Traffic Performance Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term Driving Restriction Policy—A Case Study of Tianjin, China
Few research studied the effects of short-term and long-term driving restriction policy. Aiming to this gap, Tianjin City, China was taken as an empirical example to evaluate the effects of the two policies in this study. First, traffic survey of several segments and intersections was conducted to compare their traffic volume before and after the implementation of driving restriction policy. Then, a revealed preference-based survey was conducted to evaluate the policy effects. The case study indicates that the long-term driving restriction policy has transferred massive passenger flow into the public transport system, but it is only effective to reduce traffic volume in short-term; some traffic flow transfers to the weekends and the hour preceding the restriction time; rule-breaking behavior is pervasive for the short-term driving restriction policy; and the short-term earns high marks than the long-term policy. Additionally, some countermeasures were provided to improve the effects of the driving restriction policy.
KeywordsDriving restriction policy Policy evaluation Traffic analysis
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51408417, 61503284), the Service Platform of Intelligent Transportation Cooperative Control Technologies (16PTGCCX00150), the Key Project of Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin (16JCZDJC38200), the Transportation Science and Technology Development Plan Project of Tianjin (2017A-24), and the Science and Technology Plan Project of Tianjin (Popular Science Exhibition of Intelligent Transportation Systems and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).
- 1.Schrank D, Eisele B, Lomax T (2015) TTI’s 2015 urban mobility report. In: Proceedings of the 2015 annual urban mobility report Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
- 2.Amap company (2015) Traffic operation analysis report of Chinese big cities in 2015. Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
- 4.Debell C (2003) London’s success gives green light to RUC. Traffic Eng Control 44(5):183–186Google Scholar
- 5.Yoram S, Golani A (2005) Effect of auto restraint policies on travel behavior. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board (1932):156–163 (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar
- 7.Jose A G, Fauth G R (1980) Downtown auto restraint policies: the costs and benefits for Boston. J Transport Econ Policy 133–153Google Scholar
- 10.Grange LD, Troncoso R (2011) Impacts of vehicle restrictions on urban transport flows: the case of Santiago, Chile. Transp Policy 18(6):862–869Google Scholar
- 11.Yang Y, Li G, Wang R, Qiu P, Jia N (2016) A study of the impact of vehicle restriction policies on traffic flow: a case study of Tianjin. Traffic Inf Saf 34(1):116–122 (In Chinese)Google Scholar