易肇事路段與路口改善績效評估與指標之建立-以臺南市為例-

Abstract

台灣地區各級道路交通管理單位對所轄道路之交通事故都隨時或定期檢討 ，視肇事次數、嚴重性、及影響性立即改善或定期呈報上級協助改善，卻 未曾辦理定期或制度化的績效評估，就連改善計畫最完整由交通部每年度 辦理的「台灣地區易肇事路段改善計畫」亦未落實績效評估作業，故難以 彰顯改善後之效益，更無法由績效評估的結果得到回饋。實有需要訂出一 套適當的評估方法與指標，作為政府機關辦理易肇事路段改善計畫時作為 研擬及建立改善計畫績效評估制度的基礎。本研究主要以系統化的程序建 立評估準則，在透過實驗設計蒐集工程與管理並以台南市改善前後的肇事 資料為例，進行模式建立、校估、驗證、與應用範例說明的工作。在建立 評估準則的方法上，採用分析層級評估法(AHP)，分別向產業界、行政界 、學術界的專家進行訪談與問卷調查後，建立改善項目的權重, 並據以建 立評估改善績效的模式。本研究研擬七項評估改善績效的因素，利用問卷 進行特徵向量計算得到相對權重極其排序為：(1) 降低平均每件肇事的嚴 重度(2)降低肇事率(3)減少總肇事次數(4)減少肇事時所衍生的交通壅 塞(5)改善項目對交通壅塞的負面的影響(6)直接改善經費(7)改善項目行 政管理配合的複雜度。 Each year thousands of people are killed or injured in the traffic accidents in Taiwan. Highway safety and related authorities in Taiwan have been working hard to improve the highway safety through various programs. One particular program, "Project of Accident-Prone Locations Improvement in Taiwan Area", conducted annually by Ministry of Transportation and Communications focuses on road segments and/or intersections with occurrence of fatal accidents or frequent injured accidents. Under this program, traffic engineers and traffic safety experts are sent out to the field to examine the accident characteristics and also identify the problems resulting in the accidents. Then, a great amount of money are usually spent to mitigate the problems. However, there has been no systematic method to evaluate the effectiveness of this Project. As a result, it is difficult to learn the feedback form previous improvement. Therefore, the objective of this study is to develop a systematic evaluation procedure and method for highway safety authorities to evaluate the effectiveness of this Project.In this study, pre-improvement and post-improvement accident data of City of Tainan were collected for empirical analysis. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was adopted to identify critical evaluation indicators. Experts from industrial sectors, administrative sectors, and academic sectors were interviewed and surveyed using questionnaires. A model for evaluating the effectiveness of improvement was developed. Seven evaluation indicators were also identified. The relative weight of seven indicators can be quantitatively determined through questionnaires. These seven indicators are shown in order as follows: (1) reduce the severity of accident; (2) reduce accident rate; (3) reduce the total number of accidents; (4) reduce the duration of traffic congestion due to accidents; (5) negative impact of improvement on traffic; (6) direct improvemt costs; and (7) complexity of adminstaive/management coordination of improvement.