PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE COASTAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ORDINANCE IN LOS ANGELES
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE COASTAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ORDINANCE IN LOS ANGELES
复制标题
洛杉矶沿海运输走廊条例的初步评估
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1990
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
M. Wachs
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Charles Blankson;M. Wachs
《沿海运输走廊条例》试图通过规定新的真实的房地产开发项目来减少未来的交通量，并向一个信托基金捐款，以改善受影响地区的交通流量，从而控制忙碌洛杉矶社区的交通拥堵。为了对该条例中减少旅行的部分进行初步评估，选择了8座建筑物的117家公司作为样本。三栋建筑物内有44家公司受到该条例的影响，而对照组的五栋建筑物内有73家公司不受该条例的影响。研究人员观察到了拼车设施、服务和补贴方面的差异，并对两组建筑中的1,216名工人进行了调查，以确定他们的出行模式。结果显示，受条例影响的发展商更有可能在其项目中为拼车者提供优惠停车位，并提供一些自行车停车设施。受该条例影响的公司向其雇员提供免费泊车的比例要小得多，而在付费泊车的雇员中，那些在该条例所涵盖的建筑物内泊车的雇员支付的费用更高。这些设施的提供以及停车费和其他促销措施的结合，对工人独自开车上班的决定产生了非常小的初步影响。在实验组和对照组中，独自开车上班的工人比例相似。虽然受该条例影响的建筑物中有两倍的工人拼车上班，但他们只是劳动力的一小部分。在研究地区，相当大比例的工人通常在高峰期以外下班，可能是为了避免下午晚些时候的拥堵。
The Coastal Transportation Corridor Ordinance attempts to regulate traffic congestion in a busy Los Angeles community by requiring new real estate developments to mitigate future trips and to contribute to a trust fund for improving traffic flow within the affected area. To conduct a preliminary evaluation of the trip reduction portion of the ordinance, a sample of eight buildings housing 117 firms was selected. Three buildings housing 44 firms were sugject to the ordinance, and a control group of five buildings housing 73 firms was not affected by the ordinance. Differences in ridesharing facilities, services, and subsidies were observed, and 1,216 workers in the two groups of buildings were surveyed to determine their travel patterns. The results show that developers affected by the ordinance are significantly more likely to include preferential parking for carpoolers in their projects and some bicycle parking facilities as well. The companies affected by the ordinance offer a substantially smaller proportion of their employees free parking at work, and, among employees who pay to park, those in the buildings covered by the ordinance pay higher rates. The provision of these facilities and the combination of parking fees and other promotional efforts have had a very small initial effect on workers' decisions to drive to work alone. The proportion of workers driving to work alone is similar in the experimental and control groups. Although twice as many workers in buildings affected by the ordinance carpooled to work, they were a small fraction of the workforce. A sizable proportion of workers in the study area generally leave work outside the peak period, probably to avoid late-afternoon congestion.