考量區域公平下公路汽車客運營運虧損補貼分配之最佳化

Abstract

為了符合社會大眾基本行的需求，尤其是居住在偏遠地區的居民，其大眾運輸業者的票箱收入無法負擔營運成本，使營運更加困難。以九十九年度公路汽車客運營運偏遠服務路線虧損補貼計劃為例，當中有25家公路客運業者，554條路線受補貼(超過總路線50%)，虧損補貼金額高達8.95億，一部分的受補貼路線甚至位於都市區域，因此對於區域間補貼政策的公平性始終爭議不斷。 基於此研究背景，本研究的目的為以區域公平原則下，調查台灣348個鄉鎮市區的大眾運輸可及性，本研究以加權旅行時間的倒數為可及性指標(包含步行時間、等候時間以及車內時間)。本研究利用四種模式達到地區間補貼預算分配最佳化，第一及第二種補貼預算分配模式的目標為最小化每人延車公里及單位面積延車公里的差距，第三種補貼預算分配模式主要以固定既有路線下，在可及性較低的地區增加其公路客運班次數，第四種模式地區間的補貼分配更進一步同時增加班次數及路線長度。 其結果顯示，本研究所提出四種模式的重新分配皆能比原本補貼方式更具有公平性，依照不同模式方向的探討，其補貼分配結果也會有所不同。

To meet the essential mobility need of people, especially for those whom living in rural areas where public transportation operators are difficult to financially self-support their bus service from ticket sales revenue, the government subsidizes public transportation operators. Taking fiscal year of 2010 for example, a total of 25 inter-city bus companies and 544 routes (over 50% of inter-city routes) were subsidized with the total subsidy reaching NT$895 millions. Some of these subsidized routes even locate at urban areas. Therefore, critics on the regional fairness of this subsidy policy never stop. Based on this, this study aims to investigate the regional fairness among 348 districts/townships across Taiwan by comparing their public transportation accessibility, which is defined as the reciprocal of weighted travel time (including walking time, waiting time and in-vehicle travel time). Four subsidy allocation models are then proposed to optimally allocate the subsidy budget among areas. The first and second models optimally allocate subsidy budget aiming at the minimum deviation of bus vehicle-km per resident and bus vehicle-km per squared-km. The third model optimally allocates subsidy budget under current operating inter-city routes by increasing the service frequency of inter-city routes serving the areas with low accessibility to public transportation systems. The forth model further allocates the subsidy among areas by increasing both route length and frequency, simultaneously. The results show that the proposed models re-allocation subsidy is more fairness than original, according the different models, the results also be different.