捷運系統旅客申訴案件分析及處理方式之檢討研究

Abstract

台北捷運公司設有旅客申訴管道讓旅客表達意見，並有專人處理申訴案件。由於申訴案件內容多樣化，但捷運公司對案件之分類並不夠細緻，恐對問題之分析比較及改善對策之研擬有不良影響。本研究主要目的係發展四層級分類方法，將捷運旅客申訴案件賦予明確的分類及清楚的定義，使案件歸類、統計分析、原因追蹤等工作能更順利的進行。以民國八十七年下半年的申訴案件為例，依本研究之四層級分類方法重新將每一案件建檔歸類，再作統計分析及旅客背景對申訴案件的交叉分析，最後對申訴旅客作追蹤調查。 研究分析結果發現：(1)申訴案件以票證期限問題、新北投支線噪音問題及木柵線廣播音量太大的問題為最多見。(2)旅客對捷運系統的期望很高，提出申訴案件的旅客以女性為多，且女性旅客提出的問題較男性旅客細微。(3)在案件處理流程中，由各車站移至捷運公司公關課所花費時間長，有進一步縮短之必要。(4)旅客比較在乎捷運公司是否採納其建議將問題改善，對於捷運公司之回覆方式較不重視。

The Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation (TRTC) has set up petition channels for passengers to express their complaints and suggestions and a special group been formed to handle the petition cases as well. Passengers' petitions vary case by case, but since the TRTC is not delicate enough in the classification of those cases, it might not be effective in the analysis of problems and the devising of treatments. This study aims to elaborate a 4-level classification method which categorizes the petition cases definitely so as to help improve the tasks of categorization, statistical analysis, and causal traces. Taking the petition cases in the latter half of 1998 as samples, we fit each case into one of the proposed 4-level categories and establish a database file. Then, a cross analysis is conducted on the statistics and the passengers' background. At last, we try to trace the passengers who once filed their petitions. The results of our research show the following main points. (1) Among the petition cases, the most common complaints include the expiry date of tickets, noises in the Hsin Peitou branch line, and the loud broadcasting volume in the Mu-cha line. (2) Passengers hold a high expectation from the MRT. Female passengers file more petitions than male counterparts and are more delicate in the questions they raise. (3) In the treatment process of the petition cases, the transfer of cases from each MRT station to the TRTC Public Relations Section takes too long a time, which needs to be shortened. (4) Passengers care more about whether the TRTC accept their suggestions and make some improvements than about the way the petition cases are answered.