This paper estimates relationships between the supply of national highways, measured in lane-km, and the quantity of traffic, measured in vehicle-km traveled. The analysis uses a panel data set of annual observations for the years 1984 to 2003. By using aⅠ.서론 
 
　Ⅱ. 유발교통량의 개념 및 기존 연구 고찰 
 
　Ⅲ. 고속도로 투자로 인한 유발교통량 분석 
 
　　1. 자료 
 
　　2. 시차 모형 구축 및 정립 
 
　　3. 모형 추정 결과 및 분석 
 
　　4. 지역별·연도별유발교통량 분석 
 
　Ⅴ. 정책적 시사점 및 결

김강수

KDI School Archives

핵심주제어:• (Generated Traffic), (Highway Investment), (Elasticity)• JEL 코드: R40, R42, R49논문투고일:• 2006. 4. 26 심사시작일:• 2006. 4. 28 심사완료일:• 2006. 12. 5Road Supply and Generated TrafficKang-Soo Kim(Research Fellow, Korea Development Institute)김 강 수한국개발연구원 연구위원( )고속도로 투자로 인한 유발교통량 분석에 관한 연구韓國開發硏究제 권제 호 통권제 호28 2 ( 98 )ABSTRACTThis paper estimates relationships between the supply of national highways, measured inlane-km, and the quantity of traffic, measured in vehicle-km traveled. The analysis uses apanel data set of annual observations for the years 1984 to 2003. By using a log-linear lageffect model designed to capture short and long term effects, the paper estimates thatnational highway vehicle-km traveled has a lane-km elasticity of 0.268 at the country level(Non-Seoul Metropolitan area) and 0.41 at the Seoul metropolitan area for the short term.For the long term, the paper estimates 0.8 for the country level and 1.23 for the Seoulmetropolitan area. This paper finds conclusive evidence that increases in highway lane-mileshave generated traffic over the period of study, however the increasing ratio of the generatedtraffic decreases gradually, particularly during the late 1980s.1서 론.Ⅰ. ,,,.,. ,,..,..2 . 3,,.4.유발교통량 개념 및 기존.Ⅱ연구 고찰.. Goodwin(1996)(diverted traffic)Hills(1996). , SACTRA(1994)1).. ,( ). ,.,,...[ 1](Supply Curve: SC)(Demand Curve: DC) .SC1( ),DC1. (TrafficVolume: TV) TV1 .,(Generalised Cost:GC) GC1 GC2 2)SC1 SC2TV2 .TV2TV1 , TV2 - TV1 ., ,DC1 DC2 ,TV3. ,TV3 TV2.1) , , , , ,.2) ,. ,.3그림 일반화 통행비용과 교통량에 대한 수요 공급곡선[ 1],..3)1940. Jorgensen(1947)4) Connecticut Merrit andWilbur Cross Parkways,3) , ,. . ,, ( )( ) ,.4) Jorgensen, R.E., Influence of Expressways in Diverting Traffic from Alternative Route and Generating NewTraffic, Proceedings of 27th Annual Highway Research Board Meeting, 1947...SACTRA(1994)5),-0.5, -1.0. , 20%10% ,20%. , Goodwin(1996)6).-0.27, -0.57,-0.67 -1.33.Fulton et al(1999)7).. Noland and Cowart(1999)8)Fulton etal(1999).,VMT(Vehicles Miles Travelled, ( )). Hansen and Huang(1997)9)0.6~0.7,0.9 . 560~70%. Noland (2001)10) VMT0.5, 0.850% 55) SACTRA, “Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk RoadAssessment”, Department of Transport, London, 1994.6) Goodwin, P. “Empirical Evidence on Induced Traffic, Transportation”, Vol. 23, No.1, 1996, pp.35~54.7) Fulton, Lewis M., Daniel J. Meszler, Robert B. Noland, and John V. Thoms, A Statistical Analysis of InducedTravel Effects in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region, 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,19998) Noland, R.B. and Cowart,W.A., Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Milesof Travel, 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 19999) Hansen, M. and Y. Huang, “Road Supply and Traffic in California Urban Areas”, Transportation Research A,31(3), 1997, pp.205~218.10) Noland, R., “Relations between Highway Capacity and Induced Vehicle Travel”, Transportation Research A,35(1), 2001, pp.47~72.5,80% .. Noland and Lem(2002)11) Mid-AtlanticLane MileVMT 0.2~0.6.Cevero(2002)12) Ceevero and Hansen(2002)13) 1980 1994, VMT 0.6410% 6.4%(VMT), ,..고속도로 투자로 인한 유.Ⅲ발교통량 분석자 료1.,..14)472003. 4711) Noland, R. and L. Lem, “A Review of the Evidence for Induced Travel and Changes in Transportation andEnvironmental Policy in the US and UK”, Transportation Reserach D, 7(1), 2002, pp.1~26.12) Cervero, R., “Induced Deamdn : An Urban and Metropolitan Perspective, Working Together to Address InduceDemand”, ENO Transport Foundation, Washington D.C., Cervero, R., 2002a.13) Cervero, R. and Hansen, M., “Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment”, Journal of TransportEconomics and Policy, 36(3), 2002a, pp.469~490.14)( ) km .,,.,, ,, GRDP,. , GRDP,.< 1>47..15).< 2>,GRDP,km.시차 모형 구축 및 정립2.47,. ,(Lag).km(VKT) ,km(lane-kilometer, LK), GRP,.,GRP ,(POP)(LK) .15) 47. . , 4710 , 10 47 .7표 분석 고속도로 노선 및 구간< 1>88~ 2 1984 ~ 8 1992~ 2 1984 ~ 8 1994~ 2 1984 ~ 8 1997~ 2 1984 ~ 4 2002~ 2 19842~ 4 1982~ 4 2001 ~ 4 1982~ 4 2001 2 ~ 6 1994~ 4 2001 ~ 6 1996~ 4 1998 ~ 4 2001~ 4 2001 ~ 4 1997( )~ 4 1996 ~ 6 1995~ 4 2001 ~ 4 1995~ 4 1997 ~ 4 1995~ 4 1987 ~ 4 1995~ 4 1987 ~ 4 1999~ 4 1987 ~ 8 19702 ~ 4 2001 ~ 8 1969~ 6 2001 ~ 8 1969~ 6 1992 ~ 8 1968~ 6 1992 ~ 6 1994~ 6 1992 ~ 6 1993~ 8 1992 ~ 8 1986~ 8 1992 ~ 10 1986~ 10 1993 -: 70 80 .: , , .    표 분석 기간 동안의 지역별 확장연도 및 평균 대 분석 구간길이< 2> km, GRDP,․(1), l0”. , l 0 < l < L.(1)(LK).= +++ (1),: r(vehicle-kilometer travelled).1 , 2: . D: ( ) r: ( ) rs(lane-kilometer), :: . 0(1),km GRDP( )(km)km GRDP( )(km)706848 660529511988, 1992,1993, 1996,1997,2001~2003263 5910 12183437 2001, 2002 5769261 25765039 - 18 13768 18203258 1998, 2002 4952016 15968141 2001 216 158048 31348046 1996,2002 10899787 13577141 1993 55 209409 24427086 1995, 1999 14083707 171411812 1993 126 22436 15962106 - 189표 시차별 변화< 3> AIC(L)ORDER OF LAG AIC(L)ORDER OF LAG AIC1 0 190.3 2 0 188.01 1 153.0 2 1 154.11 2 199.3 2 2 129.4(number of lags) ( )(order of polynomial)., LK1, 2.,, Greene(1993)16)Akaike (AIC;Akaike Information Criterion)17)AIC.., ,2(Lag=2). ,(VKT)2.,. ,.18),Durbin-Watson0.1516) Greene, W., Econometric Analysis, second edition, Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1993.17) , .AIC .AIC= , SSE(sums of squared errors), k , n .18) .(model specification) .(1) .. ,(Ordinary Least Square)Prais- Winsten.19)모형 추정 결과 및 분석3.< 4>(1) .LK t,.R2.,. LK( )VKT( ).< 4>.LK VKT0.33 , 0.60.LK 3(Lag=2) ,1.80(LK) 1% (VKT)1.80%. , 0.99%표 모형추정결과< 4>t-valueLKL* R2POP1 0.43 0.05 8.461.80 292 0.99LK1 0.60 0.09 6.97POP2 0.51 0.04 11.550.99 123LK2 0.33 0.07 5.0119) (1) Fixed-Effects EstimationRandom Effects Estimation ..11그림 모형 추정치 비교[ 2]모 형  추 정  결 과P O P , 0.43P O P , 0.51LK, 0.6LK, 0.33장 기  LK, 1.8장 기  LK, 0.9900.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.82수 도 권 지 방지 역변수 추정치P O P LK 장 기  LK.,.,. ,.,.지역별연도별 유발 교통량4. ․분석. ,LK VKT.VKTLKVKT.그림 지역별 유발 일 기준[ 3] VKT(1 )지 역 별  유 발  V KT2 8 ,3 4 01 ,5 4 5 2 ,5 4 5 2 ,4 8 0 4 7 0 7 0 47 ,0 2 9 6 ,8 7 05 2 705 ,0 0 01 0 ,0 0 01 5 ,0 0 02 0 ,0 0 02 5 ,0 0 03 0 ,0 0 0경 기 강 원 충 북 충 남 전 북 전 남 경 북 경 남 대 전지 역V KT~, ~.[ 3] LKVKT(1 ). ,, ,..LK 1%28,3407,000.2,500 , 500~700. ,. ,‘70~’902000.VKT(POP) LK(4). ,13(Lag) 2 ,0 ,(2).(r) .(2)(2) VKTLK(3) .m. , 1985 -1990m 5 . *(2).(3), (3)(4) . (4) POPLK VKT.1985-1990 , 1991-1996 ,1997-2003 .(4), 1985 1990VKT, VKT(POP) . 1990VKT 19902.24 1997~2003 0.5,. 1991, LKVKT 0.66~0.50.19911996 VKT,LK. 1997 2003VKT.표 지방 및 수도권 변화의 주 요인 및 기여도< 5> VKT1985 -1990 1991 -1996 1997 -2003log log loglog(POP) 1.44 64.4% -0.03 0.0% 0.00 0.0%log(LK) 0.80 35.6% 0.69 100.0% 0.50 100.0%log(VKT) 2.24 100.0% 0.66 100.0% 0.50 100.0%log(POP) 0.10 10.6% 0.46 22.9% 0.07 18.1%log(LK) 0.83 89.4% 1.56 77.1% 0.33 81.9%log(VKT) 0.93 100.0% 2.02 100.0% 0.4 100.0%그림 지방 및 수도권의 기간별 변화와 그 주요인< 4> VKT기 간 별  V KT  변 화 의  주  요 인0 %2 0 %4 0 %6 0 %8 0 %1 0 0 %1 2 0 %지 방 수 도 권 지 방 수 도 권 지 방 수 도 권1 9 8 5 년 -1 9 9 0 년 1 9 9 1 년 -1 9 9 6 년 1 9 9 7 년 -2 0 0 3 년지 역 , 기 간log(VKT)의 평균변화lo g( L K)  영 향lo g( P O P ) 영 향정책적 시사점 및 결론IV..,,15.,.LK() VKT( (vehicle-kilometer)). ,LK VKT 0.33, 0.60. 1.80(LK) 1%(VKT) 1.80%. ,0.99%., LKVKT(1 ),, ,.,.LK. 19851990 VKT,VKT. 1990VKT 19902.24 1997~2003 0.50,. 1991, LK1991~1996 VKT0.66. 19911996 VKT,LK. 1997 2003VKT..,....17참 고 문 헌, , , ( ), ,, 1986., (2003-2012), 2003., , , ( ), :1992 , , 1990., ( )., ,17 1 , 1999., , , , SOC (1 ), ,2003.Aschauer, D.A., Is Public Expenditure Productive?, Journal of Monertary Economics23, pp 177-200,1989Cervero, R., “Induced Deamdn : An Urban and Metropolitan Perspective”, Working Together toAddress Induce Demand, ENO Transport Foundation, Washington D.C., Cervero, R., 2002a.Cervero, R. and Hansen, M., “Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment”, Journal ofTransport Economics and Policy, 36(3), 2002a, pp.469~490.Choo, Sangho, Patrical L. Mokhtarian and Ilan Salomon, “Impacts of Home-Based Telecommutingon Vehicle-Miles Traveled”; A Nationwide Time Series Analysis. Publication No.P600-01-020, the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, December, 2001.Conrad, K. and Seitz, K., The Economic Benefits of Public Infrastructure, Mimeo, 1992Eisner, R., Real Government Saving and the Future, Presented at the session of the AmericanEconomic Association Annual Meetings of Public Investments, Infrastructure and EconomicGrowth, Anaheim, California, 1993Fulton, Lewis M., Daniel J. Meszler, Robert B. Noland, and John V. Thoms, A Statistical Analysisof Induced Travel Effects in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region, 79th Annual Meeting of theTransportation Research Board, 1999Goodwin, P. “Empirical Evidence on Induced Traffic, Transportation”, Vol. 23, No.1, 1996,pp.35~54.Greene, David L., “Vehicle use and fuel economy: How big is the "rebound" effect?”, The EnergyJournal 13(1), 1992, pp.117~143.Greene, W., “Econometric Analysis, second edition”, Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1993.Hansen, M. and Y. Huang, “Road Supply and Traffic in California Urban Areas”, TransportationResearch A, 31(3), 1997, pp.205~218.Hills, P.J. What is Induceed Traffic, Transportation 23, 1996Hulten, C.R. and Schwab, R.M., Is there too little Public Capital? Infrastructure and EconomicGrowth, Conference Paper, American Enterprise Institute, February, 1991Jorgensen, R.E., Influence of Expressways in Diverting Traffic from Alternative Route andGenerating New Traffic, Proceedings of 27th Annual Highway Research Board Meeting,1947Nadri, I.M. and Schankerman, M., Technical Change, Returns to Scale and Productivity Slowdown,American Economic Review, 71(2), pp314-319, 1981Noland, R.B. and Cowart,W.A., Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth inVehicle Miles of Travel, 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1999Noland, R., “Relations between Highway Capacity and Induced Vehicle Travel”, TransportationResearch A, 35(1), 2001, pp.47~72Noland, R. and L. Lem, “A Review of the Evidence for Induced Travel and Changes inTransportation and Environmental Policy in the US and UK”, Transportation Research D,7(1), 2002, pp.1~26.Prais, S. and Winsten, C., “Trend Estimates and Serial Correlation”, Cowles Commission, Chicago,IL., 1954.SACTRA, “Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic, Standing Advisory Committee on TrunkRoad Assessment”, Department of Transport, London, 1994.Schimek, Paul, “Gasoline and Travel demand models using time series and cross section data fromUnited States”, Transportation Research Record 1558, 1996, pp.83~89.Tatorn, J.A., Public Capital and Private Sector Performance, St Louis Federal Review, 1991

Road Supply and Generated Traffic

https://archives.kdischool.ac.kr/bitstream/11125/19195/1/9917_2_1_1258.pdf

Road Supply and Generated Traffic

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KDI School Archives