標題: 大眾運輸補貼計畫之評估:以巴拿馬為例
Evaluation of Transit Subsidy Plans Using Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case of Panama
作者: 施霓諾
Salado, Ninoshka
邱裕鈞
Chiou, Yu-Chiun
運輸與物流管理學系
關鍵字: 大眾運輸補貼;層級分析法;補貼計畫;Transit Subsidies;Analytic Hierarchy Process;Subsidy Schemes
公開日期: 2013
摘要: 公共運輸補貼經費通常佔政府支出預算中相當龐大的比例,尤其許多經費係來自政府稅收,其是否有效運用,更令人關切。因此,如何有效運用補貼經費,以達到最大效益,實為一重要課題。基此,本研究旨在研提用以評選補貼分配方案的評估架構,並以全國人口集中的巴拿馬都會區為例,進行分析。該都會區正在規劃建置一條捷運線,若沒有適當的公車及捷運補貼,恐怕無法降低捷運及公車票價,進而吸引民眾使用,導致捷運投資之浪費。基此,主管當局也正思考在研擬一個補貼計畫,以促進大眾運輸系統之整合與發展。 本研究利用層級分析法(AHP)進行補貼計畫之評選。本評估架構包括補貼成本效益、補貼公平性、服務效果、服務品質、環境永續性、政府財務永續性、業者財務永續性等七大標的,並包括一至二個的準則。至於權重之決定係透過訪談巴拿馬運輸及經濟相關專家學者,並經計算而得。結果顯示。政府財務永續性權重最高。至於補貼計畫則以方案三為最佳,其次為方案二,而方案一最差。而方案三是提供營運補貼,並提供學生單一費率的優待票,並提供捷運與公車間之轉乘優惠。 關鍵詞:大眾運輸補貼、層級分析法、補貼計畫。
Transit subsidy is a common policy, used by many governments to support any increase of transport cost and therefore provide some direct benefit to users. In transportation, subsidies, are granted for many reasons and take an important part of government expenditure. This study is conducted to evaluate three different subsidy plans, to implement in the metropolitan area of Panama; where all the economic activity of this country is concentrated. The subsidy plans proposed by the authorities are aimed to provide financial assistance to the operators, develop new technologies and integrate the new systems (Metro and public bus); to benefit both the operators and users of public transportation systems. The subsidy schemes proposed for Panama were evaluated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This method consists of a hierarchical representation, in which the decision problem is decomposed into different levels according to their common characteristics. Each level is evaluated by experts in transportation and economy of Panama. The experts were required to conduct a pair-wise comparison of the elements and provide the weights to determine the ranking of each alternative. The scheme 1, composed by a fuel tax rebate, a flat fare scheme, an operating subsidy for metro operations and a fare subsidy; was placed as the worst option. The second best option was, scheme 2, formed by a concessionary fare subsidy, capital subsidy for both systems (to invest in fleet and new technologies) and operating subsidy for metro operations. The best alternative according to the opinion of the experts was scheme 3, which offered a conditional operating subsidy, a flat fare subsidy, an operating subsidy for metro operations and a discount for transfers in both systems. Key Words: Transit Subsidies, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Subsidy Schemes.
URI: http://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#GT070153632
http://hdl.handle.net/11536/74564
Appears in Collections:Thesis


Files in This Item:

  1. 363201.pdf