臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來國內以汽車為主的運輸環境與都市發展型態，伴隨經濟結構的變化，以及人口與工作者人數之增加，交通壅塞與通勤時間冗長課題日漸加劇，強化了都市土地使用模式重新形塑及運具多樣化選擇的需求。「大眾運輸導向發展（Transit-Oriented Development,TOD）」之發展型態亦成為國內重要的發展概念。由於大眾運輸使用量的增加為TOD的最直接效益，又台北捷運系統於民國85年開始通車營運後，運量逐年上升，但運量尖峰性相當明顯，影響系統營運效率與服務水準，因此本研究希望藉由對台北捷運系統具備之TOD特性跟運量與運量時間分散程度間關係之探討，了解目前國內捷運系統周邊的TOD特性與TOD「增加大眾運具運量」、「提升運量時間分散程度」效益間影響關係，並就實證研究所得之影響關係，研提策略建議供都市規劃與相關經營管理單位參考。
本研究採「橫斷性研究設計(cross-section design)」，民國93年為資料基準時間，以台北市轄區內46個捷運車站（周邊500公尺範圍內）為樣本。蒐集整理台北捷運公司與台北市政府統計資料，自變數包含TOD特性變數（密度特性、混合使用特性、都市設計特性）與控制變數（社會經濟、交通運輸服務）；應變數為捷運運量、運量時間分散程度及非尖峰運量。經線性迴歸模式校估顯著影響捷運運量之因子，並藉由t檢定探討前述影響效果是否會由於平日、假日而有所差異。
實證結果有幾點重要發現：（一）總樓地板面積對捷運全日運量存在正面影響，十字路口比例則呈現負影響效果；混合使用特性對影響則不顯著。（二）人行道長度對捷運運量熵值為正向影響，服務零售業面積比則會降低運量時間上之分散程度，密度特性之影響不顯著。（三）非尖峰運量與全日運量兩個模式之顯著影響變數與影響方向相同，表示現時台北捷運系統各車站全日運量與非尖峰時段運量高低情形類似。（四）密度與都市設計特性對捷運運量之影響，在平日與假日間有顯著差異，而混合使用特性在平日及假日均無顯著影響。（五）各項TOD特性對捷運運量時間分散程度之影響效果均會因平日或假日而不同。（六）密度及都市設計特性對捷運非尖峰運量於平日及假日具顯著影響差異，但混合使用特性均無顯著影響。最後，根據實證結果研提國內推動TOD之策略建議。建成環境面：（1）適度提高捷運車站周邊活動強度。（2）控制捷運車站周邊服務與零售業活動之發展與土地混合程度。（3）捷運車站周邊路網應進行私人運具行車動線之調整與配置；並配合便利步行系統之提供。經營管理面：（1）優先選擇轉乘或中間站做為TOD發展地區。（2）鼓勵公車業者經營捷運轉乘路線，並建立良好轉乘機制。

As in other international cities, the development of city in Taiwan, together with a corresponding rapid growth in population and vehicles, has given rise to many issues. Because the excessive use of the automobile inefficient urban and transportation planning patterns produce economic, environmental, social, and other costs, Transit-Oriented Development（TOD）is a important development concept in Taiwan. In other developed countries, there are plenty of empirical studies on TOD policy, however, most of the past studies in our country lack this kind of empirical studies . Additionally, the directest utility of TOD is the augmentation of transit system ridership. And Taipai metro system ridership is concentrical of time. Therefore, this study aims to find out the relationship between the TOD character around metro station and the utility of Taipai metro ridership. The results can be a reference for the transit-oriented policies and transportation system management .
This study use cross-section design, the samples were investigated in metro system in Taipai in 2004 and were analyzed by regression model. The independent variables include control variable （household income, motor vehicle number, motorcycle number, station category, parking space number, bus station number, transfer bus Route number）and TOD character variable. And in order to ensure the accuracy of the calibration results, examinations of the theoretical assumptions arecarried out to get the best linear unbiased estimators; simultaneously, byｔ- test.

第一章 緒論
第一節 動機與目的 …………………………………..................... 1-1
第二節 研究範圍 ...….………………………….............................. 1-3
第三節 研究流程與內容 …………………….................................... 1-5第四節 研究方法 …………………………………......................... 1-9
第二章 文獻回顧
第一節 TOD定義與特性 …………………………………………………. 2-1
第二節 TOD與大眾運輸使用 ……………………………….............. 2-6
第三節 運具選擇 …………………………...……………………………… 2-19第四節 綜合評析 ………………………………….………………............ 2-34
第三章 研究設計
第一節 課題研析 ..…………………………………………........ 3-1第二節 假說研提 ……………………………………………........ 3-13
第三節 驗證方法 ……………………………………………........... 3-22
第四章 樣本資料分析
第一節 樣本資料蒐集………………………………………............ ...4-1
第二節 樣本特性分析………………………………………............ ...4-5
第三節 相關分析 ……………………………………………........... 4-19
第五章 迴歸分析
第一節 平日模式分析………………………………………............ ...5-2
第二節 平日與假日模式比較………………………………………..5-16
第三節 假說驗證 ……………………………………………........... 5-20
第四節 策略研擬 ……………………………………………........... 5-27
第六章 結論與建議
第一節 結論 ……..………………………………………............ ...6-1
第二節 建議 ………………..………………………………………..6-5
參考文獻
國內文獻 ...………………………………………………………….文-1
國外文獻 ………………………………………………………….. 文-1

一、國內文獻
1.台北捷運公司（2004），「台北捷運公司2004年年報」，台北捷運公司。
2.李家儂 (2003)，「都會區大眾運輸導向發展之規劃模式」，台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
3.邱皓政（2000），「社會與行為科學的量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析」，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
4.邱静淑（2003），「都市通勤者運具選擇行為之研究」，暨南國際大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
5.張學孔、錢學陶、杜雲龍（2000），大眾運輸導向之都市發展策略，「捷運技術半年刊」，第21期，第1-16頁。
6.陳勝智(2001)，「以大眾運輸導向發展理念進行車站地區都市再發展之探討」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
二、國外文獻
1.Bernick, M. and Cervero, R. (1997). Transit Villages for the 21st Century, New York: McGraw- Hill.
2.Benfield, F. K., Raimi, M. D. and Chen, D.D. (1999). Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl is Undermining America’s Environment, Economic and Social Fabric, The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Surface Transportation Policy Project.
3.Calthorpe, P. (1990). Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines for the County of Sacramento: Sacramento.
4.Cervero, R. (1991). Land-use and travel at suburb and activity center, Transportation Quarterly, 45(3): 479-491.
5.Cervero, R. (1993). Ridership impacts of transit focused development, Report to the California Department of Transportation and the University of California Transportation Center, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
6.Cervero, R. (1994). Rail-oriented office development in California: How successful, Transportation Quarterly, 48(1):33-44.
7.Cervero, R., Bernick, M. and Gilbert, G. (1994). Market Opportunities and Barriers to Transit- Based Development in California: Working Paper 621, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California: Berkeley, CA.
8.Cervero, R. (1995). Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey, Transportation Research A, 30(5): 361-377.
9.Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design, Transport Research A, 2(3): 199-219.
10.Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. (2002). Residential Self- Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis, Working Paper 604, University of California at Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center: Berkeley, CA.
11.Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Feerell, C., Goguts, N. and Tsai, Y. H. (2004). Transit-Oriented Develop in the United States：Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, Transit Cooperative Research Program 102, Transportation Research Board: Washingtion, D.C.
12.Freilich, R. H. (1998). The land-use implication of transit-oriented development: controlling the demand side of transportation congestion and urban sprawl, The Urban Lawyer, 30(3): 547-572.
13.Ford, L. R. (1999). Lynch revisited：new urbanism and theories of good city form, Cities, 16(4): 247–257.
14.Holtzclaw, J., Clear, R., Dittmar, H., Goldstein, D. and Haas P. (2002). Location efficiency: Neighborhood and socioeconomic characteristics determine auto ownership and usez ─ Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Transportation Planning and Technol, 25:1-27.
15.JHK and Associates (1987). Development-Related Survey I, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Washington, D.C.
16.JHK and Associates (1989). Development-Related Survey II, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Washington, D.C.
17.Lund, H. M., Cervero, R. and Willson, R. W. (2004). Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California, Statewide Planning Studies: Final Report, Bay Area Rapid Transit District and California Department of Transportation: Oakland, California.
18.Messenger, T. and Ewing, R. (1996）. Transit-oriented development in the sun belt, Transportation Research Board 1552, National Research Council, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
19.Parker, T., McKeever, M., Arrington, G.B. and Smith, H. J. (2002). Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California, Business Transportation and Housing Agency, California Department of Transportation: Sacramento, CA.
20.Untermann, R. (1984). Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adopting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
21.Voith, R. (1997). Fare, service levels, and demographics: What determines commuter rail ridership in the long run, Journal of Urban Economics, 41: 176-197.
22.White, S., Attorney, Freilich, Robert H ., Leitner and Carlisle (1999). The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit- oriented Development, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.