城市干道立体过街设施布局多目标评价
|
摘要
为对城市干道系统立体过街设施布局方案进行科学合理的评价,提出一种基于AHP法、熵值法和灰关联TOPSIS法的多目标综合评价方法.构建了布局方案五个维度25项指标的评价指标体系,通过观测统计和"体验-响应"意愿调查的方法获取评价指标,确定指标赋值区间.利用AHP和熵值法相结合的方法确定指标综合权重,通过引入主观偏好系数来减少主观因素对指标权重的影响,提高分析精度.以灰关联TOPSIS法为模型,计算布局方案的相对贴近度,确定逼近于理想解的过街设施布局方案,并对方案进行优劣排序.以广州市天河核心区10处现状立体过街设施为例,验证了该方法的可行性和有效性.
In order to scientifically and reasonably evaluate the layout scheme of stereoscopic crossing facilities in urban arterial road system, a multi-objective comprehensive evaluation method based on AHP method, entropy method and grey relational TOPSIS method was proposed. Firstly, this paper constructed an evaluation index system of 25 indexes in 5 dimensions of the layout scheme. Then, the evaluation index was obtained through observation statistics and "experience-response" willingness survey, and the evaluation interval of the index was determined. AHP and entropy method were combined to determine the comprehensive weight of the index, and subjective preference coefficient was introduced to reduce the influence of subjective factors on the index weight and improve the analysis accuracy. The grey relational TOPSIS method was used as a model to calculate the relative closeness of layout schemes, determine the layout scheme of crossing facilities which is close to the ideal solution, and rank the schemes. Finally, the feasibility and effectiveness of the method were verified by taking the 10 stereoscopic cross street facilities in the Tianhe core area of Guangzhou as an example.
In order to scientifically and reasonably evaluate the layout scheme of stereoscopic crossing facilities in urban arterial road system, a multi-objective comprehensive evaluation method based on AHP method, entropy method and grey relational TOPSIS method was proposed. Firstly, this paper constructed an evaluation index system of 25 indexes in 5 dimensions of the layout scheme. Then, the evaluation index was obtained through observation statistics and "experience-response" willingness survey, and the evaluation interval of the index was determined. AHP and entropy method were combined to determine the comprehensive weight of the index, and subjective preference coefficient was introduced to reduce the influence of subjective factors on the index weight and improve the analysis accuracy. The grey relational TOPSIS method was used as a model to calculate the relative closeness of layout schemes, determine the layout scheme of crossing facilities which is close to the ideal solution, and rank the schemes. Finally, the feasibility and effectiveness of the method were verified by taking the 10 stereoscopic cross street facilities in the Tianhe core area of Guangzhou as an example.
引文
[1] HOLLAND C,HILL R. The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians′ intentions to cross the road in risky situations[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention,2007,39(2):224-237.
[2] ARAUJO G P D,BRAGA M G D C. Methodology for the qualitative evaluation of pedestrian crossings at road junctions with traffic lights[J]. Transportation,2008,35(4):539-557.
[3] LANDIS B W,VATTIKUTI V R,OTTENBERG R M,et al. Modeling the roadside walking environment: Pedestrian level of service[J]. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2001(1):82-88.
[4] DIXON L B. Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems[J]. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board,1996,1538(1):1-9.
[5] 李娟,赵晓娟.立体过街设施选址模型初探—以天津滨海新区过街天桥规划为例[J].道路交通与安全,2014,14(5):30-35.
[6] 王志.城市道路行人过街立交设施服务性能综合评价体系研究[D]. 西安:长安大学,2004.
[7] 刘贵谦. 基于行人选择偏好的立体过街设施服务性能评价研究[D]. 哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2014.
[8] 辞海编辑委员会. 辞海[M]. 上海:上海辞书出版社,2000.
[9] 曹晓奎,杜仁兵,裴玉龙.路段行人过街设施的合理间隔[J].交通信息与安全,2010,28(2):24-27.
[10] 陈博.路段行人过街设施安全性分析[J].城市交通,2013,11(4):52-57,51.
[11] ROUPHAIL N,HUMMER J,MILAZZO J,et al. Capacity analysis of pedestrian and bicycle facilities: recommended procedures for the "pedestrians" chapter of the HCM[R].US:North Carolina State University,1999.
[12] MARTIN A,JOHNSON B. Factors influencing pedestrian safety: literature review[R]. London:Transport Research Laboratory,2006.
[13] 徐胜,徐周华,刘奕.基于熵权-云模型的三峡坝区过闸船舶拥堵程度综合评价[J].交通信息与安全,2017,35(3):124-132.
[14] 孙瑞山,马广福.基于熵权和DEMATEL的管制员疲劳风险因素分析[J].交通信息与安全,2016,34(4):44-49.
[2] ARAUJO G P D,BRAGA M G D C. Methodology for the qualitative evaluation of pedestrian crossings at road junctions with traffic lights[J]. Transportation,2008,35(4):539-557.
[3] LANDIS B W,VATTIKUTI V R,OTTENBERG R M,et al. Modeling the roadside walking environment: Pedestrian level of service[J]. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2001(1):82-88.
[4] DIXON L B. Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems[J]. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board,1996,1538(1):1-9.
[5] 李娟,赵晓娟.立体过街设施选址模型初探—以天津滨海新区过街天桥规划为例[J].道路交通与安全,2014,14(5):30-35.
[6] 王志.城市道路行人过街立交设施服务性能综合评价体系研究[D]. 西安:长安大学,2004.
[7] 刘贵谦. 基于行人选择偏好的立体过街设施服务性能评价研究[D]. 哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2014.
[8] 辞海编辑委员会. 辞海[M]. 上海:上海辞书出版社,2000.
[9] 曹晓奎,杜仁兵,裴玉龙.路段行人过街设施的合理间隔[J].交通信息与安全,2010,28(2):24-27.
[10] 陈博.路段行人过街设施安全性分析[J].城市交通,2013,11(4):52-57,51.
[11] ROUPHAIL N,HUMMER J,MILAZZO J,et al. Capacity analysis of pedestrian and bicycle facilities: recommended procedures for the "pedestrians" chapter of the HCM[R].US:North Carolina State University,1999.
[12] MARTIN A,JOHNSON B. Factors influencing pedestrian safety: literature review[R]. London:Transport Research Laboratory,2006.
[13] 徐胜,徐周华,刘奕.基于熵权-云模型的三峡坝区过闸船舶拥堵程度综合评价[J].交通信息与安全,2017,35(3):124-132.
[14] 孙瑞山,马广福.基于熵权和DEMATEL的管制员疲劳风险因素分析[J].交通信息与安全,2016,34(4):44-49.