外文翻译正稿.doc

毕业设计（论文）译文及原稿译文题目：转型期的城市交通规划原稿题目：Urban transportation planning in transition原稿出处：Editorial /Transport Policy 15 (2008) 6972浙江工业大学之江学院毕业设计（论文） 外文翻译 转型期的城市交通规划1、场景设定对于城市交通规划者来说，当前是具有挑战性的时代。一方面，虽然在惊人的进展、信息扩散和电信技术中，但是对于个人和集体生活来说，物理流动系统显得更加重要。另一方面，由于财政的增加和财政的约束的异构，和对流动性的负面影响的不断认识，城市运输系统的扩张将会越来越难。后者意味着对于城市交通规划来说，传统的“预测和提供”的方法已不再是一种选择。然而，前者意味着同时被一些人所提倡的替代“需求管理”的方法可能不是一种可以接受的解决办法。那接下去干什么呢？2006六月，在荷兰阿姆斯特丹大学举行一场国际研讨会，目的是为了探索这些问题的新答案。在这个问题上的文章是以研讨会的国际贡献，本文所介绍的以邀请信、开幕式上的致辞为依据。2、自然界的流动性：除了在成本上，仍然是城市生活的一个必不可少的条件自工业革命以来，交通和城市发展已紧密联系的（e.g. Muller,2004）。然而，虚拟可能性的持续发展在当今时代占主导地位，而不是自然界的流动性，有经常性的思考；城市在运输中的作用可能下降，包括在城市交通规划专业(e.g. Meyer and Miller, 2001)。然而，事实证明，自然界的流动性和虚拟可能性的持续发展在最佳混合。而不是只是替代运输，信息和通信似乎也有贡献，似乎有更大的措施，对身体活动的产生和结合运输产生的新形式物理虚拟移动(Graham and Marvin, 1996;Wheeler et al., 2000; Janelle, 2004; Larsen et al., 2006)。也许更重要的是，信息和通信和运输出现都嵌入于社会和经济的背景下，不断增加的流动人，商品和信息的一个构成要素。只是想在不断增长的流动性有关的区划和工业生产过程国际化中，对世界范围内的业务服务网络扩张，或对国际迁移和旅游。持续增长和流动性的多样化是当代生活方式的结果和工具，简称“工作权，调节，到训练，现在采用的流动性是具有隐私权的”(Ascher, 2003, p. 23)。“网络社会”在当代社会的概念化(Castells, 1996),访问年龄”(Rifkin, 2000)，同样地抓住了所有这些，但流动的重要性在降低，包括物理的。然而，所有这一切都是在成本。随之而来的流动性生长主要对当地的和全球环境有消极影响，同时也对生活质量和城市的经济效益造成影响。这些负面影响包括拥塞，排放（常规和特别温室），噪声，社区的中断，事故，使用不可再生能源，以及固体废物的生产。进一步将问题复杂化，减轻这些负面影响的措施的实施意味着基础设施的扩展变得更加昂贵。这加剧了人越来越多的关注如何融资这样的扩张，特别是在光的访问移动装置还是很不均匀的和广义的对在运输配送中公共部门的作用减少(Graham and Marvin, 2001; 世界经济可持续发展委员会(WBSCD), 2001)。正是这样的问题导致需要对更可持续的流动性的转向达成广泛的共识，在政府，行业，和行业(欧洲委员会, 2007;WBSCD, 2001; Banister, 2005)。似乎有一种越来越愿意应对不利影响流动同时承认它的好处的意愿，并在许多情况下采取行动了。虽然有令人鼓舞的例子，但是进步是缓慢的，如果在世界各地不存在，但在发展中的城市最引人注目的是，指标仍指向错误的方向。进一步阐明这些困境的一些更具体的趋势和挑战：区域化的过程中和城市的家庭和企业的活动空间的全球化(Castells,1996; Storper, 1997)，导致需要重新规模交通运输网络，最初的设想一个地方或国家规模。不同于在战后，这种重新缩放必须受到严重的限制，基础设施的安装扩建和以上提到的流动性增长。与这一进程有关，现在迫切需要重新规划机构来克服目前现有的机构之间的出现的不匹配问题和可能的解决方案，导致战略能力急剧下降(Brenner, 2000;Healey, 1997, 2007; Salet et al., 2003)。这样的制度重新定义涵盖范围（从地方和国家，区域和全球）和范围（从公共政府公共公共私人治理）的问题。作为上述的一部分和城市交通规划更具体的部分，有一个交通与土地利用规划的过程的持续的分离。这与城市问题的性质形成鲜明的对比，这需要一个集成的方法。虽然在学术和专业团体(Banister,2002, 2005; Meyer and Miller, 2001)有一个广泛的共识，交通与土地利用规划之间的整合要在实践中看到的。由此产生的政策不求更好的整合。3、如何走出困境在背景上面，传统的“预测和提供”的方法对城市交通规划来说不再是一种选择。这种方法是基于两个假设：（1）对未来的流动性需求的预测的可靠性（或至少足够的共识）（2）通过运输系统扩展，准备提供预测的增长的需求。周围过程结果的不确定性，如那些上述结果的描述意味着要获得可靠的预测将会变得更加困难（或者，这有同样的效果，有更多的愿意参加假设等进行预测）。即使情况不是这样的，但是这意味着（政治，金融）为实质上通过系统的扩展来提供预测的需求增长往往根本不存在。一个另类，“需求管理”，的方法，一些已经提出的是，然而，也有问题，因为它否认了这样一个事实流动已经成为人们在参与城市的社会和经济生活的一个重要的条件。虽然已经有关于什么样的替代方法或途径城市交通规划应该怎样的几个有趣的探索(参见例如Marvin and Guy, 1999)，一个明确的答案仍然是缺乏，以及普遍感觉到加强进一步探索的必要性(Banister, 2005)。阿姆斯特丹的研讨会旨在迎合进一步探索的需求。出发点是假设上述描述的情况要求城市交通规划者有更加“建构主义”，设计型的方法。这样解释，术语“设计”并不狭义的指对交通系统和城市的技术设计宏观或微观层面，而是更多的概念在需要我们从事城市公共辩论想和运输中的作用时更加刻意和有创造性。背后的想法是规划中的特点关于规划目标的根本分歧（我们应给经济或环境优先？）和不确定性规划方法（在未来运输电信选项将会是可得的？）城市交通的传统角色规划师作为一个中立的专家为代表的“预测提供的方法，但在很大程度上也隐含的需求管理方法不再是站不住脚的。问题的定义在高度的政治过程的参与和寻找解决方案，或在“设计”政策中。特别的是，该研讨会的贡献已总结为对以下的问题的反应：1、运输的政策可以解决流动性和今天的复杂和动态城市的访问需求？要创建交通规划的目标在城市网络的地方发展潜力（历史上）或改进运输系统等（大多数交通规划师主张）？2、无论答案是什么，什么样的规划过程和规划工具可以帮助设计者产生有效的政策？我们的计划有必要改变么？怎么样变?为什么变？特别是，我们都同意政策设计阶段，并对参与利益相关者，比现在需要更多关注的情况吗？4、处于过渡的一门学科对研讨会的贡献，包括那些进一步这个主题阐述了的，代表了从各种不同情况看的看法。在下面的页，更一般的反射由从直接帐户到现场的交替。巴尼斯特草图挑战的轮廓，指向最迫切需要解决的问题，和潜在的解决方案。Cascetta and Pagliara描述一个例子，这一切看来似乎是一起到来：那不勒斯和坎帕尼亚地区的地铁系统的发展。船体主要集中在一个特定的，更广泛挑战的残酷面目，以英国的经验，以及政策的整合。Curtis的文件关于如何运输和土地利用政策的整合是在实践中所追求，并观察两个突破和持久性障碍。在一个抽象的较低层次，方便确定新工具的需要，匹配新兴的规划目标，并评估美国的四计划艺术的地位。最后，Straatemeier探讨了这样一个新的工具的使用，可及性作为一个整合的概念和更多整体绩效指标的政策措施。当然，这些贡献不能被认为是整个城市交通规划的代表场，甚至在自己的国家也代表不了。然而，和他们所有的品种和尽管特质在连接在一起，他们甚至勾勒出一种城市交通规划出现的新的文件，具有一套独特的特征。这四个特点在下面进行了讨论，他们认为，可以成为更深入和更广泛的讨论离开的一个有用的出发点，并对于个别文章框架提供一个解释。新兴城市交通规划的第一个定义特征是一个中间的纪律范式转变(从 Kuhn的意义上说, 1962)。新的规划目标（实现可持续的流动性），过程（计划），工具（如无障碍措施）被引入，也越来越多地应用，但这并未形成综合知识体或方法。大目标（缓解拥堵），过程（合理的工艺规划），和工具（如四步模型或服务指标的水平）仍然存在，并且深深的植根在现有的机构和实践。新的和旧的模式是明确的，对巴尼斯特的贡献进行了对比，并对一些新兴的方式和障碍从一个过渡到其他确定的事物。Curtis文件是在具体规划的背景下，新的和旧的相互交织，新兴和建立，该触发器和改变的障碍是可怕的，因为它对于外部观察者来说是迷人的。方便的帐户转型在新的目标和旧的工具体现出不安的关系，即使在同一个计划。将在哪里结束仍不清楚，她得出结论，并提出替代方案。最后，Cascetta and Pagliara报告一个过去在地面上和该方法似乎发生过的经验。结果，他们指出可能的因素，可能可以解释这种转变，这可能会为他人着想的提供条件。新兴城市交通规划的第二特征是与其总体目标相关：实现城市流动的可持续，通过更大的努力来提高城市生活质量。人们似乎在这一目标达成广泛的共识。从本质上讲，它是发展运输基础设施和流动性的政策，支持社会和经济发展的同时明确资源的有限性。更具体地说，这意味着获得发展中国家的城市地区提供个人和企业机会的手段更多（如工作，服务，社会交往）流动性少（或至少不损害流动性）。也似乎是对周围混凝土有足够的共识，即可以帮助实现这一目标的措施。这些措施包括许多相互加强的措施，“推”和“拉”的政策为了减少出行的需要措施，促进转变资源更有效的运输方式，减少旅行距离，和改善环境现有的模式的绩效（例如Banister的综合比较，和那不勒斯集成策略）。真正的挑战看来不那么多，达成目标，或它的实际意义。它似乎知道如何在现实世界中实现，激进的排序，全系统包括这些措施。这种专注实施新兴的城市交通规划第二特征的定义。在寻找成功的因素，Banister指出要积极公众参与到政策制定过程中，强调应力行为改变的直接好处（如更好的健康），建立成功政策的示范效应，并推销市场新的流动性产品。其他贡献者应强调制定政策努力的重点，使因素理解的重点改变的必要性，的需要从使，或阻碍他们的实现，从而走向一个更实验，决策互动的态度。例如，Curtis表明，涉及的利益相关者和更广泛的公共政策创新是发展的关键，也是它在实施阶段必要的和难以保持的动量。在Cascetta and Pagliara贡献的最后，他们审查解释了令人印象深刻的范式转移了那不勒斯和坎帕尼亚的因素。他们中的大多数是指实施方面的问题，特别是和不同的拥有使命感和责任感的专业人员，利益相关者和公众之间相互管理的作用是有效。这一最后观点引导我们来到了新兴城市交通规划的第三大区别性特征，与其他行业和政策部门集成和交换，整合和协作的重要性。这个新兴的城市交通规划更多间和比其传统对应的学科跨度更大。新的挑战要求多学科合作，或与其他行业和政策领域的合作，如公共卫生和经济的发展，而且只是在不同的运输机构。他们还要求国际学科规训，或与其他行业和政策领域的集成，如最值得注意的是城市规划。他们需求跨学科性，或生产者和消费者之间连续的知识交换（只要这个区别仍然是有意义的）研究人员和政策制定者的情况下。所有这些方面在那不勒斯和坎帕尼亚起到了一个至关重要的作用，在那里的范围的学科合作，交流和融合是据汇集的交通工程师，运输城市规划师，设计师，建筑师，视觉艺术家，和考古学家；和过程中涉及的世界政治，学术界，行业，市场和公民社会。Perth案例文件的虚拟企业使交通和城市规划学科对网络城市的概念和发展策略成为可能。无论如何，它也显示了成功概念的创新不只是仅仅靠专业人士，但可以只出现在专业人员之间，利益相关者和广大公众的相互作用。在英国的实践的船体询问，发现了世界需要整合不同学科和政策部门和许多证据和确认实现这一目标在实践中的困难。在寻找解决这些困难的方法时，Straatemeier试图发展一种语言来支持交通与土地利用规划的集成，以这样一种方式的话，那么非专家也可以参与辩论。同时倡导广泛的学科的重点的新工具比旧的都更方便。第四也是最后的新兴特色城市交通规划跨越以上的很多部分。它源于认识到跨学科和政策部门协作这样的事情，利益相关者的约定，市民的接受程度是关键进步。这就要求城市交通规划成为一个更加面向通信的活动。这种交际转向”是城市规划久经历（见例如Healey, 1997），但发展慢得多在交通规划（例如，wilson讨论的，2001；Wilson等人，2003）。它需要技能的培养，如联合调查研究，调解冲突，或通信的新手，这是标准的行李运输规划师，可能指向训练间隙。这样技能的需要是Banister的直接影响实施重点。它在帐户是显而易见的那不勒斯和坎帕尼亚和珀斯的案例，并在船体的对在美国政策一体化状态分析王国。这种交际素质的提高在Straatemeier规划工具的一个明确的目标努力，并通过简便的分析暗示。Urban transportation planning in transition1. Setting the sceneFor urban transportation planners these are the challenging times. On the one hand, and in spite of the breathtaking progress and diffusion of information and telecommunication technologies, physical mobility systems appear ever more crucial to the life of the individuals and organizations. On the other hand, because of a heterogeneous mix of increasing financial and fiscal constraints, and growing awareness of and social resistance to the negative impacts of mobility, the expansion of urban transport systems is increasingly difficult. The latter means that the traditional predict and provide approach to urban transportation planning is no longer an option. However, the former means that also the alternative demand management approach advocated by some may not be an acceptable solution. What is then the way to go? In June 2006 an international seminar was held at the University of Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, with the aim of exploring emerging answers to this question. The articles in this issue are based on the international contributions to that seminar, this introduction on the letter of invitation and opening speech.2. Physical mobility: still an essential condition for urban life, but at a costSince the industrial revolution, transportation and urban development have been tightly interconnected (e.g. Muller, 2004). However, in the present era dominated by the continuous advances in the possibilities for virtual, rather than physical mobility, there are recurring speculations of a possible decline in the role of transportation in the cities, including from within the urban transportation planning profession (e.g. Meyer and Miller, 2001). The evidence is, however, at best mixed. Rather than just substituting for transport, information and telecommunication appear also to contribute, seemingly in even greater measure, to the generation of physical mobility and to combine with transport to produce new forms of physicalvirtual mobility (Graham and Marvin, 1996; Wheeler et al., 2000; Janelle, 2004; Larsen et al., 2006). Perhaps more importantly, both information and telecommunication and the transport appear embedded in a social and economic context, where steadily increasing flows of people, goods and information are a constitutive element. Just think at the growing mobility related to the regionalization and internationalization of the industrial production processes, to the expansion of world-widebusiness service networks, or to international migration and tourism. The continuing growth and diversification of mobility is both a consequence and an instrument of contemporary lifestyles, to the point that it has been claimed that the right to work, to accommodation, to training, now incorporates an implicit right to mobility(Ascher, 2003, p. 23). Conceptualizations of contemporary society in terms of network society (Castells, 1996), age of access (Rifkin, 2000) and similarly aptly captures this all, but decreasing importance of flows, including physical ones. All this comes, however, at a cost. The ensuing mobility growth has major negative impacts on the local and the global environment, but also on the quality of life and the economic performance of cities. These negative impacts include congestion, emissions (conventional and especially greenhouse), noise, disruption of communities, accidents, use of nonrenewable energy, and production of solid waste. Further complicating the problem, the implementation of the measures to mitigate these impacts means that infrastructure expansion becomes even more costly. This exacerbates already growing concerns about how to finance such expansion, particularly in the light of the still very uneven access to the means of mobility and a generalized reduction of the role of the public sector in transport delivery (Graham and Marvin, 2001; World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD), 2001). It is precisely such issues that have led to a now broad consensus around the need to shift towards a more sustainable mobility, both among government, industry, and the profession (European Commission, 2007; WBSCD, 2001; Banister, 2005). There seems to be an increasing willingness to deal with the adverse impacts of mobility while acknowledging its benefits, and in many instances to take action too. While there are encouraging examples, progress, however, is slow, if not absent, and all over the world, but most dramatically in developing cities, indicators still point in the wrong direction.Further articulating these dilemmas are a number of more specific trends and challenges: A process of regionalization and globalization of the activity space of urban households and firms (Castells, 1996; Storper, 1997), resulting in the need to re-scale transportation networks that were originally conceived for a local or national scale. Differently than in the post-war era, such re-scaling has to be implemented in the face of the severe, mounting constraints on infrastructure expansion and mobility growth mentioned above. Related to this process, there is an urgent need to redefine planning institutions in order to overcome the present mismatch between existing institutions and emerging problems and potential solutions, resulting in a sharp decline of strategic capacity (Brenner, 2000; Healey, 1997, 2007; Salet et al., 2003). Such institutional redefinition covers both issues of scale (from the local and national to the regional and global) and scope (from public government to publicpublic and publicprivate governance).As part of the above and more specific to urban transportation planning, there is a persistent separation of the transport and land use planning processes. This is in sharp contrast with the nature of urban problems, which demand an integrated approach. While there is a wide consensus about this in both the academic and the professional community (Banister, 2002, 2005; Meyer and Miller, 2001), little integration between transport and land use planning is to be seen in practice. The resulting policy inconsistencies beg for better integration.3. Finding ways out of the dilemmasIn the context sketched above, the traditional predict and provide approach to urban transportation planning is no more an option. This approach was based on two assumptions: (i) the reliability of predictions of the future mobility demand (or at least enough consensus on this), and (ii) readiness to provide for the predicted growth in demand through transport system expansion. Uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the processes such as those described above means that reliable predictions are becoming more difficult to make (or, and that has the same effect, that there is more willingness to contest the assumptions on which such predictions are made). Even if that is not the case, the means (political, financial) for materially providing for the predicted growth in demand through system expansion are often simply not there. An alternative, demand management, approach that some have proposed is, however, also problematic, as it denies the fact that mobility has become an essential condition for active participation in urban social and economic life. While there have already been several interesting explorations of what the alternative approach or approaches to urban transportation planning could and should be (see for instance Marvin and Guy, 1999), a clear answer is still lacking, and the need for further exploration is still widely felt (Banister, 2005).The Amsterdam seminar aimed at catering for this need for further explorations. The starting point was the hypothesis that the situation described above demands a much more constructivist, design-oriented approach of the urban transportation planners. In this interpretation, the term design does not so much refer in a narrow sense to the technical design of transportation systems or cities at the macro or micro level, but rather more conceptually points at the need to more deliberately and creatively engage in the public debate about the cities we need and want and the role of transport in them. The idea behind this is that in a planning context characterized by both fundamental disagreement about planning goals (should we give priority to the economy or the environment?) and uncertainty about planning means (which transportation and telecommunication options will be available in the future?) the traditional role of the urban transportation planners as a neutral expert typified by the predict and provide approach, but largely also implied by the demand management approach is no longer tenable. What is rather needed is engagement in the highly political process of the definition of the problems and the search for solutions, or in policy design.In particular, the contributors to the seminar had been asked to react to the following groups of questions:Which transport policies can address the mobility and accessibility needs of todays complex and dynamic cities? Should transport planning aim at creating development potential for places in the urban network (as history shows) or rather at the improvement of the transport system as such (as most transport planners contend)?Whatever the answer, what kind of planning processes and planning tools could help planners generate effective policies? Is there need for change in the way we plan? How and why? In particular, do we agree that the policy design phase, and the involvement of the stakeholders therein, needs more attention than now is the case?4. A discipline in transitionThe contributions to the seminar, including the ones further elaborated in this theme issue, represent a variety of views from a variety of contexts. In the following pages, more general reflections are alternated by direct accounts from the field. Banister sketches the contours of the challenge, pointing at the most urgent problems and at potential solutions. Cascetta and Pagliara describe one case where it all seems to be coming together: the development of the Regional Metro System in Naples and Campania. Hull focuses on a specific, crucial aspect of the broader challenge, that of policy integration, with reference to the British experience. Curtis documents how transport and land use policy integration is being pursued in practice in Perth, and observes both breakthroughs and persistent barriers. At yet a lower level of abstraction, Handy identifies the need for new planning tools that match the emerging planning goals, and assesses the state of the art in four plans in the United States. Finally, Straatemeier explores the use of one such new tool, accessibility measures, as both a policy integrating concept and a more holistic performance indicator.These contributions cannot, of course, be considered representative of the whole urban transportation planning field, not even in their own countries. However, taken together, and all their variety and idiosyncrasies notwithstanding, they sketch the contours and possibly even document the emergence of a new sort of urban transportation planning, which shares a set of distinctive features. Four of these features are discussed below, with the idea that they can be a useful point of departure for a deeper and broader discussion, and serve as an interpretative framework for the individual articles.The first defining feature of the emerging urban transportation planning is that it is a discipline in the midst of a paradigmatic transition (in the sense of Kuhn, 1962). New planning goals (achieving sustainable mobility), processes (collaborative planning), tools (such as accessibility measures) are being introduced and increasingly also applied, but this does not appear a consolidated body of knowledge or approach. Old goals (easing congestion), processes (rational-technical planning), and tools (such as the fourstep model or level of service indicators) are still there, and show deeply engrained in the existing institutions and practices. The new and the old paradigms are explicitly contrasted in Baniste