幅小于核心区的其他主要行业的输出。交通拥堵收费减少在繁忙时间的挤塞情况，并增加在其他时段的交通挤塞情况。通过向公共交通和大量出租车辆转向，交通拥堵收费降低所有时段定价领域人次。除减少交通挤塞，如果考虑到改善空气质量和减少燃料消耗等方面，交通拥堵收费形成的经济效益将是相当可观的。三、环保在中国，环境问题日益严重。据报道，中国是二氧化碳排放大国，有7个城市在世界严重污染的城市中。交通运输对环境的影响，涵盖了不同的影响，包括空气污染，噪音，气候变化的围，例如。汽车是城市空气和噪音污染的占主导地位的生产者，包括一氧化碳，氮氧化物和大气飘尘。这些

9、污染物是关键因素，许多呼吸系统疾病，如哮喘，以与其他的影响人体健康的方面，如头疼，眼疾等症状。据世界银行估计，在发展中国家，有0.5亿人每年死亡与于交通工具空气污染物排放有关，这是与交通事故类似的死亡人数，。交通是不可替代的，因为它是生产链的一部分。出于这个原因，交通系统必须发展和标准化，运输服务的有效性，是必须增加的，同时必须减少或防止环境污染。由于道路交通排放是一个复杂的系统，不能完全统一一个输出。从车辆样本分析不同的驾驶条件下的排放量这是自然的。加州空气资源委员会指出车辆的拥堵走走停停显著增加了排放量。作为一个例子，一个报告估计，10英里的路程，用普通的1987年的汽车，以55英里的速度

10、运行HC排放废气的重量为1克，而HC在20英里的平均速度下的排放量是7克，典型的走走停停模式。四、社会正义可持续发展有三个广泛的目标：经济的可持续发展，环境保护和社会正义，这三个目标都要解决可持续发展这个问题。经济发展和环境保护的投入一直受到关注，但投入给社会正义的关注较少。社会正义（公平）包含的经济权益和环境权益。 经济公平的问题，造成交通拥堵收费是难以完全解决的。有些人认为道路收费是倒退，因为它更多地让承担较差的汽车用户，只需短距离行程的用户，或者是生活水平欠佳的用户，不管是什么原因，别无选择，只能乘车。这些参数可以通过制定更加灵活的收费制度，在一定程度上抵消。它已被接受的任何形式的道路收

11、费将引入一些不公平现象。关键是要保持这些最低限度，并找到那些没有受益于交通拥堵收费的补偿方式。在实践中，收入最低的旅客，他们通常乘坐公共交通工具或徒步旅行，是最有可能受益的。 对于传统的运输系统，对汽油的税率是一样的，不管运输业的用户是否是在拥挤或非拥挤的时段行驶。拥挤收费是选择在交通高峰期间对拥挤设施的使用实施附加费，预计这样将减少这种不公平的 公平问题解决在运输已基本上涉与经济权益，包括公共交通和私人交通之间的关系，对周边地区和弱势人口群体的拥塞定价的影响。但是，在运输方面环境权益的问题已经很少提与。运输产生的直接影响很多，如大气排放和噪音，也间接影响通过对污染设施的位置和影响的人的影响，

12、。环境公平是指环境质量的社会分配（特别是二氧化氮分布）。这是平等地获得一个干净的环境和对环境可能造成的危害，不论收入，阶级或其他鉴别特征的社会经济地位受到平等保护。交通规划者应该指出，减少拥堵水平和行程速度对整个设施的增加将有利于公共交通的使用者。从环境公平的角度来看，交通拥堵收费的成效是敏感的社会经济特征的空间分布，因此最佳的方案设计的每个应用程序都会有所不同。可以看出，社会公正是最难解决得，实践表明，税收在道路定价中起着至关重要的作用。如果税收是回收投资，允许对公共交通工具的投资，或维持更高的服务水平，它有助于提供一个明确的选择，这既加强了模式的选择上的影响，并减少那些谁负责征收的关注。如

13、果是用于改善道路基础设施，它可以看出，交通改道在控制区的优势体现。如果它是用来支付环境的改善，这将有助于加大道路收费。如何使用税收，改善城市交通系统的效率，在可持续发展中发挥了关键作用。五、结论随着持续增长的交通需求和道路基础设施的扩展围减少，交通拥堵的现象是不会减少。作为一项重要的战略，拥挤收费是解决交通需求管理问题的重要途径，但因为经济发展，环境保护和社会正义的不确定影响，仍收到了强烈的社会和政治的反对。本文回顾了交通拥堵收费和可持续交通运输系统的三个目标之间的关系，结果表明，交通拥堵收费是一种很有前途的交通管理策略，它可以促进城市经济发展，改善环境质量，减少不公平。电子不停车收费系统（E

14、TC）技术的最新进展证明了交通拥堵收费技术上是可行的。可以预见的，未来几十年将看到越来越多的地方实施交通拥堵收费策略或将要实施交通拥堵收费的策略。交通拥堵收费的设计和评价，将需要一个可持续的发展，需要更深入的了解它带来的直接和间接影响。鸣这项工作是支持（2007F3078）省青年人才项目。期待有益的意见和建议，以改善本文。附件：外文原文Congestion and Sustainable Development of UrbanTransportation systemAbstractThe rapid growth in urbanization and motorization gener

15、ally contributes to an urban transportation system that is economically, environmentally and socially unsustainable. The result has been a relentless increase in traffic congestion. Road congestion pricing has been proposed many times as an economic measure to fight congestion in urban traffic, but

16、has not seen widespread use in practice because of Some potential impacts of road pricing remain unknown. he paper first reviews the concept of sustainable transportation system, whichshould meet the goals of economic development, environmental protection and social justice collectively. And then, b

17、ased on the characteristics of sustainable transportation system, howcongestion pricing can contribute to economic growth, environmental protection and social justice is examined. Examination result shows that congestion pricing is a powerful way to promote the sustainable development of urban trans

18、portation system.1、 IntroductionUrban transportation is a pressing concern in mega cities around the world. Along with Chinas rapid development of urbanization and motorization, traffic jams has become a more and more serious problem, resulting in greater time delay, increase of energy consumption a

19、nd air pollution, decreaseof reliability of road network. In many cities traffic congestion is seen asa hindrance to economic development. Numerous methods can be used to address congestion and reduce transport density, including building new infrastructure, improving maintenance and operation of in

20、frastructure, and using the existing infrastructure more efficiently through demand management strategies, including pricing mechanisms. Congestion pricing has long been proposed as an effective measure to combat traffic congestion. The principle objective of congestion pricing is to alleviate conge

21、stion by implementing surcharge for the use selected congested facilities during peak time periods. Byshiftingsome trips to off-peak periods, to routes away from congested facilities, or to higher-occupancy vehicles, or by discouraging some trips altogether, congestion pricing schemes would result i

22、n savings in time and operating costs, improvements in air quality, reductions in energy consumption and improvements in transit productivity. There are lots of successful applications in some countries and regions in the rest of the world. Following Singapore in the early 1970s and Norwegian toll r

23、ings in the mid-1980s, the city of London introduced its area toll in February 2003; up till now, it is the most well-known example of a large metropolitan area that has implemented congestion pricing.However, congestion pricing has not seen widespread use in practicedueto theoretical and political

24、reasons. Some potential impacts of road pricing remain unknown, and the sustainability of congestion pricing for urban development requires further study.Sustainability is normally taken as basic objectives inthe assessment of transportation policy. The idea of sustainable transportation emerges fro

25、m the concept of sustainable development in the transport sector and can be defined as follows，“sustainable transportation infrastructure and travel policies that serve multiple goals of economic development, environment stewardship and social equity, have the objective to optimize the use of transp

26、ortation systems to achieve economic and related social and environment goals, without sacrificing the ability of future generations to achieve the same goals”. Sustainable transportation systems require a dynamic balance between the mainpillars ofsustainable development,economicdevelopment, environ

27、mental protection and social justice for current and future generations.In the context of sustainable transport systems, how congestion pricing can contribute to economic growth, environmental protection and social justice is examined in this paper. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In

28、 section 2, the impacts of congestion pricing on economic development are described. Section 3 presents the contribution to environment protection, and the relationship between social justice and congestion pricing is analyzed. Some conclusions are given in section 5.2.EconomicdevelopmentTraffic con

29、gestion, resulting in the increase of travel time, traffic accident, energy consumption and environment deterioration, has produced numerous economic losses. It was reported that economic loss caused by traffic congestion amounted to 40 million Yuan per year in Beijing and 1/3 of GDP in Shanghai in

30、2003 In many cites, traffic congestion has seen as a hindrance to economic development.Any sustainable transportation management polices should meet the goals of improving the effects of transportoneconomicdevelopment, and without adversely impacting the environment and the potential for further eco

31、nomic growth. How effective would congestion pricing strategy be in reducing congestion, lowering pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, cutting fuel use, and reducing other adverse impacts of current transportation system?The basic economic principles of congestion pricingcan be illustrated in Fi

32、gure 1. Theoretically, individual users decide whether or not to use a particular road by weighing the costs they will to bear against the benefits to themselves. Total social benefits can be measure by the area under D in Figure 1. The user costs indicated on the MPC curve reflect only the costs bo

33、rne by each user as new users (i.e. “marginal” users) are added. However, the marginal user occasions additional social costs, such as air pollution and delay to other users, which he does not bear. The total costs borne by each marginal user and the social costs occasioned by him are the marginal s

34、ocial costs of each trip. Marginal social costs are indicated by the MSC curve in figure 1.Figure1 EffectofcongestionpricingIf there are n vehicles in the transport system, and mean user cost is represented by MPC, one marginal user added will increase mean user cost to MPC+ MPC.Thus the marginal so

35、cial costs can be formulated asMSC = (n + 1)( MPC + MPC ) nMPC= MPC + MPC + nMPCCongestion pricing is an important means of transportation demand management, and initially only affects transportation decisions. Practices prove that congestion pricing can effectively regulate traffic travel time and

36、space distribution, promote effective utilization of road resources, and enhance the efficiency of transportation operations. Congestion pricing implementation in Singapore has showed that traffic volumes decreased by 17% in peak time periods, and Londons experience also indicated that pricing schem

37、es was successful. As we convert all the savings in travel time resulting from decreased congestion to monetary units, we can conclude that the reduction of congestion will promote sustainable economic development.Toll will affect travelers budget constraints and will result not only in mode switchi

38、ng but also in broader changes in the economy that will be accompanied by the geographic redistribution of trips. Some concerns that congestion pricing may have negative effects on the economy of the central area, particularlyon retail. Acounterargument, however, states that the reduced congestion i

39、s supposed to lower the costs of the downtown businesses, making them more competitive. The location of retail activity, on the other hand, is also driven by individuals preferred shopping locations. As well known, individuals tend to shop near their place of residence, so retail firms cannot easily

40、 move out of the core area, because so many people live in center area. This dependence on customer convenience explains why retail production decreases less than the output of other primary industries in the core area.Congestion pricing reduces congestion during the peaktime and increases congestio

41、n during other periods. By shifting toward public transit and high occupancy vehicles, congestion pricing reduced the number of trips to the pricing areas across all time periods. Except reduced congestion, if improvement of air quality and decrease of fuel consumption are taken into account, the ec

42、onomic efficiency resulting from congestion pricing would be considerable.3.EnvironmentalprotectionIn China, environmental problem become increasingly serious. It was reported that china is the second emitter of CO2, and 7 cities are in the list of seriously-polluted cities in the world.The environm

43、ental effects of transportation cover a wide range of different impacts, including for example air pollution, noise, and climate change. Motor vehicles are the dominant producers of urban air and noise pollution, including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and airborne particulates. These polluta

44、nts are key factors in many respiratory ailments such as asthma as well as “a range of other human health effects, from headaches andeye irritation to cancer”.The World Bank estimates that 0.5 million people in developing countries die each year from transport-related air emissions, with a similar d

45、eathtoll from traffic accidents.Transportation cannot be replaced because it is the part of the production chain. For this reason, transportation systems must be developed and standardized, the effectiveness of transportation service must be increased, while the environmental pollution must be decre

46、ased or prevented.Emission from road traffic is a complex system with an output that cannot be completely measured. It is natural to analyze the emissions from a sample of vehicles under different driving conditions. The California Air Resources Board pointes out that congestion-stop and go traffic

47、significantly increases emissions. As an example, onereport estimates that a 10-mile trip, using an average1987 automobile, results in running exhaust HC emission of 1grams at a speed of 55 mph but that HC emissions would be 7 grams at an average speed of 20 mph, typical of stop-and-go conditions Wi

48、th respect to air quality impacts, congestion pricing can be expected to improve air quality in two ways. The first impact comes from the reduced level of congestion on the facility, compared with the level of congestion on the un-priced road. The second impact on emissions is due to the reduced num

49、ber of vehicles on the road facilities. To the extent that higher prices succeed in reducing vehicle miles traveled, there will be fewer vehicles on the road.It is clear that reduced travel demand in peak periods reflects fewer and shorter trips being made and results in higher travel speeds during

50、peak periods, with consequent reductions in vehicles emissions during peak periods. However, the bulk of daily travel occurring in off-peak periods may be negatively affected, as some peak travelers shift their time of travel to off-peak periods to avoid tolls. Overall beneficial impacts on air qual

51、ity may thus be smaller than that suggested simply by peak period travel demand reductions. This reduction cannot be measured directly, but will have to be calculated from the information on traffic diversion, congestion reduction, and ride-sharing increase.In the long term, congestion pricing could

52、 lead to increases in use of alternative travel modes for all daily trips, thus reducing total daily emissions.4. Social justiceSustainabledevelopment has three widely agreed meta-goals: sustainable economic development, environmental protection and social justice. All three goals must be addressed

53、together if development is to be sustainable. Much attention has been paid to economic development and environmental protection, but less attention has been paid to social justice. Social justice (equity) contains economic equity and environmental equity.Economic equity issues resulting from congest

54、ion pricing are difficult to address completely. Some people have argued that road pricing is regressive, in that it will bear more heavily on poorer car users, short distance journeys, and on those living adjacent to the cordons; more generally concern has been expressed at the impact on those who,

55、 for whatever reason, have no choice but to travel by car. These arguments can be countered to someextent by devising more flexible charging regimes.Ithas tobeacceptedthatanyformofroadpricingwillintroduce someinequities. Thekeyistokeepthesetominimum,and to find ways of compensating those who do not

56、benefit fromcongestion pricing. Inpractice, thelowest incometravelers,whotypicallytravelbypublictransport oronfoot,aremostlikelytobenefit.For the conventional transportation system, the tax rates on gasoline, which are the same regardless of whethertransportusers are travelingduringcongestedor un-co

57、ngested periodsCongestionpricingis expectedtoreducethisunfairby implementingsurcharge for the useselectedcongestedfacilitiesduringpeaktraffic periods.Equity issues addressed in transport have been largely concerned with economic equity, including the relationship between public and private transport

58、, the impacts of congestion pricing on peripheral areas and underprivileged population groups.However, environmental-equity issues have been little within a transport context. Transport produces direct effects such as atmospheric emissions and noise, and also indirect effects, through its influence on the location of polluting facilities and affected people.Environmental equity refers to the social distribution of environmental quality (and specifically the distribution of NO2