空铁综合运输网络互补作用分析

中国民航大学学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (5): 83-88.

空铁综合运输网络互补作用分析

王飞 1 ，伍加伟 2 ，黄宝军 1

1. 中国民航大学空中交通管理学院，天津

300300；2. 四川机场集团西昌青山机场分公司，四川西昌

615013

收稿日期:2023-10-30 修回日期:2024-02-06 出版日期:2024-12-21 发布日期:2025-04-08
作者简介:王飞（1982— ），男，安徽凤阳人，副教授，博士，研究方向为空中交通管理
基金资助:
天津市应用基础研究多元投入基金重点项目（21JCZDJC00840）；中央高校基本科研业务费专项（3122019129）

Analysis of the complementary effect of air-rail integrated transportation network

WANG Fei 1 , WU Jiawei 2 , HUANG Baojun1

1. College of Air Traffic Management, CAUC, Tianjin 300300, China; 2. Xichang Qingshan Airport, Sichuan Airport Group Co., Ltd.,

Xichang 615013, Sichuan, China

Received:2023-10-30 Revised:2024-02-06 Online:2024-12-21 Published:2025-04-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为更好地发挥航空运输和高铁运输的优势，本文研究了空铁综合运输网络的互补作用。首先，以城市为节点，

以航线/高铁线路为边，以单日航班频率/高铁班次频率为权值，构建了航空网络、高铁网络和空铁综合运输网

络。其次，采用枚举法和遗传算法，基于网络加权效率研究了网络的鲁棒性，并识别出网络关键节点组合。再

次，针对随机节点失效和关键节点失效两种情况，分别从鲁棒性、互补强度两个方面研究了高铁网络和航空

网络的互补作用。结果显示：空铁综合运输网络的加权效率为 0.317，明显高于航空网络 0.268 和高铁网络

0.209，当独立的高铁网络不连通时，空铁综合运输网络仍然连通；当随机节点和关键节点失效时，高铁子网

络对航空子网络的互补强度平均值分别为 0.072 和 0.435，航空子网络对高铁子网络的互补强度平均值分别

为 0.217 和 0.368，关键节点失效时的互补作用更强。结果表明，空铁综合运输网络结合了航空网络和高铁网

络的优势，具备更好的鲁棒性，航空网络和高铁网络能够发挥互补作用，且当关键节点失效时，互补作用更为

明显。

关键词:

综合运输, 空铁综合运输网络, 加权网络, 鲁棒性, 互补强度

Abstract:

To better leverage the advantages of aviation and high-speed rail transportation, the complementary effect of air-rail

integrated transportation network was studied. Firstly, the aviation network, high-speed rail network, and air-rail integrated transportation network were constructed with cities as nodes, airline/ high-speed rail route as edges, and

daily flight frequency/high-speed rail frequency per day as weights. Secondly, using enumeration method and genetic algorithm, the robustness of the network was studied based on network weighted efficiency, and critical node combinations of the network were identified. Thirdly, the complementary effect of the high-speed rail network and aviation network was investigated from two perspectives of robustness and complementary strength under two scenarios of

random node failure and critical node failure. The results showed that the weighted efficiency of the air-rail integrated transportation network was approximately 0.317, which is significantly higher than that of the aviation network

(0.268) and the high-speed rail network (0.209). When the independent high-speed rail network was not connected,

the air-rail integrated transportation network remained connected. Under random node failure and critical node failure, the average complementary strength of the high-speed rail sub-network to the aviation sub-network is 0.072

and 0.435, respectively and the average complementary strength of the aviation sub-network to the high-speed rail

sub-network is 0.217 and 0.368, respectively, with stronger complementary effect observed under critical node failure. The results indicated that the air-rail integrated transportation network combined the advantages of the aviation

network and high-speed rail network, with better robustness. Aviation network and high-speed rail network can play

complementary effect and its complementary effect is more pronounced under critical node failure.

Key words:

integrated transport, air-rail integrated transportation network, weighted network, robustness, complementary

strength

中图分类号:

U113

王飞 , 伍加伟 , 黄宝军 .

空铁综合运输网络互补作用分析

[J]. 中国民航大学学报, 2024, 42(5): 83-88.

WANG Fei , WU Jiawei , HUANG Baojun.

Analysis of the complementary effect of air-rail integrated transportation network

[J]. Journal of Civil Aviation University of China, 2024, 42(5): 83-88.

参考文献

[1]

MILLER E. Twenty-first century urban mobility: multi-modal, inclu－

sive and sustainable[J]. Journal of Transport Geography, 2009, 17(5):

343-350.

[2] ALBALATE D, BEL G, FAGEDA X． Competition and cooperation be－

tween high-speed rail and air transportation services in Europe[J]． Jour－

nal of Transport Geography, 2015, 42: 166-174．

[3] TAKEBAYASHI M． How could the collaboration between airport and

high speed rail affect the market[J]． Transportation Research Part A: Pol－

icy and Practice, 2016, 92: 277-286．

[4]

ZHANG F N, GRAHAM D J, WONG M S C． Quantifying the substi－

tutability and complementarity between high-speed rail and air trans－

port[J]． Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2018, 118:

191-215．

[5] BERCHE B, VON FERBER C, HOLOVATCH T, et al． Resilience of public transport networks against attacks[J]． The European Physical Jour－

nal B, 2009, 71(1): 125-137．

[6]

CATS O, JENELIUS E． Vulnerability analysis of public transport net－

works: a dynamic approach and case study for Stockholm[C]//The 5th

International Symposium on Transportation Network Reliability, Hong

Kong, June 16, 2012.

[7] YANG Y, HUANG A L, GUAN W． Statistic properties and cascading

failuresin a coupled transit network consisting of bus and subway systems

[J]． International Journal of Modern Physics B, 2014, 28(30): 1450212．

[8]

HONG L, YAN Y Z, OUYANG M, et al． Vulnerability effects of passen－

gers' intermodal transfer distance preference and subway expansion on

complementary urban public transportation systems[J]． Reliability En－

gineering & System Safety, 2017, 158: 58-72．

[9]

OUYANG M, PAN Z Z, HONG L, et al． Vulnerability analysis of com－

plementary transportation systems with applications to railway and air－

line systems in China[J]． Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2015,

142: 248-257．

[10] JIANG C M, ZHANG A M． Airline network choice and market coverage

under high-speed rail competition[J]． Transportation Research Part A:

Policy and Practice, 2016, 92: 248-260．

[11] LI T, RONG L L． Resilience of air transport network with the comple－

mentary effects of high-speed rail network[C]//2019 IEEE 19th Inter－

national Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Com－

panion (QRS-C), July 22-26, 2019, Sofia, Bulgaria． IEEE, 2019: 348-

353．

[12] 彭小晗．互补高铁与航空交通系统的脆弱性研究[D]．武汉: 华中科

技大学, 2019．

[13] ZHOU Y M, SHEU J B, WANG J W． Robustness assessment of urban

road network with consideration of multiple hazard events[J]． Risk Analysis:an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2017, 37

(8): 1477-1494．