青藏铁路布局稳定性评价问题研究
|
摘要
青藏铁路作为川藏铁路规划与建设的重要参照标准,从空间布局,运输效率和经济社会正外部性等方面对其稳定性进行评价尤为必要.本文根据铁路规划,建设与运营的稳定性内涵来设计指标,利用AHP-FCE方法赋予指标权重,依托三角图论构建模型对青藏铁路进行综合评价,借助Grapher10来描述其演进路径.结果表明,2007—2014年间青藏铁路布局处于基本稳定状态,总体演进路径呈现由强稳定转变为一般稳定,再转变为弱稳定的阶段性特征,其中,2010年青藏铁路所呈现出的稳定性最高.
As the reference standards of planning and construction for other railways of the Tibet area, it's necessary to evaluate the stability of the Qinghai-Tibet railway from the following aspects: the spatial layout of lines, overall transportation efficiency, and positive externalities influences of economy and society. In this paper,the index was designed from the stability connotation of railway line planning, construction and operation. The corresponding index weight was given by AHP-FCE. Based on the triangular graph theory, the model was constructed to evaluate the stability of Qinghai-Tibet railway route layout comprehensively, and Grapher 10 was used to describe the evolution path of its stability trend. The results of this study show that the route layout of Qinghai-Tibet railway was basically stable from 2007 to 2014, and the evolution path of the overall trend shows a stage feature from strongly stable to generally stable and then to weakly stable. Among them, the stability was at the optimal level in 2010.
As the reference standards of planning and construction for other railways of the Tibet area, it's necessary to evaluate the stability of the Qinghai-Tibet railway from the following aspects: the spatial layout of lines, overall transportation efficiency, and positive externalities influences of economy and society. In this paper,the index was designed from the stability connotation of railway line planning, construction and operation. The corresponding index weight was given by AHP-FCE. Based on the triangular graph theory, the model was constructed to evaluate the stability of Qinghai-Tibet railway route layout comprehensively, and Grapher 10 was used to describe the evolution path of its stability trend. The results of this study show that the route layout of Qinghai-Tibet railway was basically stable from 2007 to 2014, and the evolution path of the overall trend shows a stage feature from strongly stable to generally stable and then to weakly stable. Among them, the stability was at the optimal level in 2010.
引文
[1] CARRIO C, LEVINSON C. Value of travel time reliability:A review of current evidence[J].Transportation Research Part A:Policy and Practice,2012, 46(4):720-741.
[2] KARLAFTIS G, TSAMBOULAS D. Efficiency measurement in public transport:Are findings specification sensitive?[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2012, 46(2):392-402.
[3] CHEN A, KASIKITWIWAT P. Modeling capacity flexibility of transportation networks[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2011, 45(2):105-117.
[4] GUO Z, WILSON M. Assessing the cost of transfer inconvenience in public transport systems:A case study of London underground[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2011, 45(2):91-104.
[5] HILOLA O. Effciency of public passnger transport by rail in larger city:European based perspective[J].International Journal of Service and Standards, 2010(6):256-270.
[6]郑亚晶,张星臣,徐彬,等.铁路路网运输能力可靠性研究[J].交通运输系统工程与信息, 2011, 11(4):16-21.[ZHENG Y J, ZHANG X C, XU B, et al. Carrying capacity reliability of railway networks[J]. Journal of Transportation System Engineering and Information Technology, 2011, 11(4):16-21.]
[7]梁国华,程国柱,马荣国,等.边疆地区公路网布局结构稳定性评价[J].中国公路学报, 2014, 27(4):106-111.[LIANG G H, CHENG G Z, MA R G, et al.Stability evaluation for layout structure of highway network in border areas[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2014, 27(4):106-111.]
① 将3类评价指数设置为“一正两反”，是因为如果将三者都设为同向性评价指标，就无法满足三角模型的三边关系定理，因此设置为“一正两反”的2类，3项评价指数.
① 数据来源：全国铁路统计资料汇编(2006—2014)，青藏线(格拉段)扩能改造工程预可行性研究，西藏统计年鉴(2006—2015)，青海统计年鉴(2006—2015).
② 本文数据统计口径以自然年度为准，而青藏铁路全线开通运营时间为2006年7月1日，从数据挖掘角度来看，2006年样本数据不具备完全性，无法与其他数据进行合并代入三角模型分析，因此将其异常时点数据进行处理；如果按照本文中所采用的截面数据思路进行分析，基于2006年的数据评估结果与其他年份的评估结果是相对独立，不存在直接的影响.
[2] KARLAFTIS G, TSAMBOULAS D. Efficiency measurement in public transport:Are findings specification sensitive?[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2012, 46(2):392-402.
[3] CHEN A, KASIKITWIWAT P. Modeling capacity flexibility of transportation networks[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2011, 45(2):105-117.
[4] GUO Z, WILSON M. Assessing the cost of transfer inconvenience in public transport systems:A case study of London underground[J]. Transportation Research Part A, 2011, 45(2):91-104.
[5] HILOLA O. Effciency of public passnger transport by rail in larger city:European based perspective[J].International Journal of Service and Standards, 2010(6):256-270.
[6]郑亚晶,张星臣,徐彬,等.铁路路网运输能力可靠性研究[J].交通运输系统工程与信息, 2011, 11(4):16-21.[ZHENG Y J, ZHANG X C, XU B, et al. Carrying capacity reliability of railway networks[J]. Journal of Transportation System Engineering and Information Technology, 2011, 11(4):16-21.]
[7]梁国华,程国柱,马荣国,等.边疆地区公路网布局结构稳定性评价[J].中国公路学报, 2014, 27(4):106-111.[LIANG G H, CHENG G Z, MA R G, et al.Stability evaluation for layout structure of highway network in border areas[J]. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2014, 27(4):106-111.]
① 将3类评价指数设置为“一正两反”，是因为如果将三者都设为同向性评价指标，就无法满足三角模型的三边关系定理，因此设置为“一正两反”的2类，3项评价指数.
① 数据来源：全国铁路统计资料汇编(2006—2014)，青藏线(格拉段)扩能改造工程预可行性研究，西藏统计年鉴(2006—2015)，青海统计年鉴(2006—2015).
② 本文数据统计口径以自然年度为准，而青藏铁路全线开通运营时间为2006年7月1日，从数据挖掘角度来看，2006年样本数据不具备完全性，无法与其他数据进行合并代入三角模型分析，因此将其异常时点数据进行处理；如果按照本文中所采用的截面数据思路进行分析，基于2006年的数据评估结果与其他年份的评估结果是相对独立，不存在直接的影响.