• 검색 결과가 없습니다.

A Comparative Analysis of Characteristics of Mode Choice and Mode Transfer to Public Transit by Mode-Choice Class for the Effective Transportation Demand Management Implement

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A Comparative Analysis of Characteristics of Mode Choice and Mode Transfer to Public Transit by Mode-Choice Class for the Effective Transportation Demand Management Implement"

Copied!
10
0
0

로드 중.... (전체 텍스트 보기)

전체 글

(1)

Received August 1, 2013/ revised October 2, 2013/ accepted October 12, 2013

Copyright ⵑ 2013 by the Korean Society of Civil Engineers

 ǣŠ––’ǣȀȀ†šǤ†‘‹Ǥ‘”‰ȀͳͲǤͳʹ͸ͷʹȀ•…‡ǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ͵͵Ǥ͸ǤʹͶͻ͵

™™™Ǥ•…‡Œ‘—”ƒŽǤ‘”Ǥ”

㱦ኺ⶿ⴶ#ጎ㝳⟖ⱒኾὪ⇧⬆ⴖ#㍒⾂ⴂ#Ⳃ㬚#ጎ㝳⟖ᢦ⛞㚛#ኂ㏳⊂#

⟖ᢦ⛞㚛㡷⛯#⇍#ᢾ⻏ጎ㝳⳺Ḛⴖ#ⷂ㰖ⴖ⢛#␂ጎ#⍂⛛

จ୨ผ

Hwang, Jung-Hoon*

A Comparative Analysis of Characteristics of Mode Choice and Mode Transfer to Public Transit by Mode-Choice Class for the Effective Transportation Demand Management Implement

ABSTRACT

Various schemes of transportation demand management(TDM) to discourage the use of cars and enhance public transit performance have been implemented in large cities. Nevertheless, policy effects in reducing car have not been satisfactory. Car-dependent travelers who tend to keep driving cars regardless of the change of the trip circumstances as such increase of travel time and cost according to car use or improvement of public transit service may be due to not according to utility reflecting mode-specific impedance and their own socio-economic characteristics. In this study, travelers were classified into four groups by their choice frequency of private car and public transit in unspecified multiple trip(car-dependent, car-choice, public transit-choice, public transit-dependent class). And the characteristics of each group were comparative analyzed. The results show that the group of a higher car-dependent is a higher priority on convenience and comfortability of the car when making decisions and the group of a lower of car-dependent is likely to change to public transit.

Key words : TDM, Mode-choice class, AHP, Car, Public transit

Ⅹಾ

ݡࠥ᜽ෝᵲᝍᮝಽ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᮥᨖᱽ⦹ŁݡᵲƱ☖᮹ᙹ݉ᇥݕශᮥᱽŁ᜽┅ʑ᭥⦽݅᧲⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩᯕ⇵ḥࡹᨕ᪵ᮝӹ᜚ᬊ₉☖

⧪ప᮹qᗭ᪡zᮡᱶ₦ᱢᯙ⬉ŝ۵∊ᇥ⦹݅Łᅝᙹᨧ݅. ᯕ్⦽ᬱᯙ᮹⦹ӹಽݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅ᮹⨆ᔢᮥ☖⧕᜚ᬊ₉ಽᇡ░᮹ᙹ݉ᱥ⪹ᮥ

ᮁࠥ⦹۵ᱶ₦ॅᯕݡᵲƱ☖᮹ᙹ݉ᱢ⬉ᬊᮥ᷾a᜽┅۵⬉ŝ۵ᯩᨩᮝӹ༉ु᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᯱᨱíݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽᱥ⪹⧁ᱶࠥ۵ᦥܩᨩ݅۵ä

ᮥॅᙹᯩ݅. ᯕᨱᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᨱ঑௝Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩᨱݡ⦽ᯙ᜾᮹₉ᯕaᯩᮥäᮝಽᅕŁ, ᇩ✚ᱶ݅ᙹ᮹☖⧪ᨱ ᕽ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥෝʑᵡᮝಽƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖(᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖, ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖, ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖, ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖)ᮥᇥඹ⦹Łbĥ⊖ᄥ ಽᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙᨱݡ⦽ᯙ᜾ၰƱ☖⪹Ğ᮹ᄡ⪵ᨱݡ⦽☖⧪⧪┽᮹₉ᯕෝእƱᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅. əđŝಽ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᮹᳕ࠥa׳ᮥᙹಾ⠙ญ

⧉ᯕӹ⏭ᱢ⧉ŝzᮡᱶᖒᱢ᫵ᯙᮥ޵ᵲ᫵᜽ᯙ᜾⦹Łᯩᮝ໑, ᵝ₉Ƚᱽӹ☖⧪᜽eၰእᬊ᮹᷾a᪡zᮡƱ☖ᙹ᫵šญʑჶᨱݡ⧕ᕽ۵᜚

ᬊ₉᮹᮹᳕ࠥaԏᮥᙹಾݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽᱥ⪹ࢁa܆ᖒᯕ׳݅۵äᮥӹ┡ԕᨩ݅. ੱ⦽ᵝ₉Ƚᱽᱶ₦⇵ḥ᜽ᵝᄡࠥಽ᮹ᵝ₉݉ᗮᯕᄲ⧪ࡹ

ᨕ᧝⦹໑, Ğᱽᱢᯙᇡݕᮥaᵲ᜽┅۵ႊჶᮝಽ۵ᵝ₉᫵ɩŝzᯕ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊ᜽ᖁ┾ᱢᮝಽၽᔾࡹ۵እᬊᅕ݅ᩑഭእᯙᔢŝzᯕᔢ᜽ᱢ ᯙእᬊᇡݕᯕaᵲࢁᙹᯩ۵ႊჶᯕᅕ݅⬉ŝᱢᯕ௝۵ᱶ₦ᱢᯙ᜽ᔍᱱᮥᱽ᜽⦹ᩡ݅.

áᔪᨕ Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญ, Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾⊖, ĥ⊖ᇥᕾჶ, ᜚ᬊ₉, ݡᵲƱ☖

”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘‰‹‡‡”‹‰ İࣀėॡ

(2)

1. ᕽು

1.1 ઴֜ଭࢼլࢫࡧୡ

ࠥ᜽Ʊ☖⪝ᰂၰ⪹Ğ᪅ᩝ॒᜚ᬊ₉ᅕɪ⪶ݡᨱ঑ෙᱽၹ

ྙᱽॅᮡᔍ⫭ᱢྙᱽಽ ݡࢱࡹ໕ᕽݡࠥ᜽ෝᵲᝍᮝಽ᜚ᬊ₉

ᯕᬊᮥᨖᱽ⦹ŁݡᵲƱ☖ᯕᬊᮥⅪḥ᜽┅ʑ᭥⦽݅᧲⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ

᫵šญႊᦩᯕ⇵ḥࡹᨕ᪵ᮝӹ᜽⧪⬉ŝaၙ⯂⦹Ñӹe⪚ᔢݡ ᱢᮝಽ׳ᮡᖒŝෝݍᖒ⦹ᩡ݅⦹޵௝ࠥ݉ʑᱢᯙ⬉ŝᨱə⊹۵

Ğ⨆ᮥ ᅕᩡ݅(Jung et al., 2011).

✚⯩ݡࠥ᜽ෝᵲᝍᮝಽქᜅᱥᬊ₉ಽᱽӹ᫵ɩ⧁ᯙᱽ, ქᜅᦩ ԕᱶᅕᱽŖ, ࠥ᜽℁ࠥ᮹⪶∊, ⪹᜚ℕĥ}ᖁ॒ŝzᯕḡᗮᱢᯙ

ݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅ᮹ᱽŁෝ☖⧕ݡᵲƱ☖᮹ᙹ݉ᇡݕශᮥ׳ᯕಅ ۵יಆॅᯕᯩᨕ᪵ḡอ, ʑ᳕ݡᵲƱ☖ᯕᬊᯱ᮹ᕽእᜅaᱽŁࡹ

ᨩ݅۵⊂໕ᨱᕽ۵⬉ŝaᯩᮝӹ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᯱ᮹ᙹ݉ᱥ⪹ᮝಽ

᜚ᬊ₉☖⧪పᮥqᗭ᜽┅ಅ۵ᱶ₦ᱢ⬉ŝ۵ʑݡอⓝ∊ᇥ⦹݅

Ł ᅝ ᙹ ᨧ݅.

ᯕ్⦽đŝ۵Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩ᮹᜽⧪ᨱ঑ෙ᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲ Ʊ☖᮹☖⧪᜽eၰእᬊŝzᮡƱ☖⪹Ğ᮹ᄡ⪵ᨱࠥᇩǍ⦹Ł

᜚ᬊ₉ෝᖁ┾⦹۵ĥ⊖ॅᯕ᳕ᰍ⦹ʑভྙᯝäᯕ݅. ᷪ, Ʊ☖ᙹ݉

ᖁ┾⧪┽ෝᇥᕾ⦹۵ߑձญᔍᬊࡹŁᯩ۵ᯕᔑᖁ┾༉⩶(Discrete choice mode)ᨱᕽᖅ໦ᄡᙹᯙݡᦩ᮹ⅾ⬉ᬊ(Total utility)ᨱᕽ

š⊂ࡹḡ ᦫ۵ ✚ᱶᙹ݉ᨱ ݡ⦽ ᖁ⪙ࠥӹ ᝍญᱢ ✚ᖒŝ zᮡ

⬉ᬊ᫵ᗭa ∊ᇥ⯩ Łಅࡹḡ ᦫᦹʑ ভྙᯕ݅.

ᩩෝॅᨕᝁℕᱢᯙᱽ᧞ᯕᯩÑӹḢᨦᱢᯙ✚ᖒ, ᜚ᬊ₉a

ᵝ۵ ⠙ญ⧉ᯕӹ ⏭ᱢ⧉ ॒ᨱ ᮹⧕ ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ ᯕᬊኩࠥa ฯᮡ

ĥ⊖ᮡ᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽ Ƚᱽӹݡℕᙹ݉ᯙݡᵲƱ☖᮹ᕽእᜅෝ

⨆ᔢ᜽┅۵Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩᯕ᜽⧪ࡽ݅Ł⧕ࠥݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ

ᱥ⪹ࡹ۵ᱶ₦ᱢ⬉ŝ۵ၙ⯂⧁äᯕ݅. ၹ໕᜚ᬊ₉ӹݡᵲƱ☖ᮥ

ᔢ⫊ᨱ঑௝ᖁ┾ᱢᮝಽᯕᬊ⦹۵ĥ⊖ᮡᔢݡᱢᮝಽݡᵲƱ☖ᮝ ಽᱥ⪹a܆ᖒᯕ׳ᦥḩᙹᯩ݅. ੱ⦽᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⧁ᙹᨧ۵

ݡᵲƱ☖ ᮹᳕⊖ᮡ ᅕ݅ ӹᮡ ݡᵲƱ☖ ᕽእᜅෝ ☖⧕ ☖⧪᮹

อ᳒ࠥa ⨆ᔢࡹ۵ߑ ᮹ၙa ᯩᮥ äᯕ݅.

ᯕᨱᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵☖⧪ᯱ᮹ᰁᰍᱢ✚ᖒᯕၹᩢࢁᙹᯩ۵

ᇩ✚ᱶ݅ᙹ᮹☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥෝᯕᬊ⦹ᩍƱ☖ᙹ݉

ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᮥᇥඹ⦹Łbĥ⊖ᄥಽƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᨱᩢ⨆ᮥၙ⊹۵

᫵ᯙॅᨱݡ⦽ᯙ᜾ŝݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥ, ݡᵲƱ☖ᮝ ಽ᮹ ᱥ⪹ᮥ ᮁࠥ⦹ʑ ᭥⦽ ᜚ᬊ₉ ᯕᬊᨖᱽ ᱶ₦᫵ᗭᨱ ݡ⦽

ᯙ᜾᮹₉ᯕෝእƱᇥᕾ⦹Łᯱ⦹ᩡ݅. ᯕෝ☖⧕᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᮥ

ᨖᱽ⦹ŁݡᵲƱ☖ᯕᬊᮥⅪḥ᜽┕ᮝಽᕽƱ☖ᙹ᫵ෝšญ⦹Łᯱ

⦹۵Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩ᮹⬉ŝᱢᯙ ⇵ḥᨱʑⅩaࡹ۵ᱶ₦ᱢ

᜽ᔍᱱᮥ ᱽ᜽⦹Łᯱ ⦹ᩡ݅.

1.2 ઴֜ଭࢺ࣑ࢫٛ૳

ᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ᖅྙ᳑ᔍෝ☖⧕ᇩ✚ᱶ݅ᙹ᮹☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉

᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᨱݡ⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ኩࠥෝ᳑ᔍ⦹ŁࢱƱ☖ᙹ݉ᨱ

ݡ⦽ᰁᰍᱢᯙƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖(Latent mode-choice class)ᮝಽ

᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖(Car-dependent, CD), ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖(Car-choice, CC), ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖(Public transit-choice, PTC), ݡᵲƱ☖᮹

᳕⊖(Public transit-dependent, PTD)ᮝಽ Ǎᇥ⦹ᩡ݅.

᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᮡÑ᮹༉ु☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⦹۵ĥ⊖ᯕ ໑, ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖ᮡݡᇡᇥ᮹☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᖁ┾⦹ӹaҵᮡ

ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᖁ┾⦹۵ĥ⊖ᯕ໑, ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖

ŝ ၹݡ᮹ }ֱᯕ݅. ੱ⦽ ݡᵲƱ☖ ᮹᳕⊖ᮡ ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ ᖁ┾ᯕ

ᱽ᧞ࡹÑӹ}ᯙᱢᯙ✚ᖒᨱ᮹⧕Ñ᮹༉ु☖⧪ᨱᕽݡᵲƱ☖ᮥ

ᖁ┾⦹۵ ĥ⊖ᮥ ᮹ၙ⦽݅.

ə్ӹƱ☖ᙹ݉᮹ᖁ┾ኩࠥಽᇡ░bĥ⊖ᮥᇥඹ⦹ʑ᭥⧕ᕽ ۵ᇥඹʑᵡᯕ⦥᫵⦹໑, ᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ᱶᖒᱢᯙʑᵡŝᱶపᱢᯙ

ʑᵡᮥእƱ⦹ᩍᇥඹ⦹ᩡ݅. ᷪᱶᖒᱢᯙʑᵡᮝಽ۵⠪ᗭ☖⧪ᨱ ᕽ᜚ᬊ₉᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᨱݡ⦽ᖁ┾ᱶࠥෝ ჵᵝ⩶ᮝಽḩྙ⦹Ł

ᱶపᱢᯙ ʑᵡᮡ b ᙹ݉᮹ ᖁ┾ኩࠥෝ ḩྙ⦹ᩡ݅. ᯕෝ ☖⧕

ᱶపᱢᯙჵᵝᄥbƱ☖ᙹ݉᮹ᖁ┾ኩࠥෝ እƱ⦹ᩍƱ☖ᙹ݉

ᖁ┾⊖᮹ ᇥඹʑᵡᮝಽ ⦹ᩡ݅.

ੱ⦽⬉ŝᱢᯙƱ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩᮥ⇵ḥ⦹ʑ᭥⧕ᕽ۵bĥ⊖

ᄥƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾᮹ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙᯕӹݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥ,

᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽ᵝ₉Ƚᱽӹ☖⧪᜽eၰእᬊ॒ŝzᮡƱ☖⪹Ğᨱ

ᄡ⪵ᨱݡ⦽ᯙ᜾᮹₉ᯕෝŁಅ⧁⦥᫵aᯩᮭᮥӹ┡ԕŁᯱƱ☖

ᙹ݉ ᖁ┾⊖ᄥಽ እƱ ᇥᕾ⦹ᩍ ᱶ₦ᱢᯙ ᜽ᔍᱱᮥ ࠥ⇽⦹ᩡ݅.

2. ʑ᳕ᩑǍŁₑ

ຝᱡᅙᩑǍ᪡zᯕ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕ᱢᯙ☖⧪ᯱॅ᮹✚ᖒᨱݡ⦽

ᩑǍಽEllaway et al.(2003) and Steg(2005)ᮡƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᨱ

ᯩᨕ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᖁ⪙⦹۵ĥ⊖ᮡ᜚ᬊ₉a݉ᙽ⯩Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᮝಽᕽ ᮹᮹ၙᅕ݅ᔢḶᱢᯕ໑ᱶᕽᱢᯙ᮹ၙaԕ⡍ࡹᨕᯩᮝ໑, ݡᵲƱ

☖ᅕ݅᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⧁Ğᬑᬒq, ᯱᇡᝍ, ᯱᮉᖒ॒᮹ᝍญᱢ

⠙ᯖᮥ w۵݅Ł ⦹ᩡ݅.

ੱ⦽Sohn and Yun(2010)ᮡƱ☖⪹Ğ᮹ᄡ⪵ಽƱ☖ᙹ݉᮹

⬉ᬊᯕᄡ⪵⧉ᨱࠥᇩǍ⦹Łḡᗮᱢᮝಽ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⦹۵ĥ⊖

ᮥ ᜚ᬊ₉ ᮹᳕⊖ᯕ௝Ł ⦹Ł ᯕ్⦽ ĥ⊖ᮡ ʑ᳕ᨱ š⊂ࡹḡ

ᦫᮡᝍญᱢᯙᰁᰍᱢ✚ᖒᯕᯩᮭᮥӹ┡ԕŁᯕෝᰁᰍᄡᙹಽ

⦹ᩍƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾༉⩶ᮥǍ⇶⦹Łə⬉ᬊᖒᮥӹ┡ԕᨩ݅. ੱ⦽

Kim et al.(2010), Bae et al.(2010)۵☖⧪ᯱ᮹ᕽᬙ᜽᮹⦽v

ᙹᔢݡᵲƱ☖᯦ࠥᨱ঑ෙᙹ݉ᖁ┾᳑ᔍᯱഭෝ⪽ᬊ⦹ᩍᰁᰍᱢ

☖⧪⧪┽ෝᇥᕾ⦹Łᯕෝᰁᰍᄡᙹಽၹᩢ⦽ᙹ݉ᖁ┾༉⩶᮹ᱢ

(3)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents

Frequence

Gender Male 602(62.7%)

Female 358(37.3%)

Age

20~29 153(15.9%)

30~39 292(30.4%)

40~49 276(28.8%)

50~59 183(19.1%)

60 55(5.8%)

Job

Employee 447(46.6%)

Self-Employed 147(15.3%)

Student 161(16.8%)

Housewife 186(19.4%)

Jobless 19(1.9%)

Household Income (million won)

100< 35(3.6%)

100~300 310(32.3%)

300~500 403(42.0%)

500~1,000 180(18.8%)

1,000 32(3.3%)

Car Ownership

0 43(4.5%)

1 502(52.3%)

2 339(35.3%)

3 76(7.9%)

Driver Carrier (years)

0 186(19.3%)

2~5 57(5.9%)

5~10 112(11.6%)

10~15 165(17.2%)

15~25 208(21.7%)

25

⧊ᖒᨱ ݡ⧕ ᩑǍ⦹ᩡ݅.

⦽⠙Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩᨱš⦽ʑ᳕ᩑǍ۵ᱶ₦᜽⧪ᨱ঑ෙ

Ʊ☖⧪┽᮹ᄡ⪵ӹᯕෝ☖⦽⬉ŝᇥᕾᯕᵝෝᯕ൉Łᯩ݅. Lee et al.(1996)۵⪝ᰂ☖⧪ഭᇡŝ, ქᜅᱥᬊ₉ಽ⪶ݡᝅ᜽, 10ᇡᱽ

᮹ྕ⪵, ⭹ၽᮁᖙᯙᔢ, ᵝ₉ഭᯙᔢ॒ŝzᮡᙹ᫵šญᱶ₦᮹

⬉ŝᇥᕾᮥ᭥⦹ᩍᗭाĥ⊖ᄥ☖ɝᯱෝݡᔢᮝಽᱶ₦᜽⧪ᱥ⬥

᮹Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᄥⅾ☖⧪እᬊ᮹ᄡ⪵ෝእƱ⦹ᩡ݅. ᯕෝ☖⧕Łᗭा

ᱥ⪹ࢁa܆ᖒᯕ∊ᇥ⦹݅Ł⦹ᩡ݅. Hwang et al.(1998)۵ᕽᬙ᜽

᮹aǍ☖⧪ᝅ┽᳑ᔍᯱഭෝᯕᬊ⦹ᩍ݅⧎ಽḴ༉⩶ᮥǍ⇶⦹Ł

ᯕෝᯕᬊ⦹ᩍƱ☖ᙹ᫵šญᱶ₦⇵ḥ᜽Ʊ☖ప᮹ᄡ⪵ෝᩩ⊂⦹

Ł ᱶ₦⬉ŝෝ ᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅.

ੱ⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩ᮹⬉ŝෝᇥᕾ⧉ᨱᯩᨕƱ☖᮹⬉ᮉᖒ ᐱอᦥܩ௝ᗭाĥ⊖ᄥ⩶⠪ᖒ⊂໕ᨱᕽࠥŁಅ⧕᧝⧉ᮥᱽ᜽⦽

ᩑǍࠥᯩ݅. Oh(2005)۵ᔍಡḡᩎᮥݡᔢᮝಽ⪝ᰂ☖⧪ഭ, ᵝ⧪

ᖙ, ქᜅᱥᬊ₉ಽᱽ, 10ᇡᱽ॒օaḡႊᦩᨱݡ⦹ᩍᗭाĥ⊖ᄥ ಽƱ☖⬉ᮉᖒŝ⩶⠪ᖒ⬉ŝෝ⊂ᱶ⦹ᩡ݅. əđŝ⪝ᰂ☖⧪ഭ᪡

ᵝ⧪ᖙ۵Ʊ☖⬉ᮉᖒ⬉ŝ۵᷾ݡ᜽┅ӹ⩶⠪ᖒ⬉ŝ۵qᗭ᜽┅

໑, ქᜅᱥᬊ₉ಽᱽ۵ᯕ༉ࢱෝ᷾ݡ᜽┅۵ᱶ₦ႊᦩᯥᮥӹ┡ԕ ᨩ݅.

↽ɝᨱ۵ Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩ ⇵ḥᨱ ঑ෙ Ʊ☖⧪┽᮹ ᄡ⪵ෝ

Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾༉⩶ᮝಽǍ⇶⦹Łᯕෝ☖⧕ݡʑ᪅ᩝ᮹}ᖁ⬉ŝෝ

ᇥᕾ⦽ ᩑǍa ᯩ݅(Jung et al., 2011; Lee and Kim, 2005).

ᯕᔢ᮹ ʑ᳕ ᩑǍಽᇡ░ ᅙ ᩑǍ᮹ ₉ᯕᱱᮡ ʑ᳕᮹ ᩑǍa

᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⦹۵☖⧪ᯱॅᮡ᜚ᬊ₉aaḡ۵ᙹ݉ᱢ✚ᖒ᫙ᨱ

᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽ᝍญᱢ᫵ᗭ(ᔢḶᖒ, ᬒq, ᯱᮉᖒ॒)aᯩᮭᮥ

ӹ┡ԕÑӹᯕෝၽᱥ᜽⍽ᝍญᱢᯙ᫵ᗭෝᱶప⪵⦹ᩍᰁᰍᄡᙹಽ ᕽʑ᳕᮹ᙹ݉ᖁ┾༉⩶ᨱၹᩢ⦹ᩍᰁᰍᄡᙹ᮹⬉ᬊᖒᮥᱽ᜽⦹۵ ߑəⅅ݅໕, ᅙᩑǍ۵᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᯱॅᨱǎ⦽⦹ḡᦫŁᱥℕ

☖⧪ᯱෝ᜚ᬊ₉᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᨱݡ⦽᮹᳕ࠥᨱ঑௝ĥ⊖ᮥǍᇥ⦹Ł

ᯱ ⦹ᩡ݅۵ äᯕ݅. ੱ⦽ ʑ᳕᮹ ᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ ☖⧪ᯱ᮹ ᝍญᱢ

✚ᖒᮝಽᇡ░᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽᮹᳕ࠥෝ❭ᦦ⦹ᩍƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖

ᮥᇥญ⦽ၹ໕, ᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ᇩ✚ᖒ݅ᙹ᮹☖⧪ᨱᕽƱ☖ᙹ݉᮹

ᖁ┾đŝෝᯕᬊ⧉ᮝಽᕽ☖⧪ᯱ᮹ᝍญᱢ✚ᖒŝᝅḩᱢᮝಽ✚ᱶ

Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᨱ ݡ⦽ ᮹᳕ࠥa ݅ෝ ᙹ ᯩᮭᮥ ႑ᱽ⦹ᩡ݅.

ӹᦥa ᅙ ᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ ʑ᳕᮹ Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩ᮹ ᱶ₦ᱢᯙ

⬉ŝᇥᕾᨱš⦽ᩑǍॅᯕ⬉ᬊɚݡ⪵ᯕುᨱʑⅩ⦽ᙹ݉ᖁ┾༉

⩶ᮥᯕᬊ⦹ᩍⅾపᱢᯙᱶ₦⬉ŝෝᇥᕾ⦽äŝݍญ᜚ᬊ₉᮹

ᯕᬊኩࠥᨱ঑ෙĥ⊖ᄥಽ ☖⧪⧪┽ӹƱ☖⪹Ğ᮹ᄡ⪵ᨱݡ⦽

ᯙ᜾᮹₉ᯕෝእƱᇥᕾ⦹ᩍᅕ݅⬉ŝᱢᯙƱ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩ᮹

⇵ḥᮥ ᭥⦽ ʑⅩᯱഭෝ ᱽ᜽⦽݅۵ ᱱᨱ ᩑǍ᮹ ᮹᮹ෝ ࢱŁ

ᯩ݅.

3. Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᇥඹ

3.1 ंজୀ߹

ᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵᜚ᬊ₉᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᯕᬊᨱݡ⦽ᖅྙ᳑ᔍෝᝅ᜽

⦹ᩡᮝ໑, ᳑ᔍݡᔢᮡݡǍ᜽ᨱÑᵝ⦹۵20ݡᯕᔢԉ֡960໦ᮥ

ǍǑᄥಽྕ᯲᭥ಽ⇵⇽⦹ᩡᮝ໑ᝁ഑ᙹᵡ95%ᨱᕽ⢽ᅙ᪅₉۵

3.2%ᯕ݅.

ᖅྙ᳑ᔍ᮲ݖᯱ᮹✚ᖒᮡTable 1ᨱӹ┡ԙäŝzᯕԉᖒᯕ

62.7%, ᩍᖒᯕ37.3%ᯕ໑, ᩑಚᮡ30ݡa30.4%ಽaᰆฯŁ

݅ᮭᮝಽ40ݡ28.8%, 50ݡ19.1% ॒᮹ᙽᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅. Ḣᨦᄥ ಽ۵Ḣᰆᯙᯕ46.6%, ᵝᇡ19.4%, ⦺ᔾ16.8% ॒ᯕ໑, aǍᗭा

ᮡ300~500อᬱၙอᯕ42.0%, 100~300อᬱၙอᯕ32.3% ॒ᮝ ಽӹ┡ԍ݅. aǍݚᯱ࠺₉ᅕᮁݡᙹ۵1ݡa52.3%, 2ݡ35.3%, 3ݡ ᯕᔢ 7.9%ᯕ໑, ྕᅕᮁ۵ 4.5%ಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

(4)

Table 2. Crosstable of Qualitative and Quantitative Reponses Frequency of car choice(of ten times)

Total

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Almost Car 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 151 237 399 Mostly car and

sometimes transit 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 86 85 11 0 189 Mostly transit and

sometimes car 0 5 84 64 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 157 Almost Transit 172 31 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 Total 172 36 95 67 2 0 5 90 94 162 237 960

Table 3. Classification Criteria of Mode-Choice Class Qualitative

criteria

Quantitative criteria (Car use)

Sample (persons)

CD Almost Car 9~10 times 388

CC Mostly car and

sometimes transit 7~8 times 171 PTC Mostly transit and

sometimes car 2~3 times 148

PTD Almost Transit 0~1 times 203

Fig. 1. Gender Ratio by Mode-Choice Group

Fig. 2. Age Ratio by Mode-Choice Group

3.2 ֗ധ৤ۚট೿ծ౾ंࠑ

3.2.1 ंࠑࢺ࣑

ᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖᮹ᇥඹ۵ᇩ✚ᱶ݅ᙹ᮹☖⧪

ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᙹ݉᮹ᖁ┾ኩࠥᨱ঑௝᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲƱ

☖᮹᳕⊖, ᜚ᬊ₉᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᖁ┾ᱢᮝಽᯕᬊ⦹ࡹᔢݡᱢᯙ

ᖁ┾ኩࠥᨱ঑௝᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᮝಽᇥඹ⦹ᩡ݅.

օaḡಽᇥඹࡽƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖᮹ᇥඹʑᵡᮡ᜚ᬊ₉᪡

ݡᵲƱ☖ᙹ݉ᨱݡ⦽ᯕᬊኩࠥෝᱶᖒᱢᯙႊჶŝᱶపᱢᯙႊჶ ᮝಽ ḩྙ⦹Ł ᯕෝ Ʊ₉Ḳĥ⦹ᩍ ʑᵡᮥ ᱶ⦹ᩡ݅. ຝᱡ ⠪ᗭ

☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲƱ☖ᙹ݉ᨱݡ⦽ᯕᬊᱶࠥෝ‘Ñ᮹᜚ᬊ

₉’, ‘ᵝಽ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕӹaҵᮡݡᵲƱ☖’, ‘ᵝಽݡᵲƱ☖ᯕӹaҵ

ᮡ᜚ᬊ₉’, ‘Ñ᮹ݡᵲƱ☖’ᮝಽ4݉ĥಽᱶᖒᱢᯙḩྙᮥ⦹ᩡ݅.

ə్ӹᱶᖒᱢᯙḩྙᨱݡ⧕᮲ݖᯱᨱ঑௝ᵝšᱢᯙ⧕ᕾ᮹

₉ᯕaᯩᮥᙹᯩ݅Ł❱݉⦹ᩍᅕ᪥ḩྙᮝಽ⠪ᗭ⇽ɝၰᨦྕ, ᙝ⦲, }ᯙᬊྕ॒᮹༊ᱢᮝಽ10ჩ☖⧪᜽᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲƱ☖ᙹ݉

᮹ᖁ┾⫭ᙹෝḩྙ⦹ᩡ݅. əญŁᱶᖒᱢᯙ⧎༊ᄥᱶపᱢᯙ᮲ݖ

እᮉᮥ Ʊ₉Ḳĥ⦹ᩍ እƱ⦹ᩡ݅.

Table 2ᨱӹ┡ԙäŝzᯕ᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲƱ☖ᙹ݉ᨱݡ⦽

ᱶᖒᱢᯙჵᵝᄥᱶపᱢᯙᯕᬊኩࠥ۵‘Ñ᮹᜚ᬊ₉’௝Ł᮲ݖ⦽

Ğᬑ᮹ ᜚ᬊ₉ ᯕᬊኩࠥ۵ 9~10⫭ ᱶࠥᯕ໑, ᵝಽ ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕӹ

aҵᮡݡᵲƱ☖ᯕ௝Ł᮲ݖ⦽Ğᬑ۵7~8⫭, ၹݡಽaҵ᜚ᬊ₉ ۵2~3⫭, Ñ᮹ݡᵲƱ☖ᮡ0~1⫭ಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ᱶᖒᱢᯙ᮲ݖŝ

ᱶపᱢᯙ ᮲ݖ᮹ đŝᨱ ₉ᯕa ᯩ۵ ᯱഭ۵ ᗭᙹಽ ᇥᕾᨱᕽ

ᱽ᫙⦹ᩡᮝ໑, ᯕෝ ☖⦽ Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ ᖁ┾⊖᮹ ᇥඹʑᵡᮡ Table 3ŝ zᮝ໑ ᇥᕾᨱ ᯕᬊ⦽ ⅾ ⢽ᅙᙹ۵ 910}ᯕ݅.

ᯕᵲ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᮡᱥℕ᮹42.6%ಽaᰆฯᮡእᵲᮥ₉ḡ⦹

Łᯩᮝ໑, ݅ᮭᮝಽქᜅ᮹᳕⊖22.3%, ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖18.8%, ݡᵲƱ☖ ᖁ┾⊖ 16.3%ಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

3.2.2 ֗ധ৤ۚট೿ծ౾࣢Թ଴൉নण֗

ᇥඹࡽƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᄥ}ᯙ✚ᖒᮝಽԉᖒᮡ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕

⊖ᯕ57.3%ಽaᰆฯᮡၹ໕, ᩍᖒᮡ40.5%aݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ᮝ ಽӹ┡ԍᮝ໑, ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖ʭḡ⡍⧉⦹໕ԉᖒ᮹79.3%a᜚ᬊ

₉ෝᵝಽᯕᬊ⦹۵äᮝಽӹ┡ӹԉᖒᯕᩍᖒᅕ݅᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕ࠥ

a ׳݅Ł ⧁ ᙹ ᯩ݅(Fig. 1).

ᩑಚᄥಽ۵30ݡ, 40ݡ, 50ݡ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᯕ50% ᯕᔢᮝಽ

aᰆฯŁ, ݅ᮭᮝಽ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖, ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ၰᖁ┾⊖

॒᮹ ᙽᮝಽ ᮁᔍ⦽ ᇥ⡍ෝ ӹ┡ԕᨩ݅. ၹ໕ 20ݡ۵ ݡᵲƱ☖

᮹᳕⊖ᯕ76.3%ಽaᰆฯŁ, ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᯕ2.9%ಽӹ┡ԍᮝ ໑, 60ݡ۵ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ᯕ41.5%, ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᯕ34.0%ಽ

ӹ┡ӹĞᱽ⪽࠺ᯕ⪽ၽ⦽30~50ݡ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕ࠥa׳ᮡäᮝ ಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅(Fig. 2).

aǍᗭाᄥಽ۵ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ᮥᱽ᫙⦹Łᗭाᙹᵡᯕ׳ᮥ

ᙹಾ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊኩࠥa׳ᮡäᮝಽӹ┡ԍᮝӹݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕

(5)

Fig. 3. Household Income Ratio by Mode-Choice Group

Fig. 4. Job Ratio by Mode-Choice Group

Table 4. Weights by Mode Choice Class

Travel Time Convenience Comfortability Cost

CD 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.18

CC 0.31 0.25 0.24 0.20

PTC 0.39 0.19 0.18 0.24

PTD 0.41 0.19 0.19 0.21

Total 0.34 0.23 0.22 0.21

⊖ᮡᗭाᙹᵡᯕԏᮥᙹಾݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕ࠥa׳ᮡäᮝಽӹ┡ԍ

݅(Fig. 3).

Ḣᨦᄥಽ۵⇽ɝၰᨦྕ☖⧪ᯕฯᮡḢᰆᯙŝᯱᩢᨦ᮹Ğᬑ

᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽᮹᳕ࠥa׳ᮡၹ໕, ⦺ᔾŝྕḢᮡݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕ࠥ

a׳ᮡäᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ᵝᇡ۵݅ෙḢᨦᅕ݅᜚ᬊ₉ӹݡᵲƱ☖

ᮥᖁ┾ᱢᮝಽᯕᬊ⦹۵ᖁ┾⊖ᯕእᮉ39.0%ಽaᰆฯᮝ໑, ⦺ᔾ ŝྕḢᅕ݅۵ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖᮹እᮉᯕԏíӹ┡ԍ݅(Fig. 4).

4. Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᄥᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙእƱᇥᕾ

4.1 ंজࢺ࣑

Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᨱᯩᨕbᙹ݉᮹ⅾ⬉ᬊᮡš⊂a܆⦽đᱶᱢ

⬉ᬊ᫵ᗭ᪡⪶ශᱢ⬉ᬊ᫵ᗭಽᯕ൉ᨕḡ໑, đᱶᱢ⬉ᬊᮡᙹ݉᮹

✚ᖒŝ☖⧪ᯱ᮹ᔍ⫭Ğᱽᱢ✚ᖒᮝಽǍᖒࡽ݅. ᙹ݉᮹✚ᖒᮡ

ᵝಽ☖⧪᜽eŝ☖⧪እᬊ॒ᯕŁಅࡹḡอ, š⊂ࡹḡᦫ۵ᙹ݉᮹

⠙ญ⧉ᯕӹ ⏭ᱢ⧉, ᦩᱥᖒ ੱ۵ ᩢ⨆ᮥ ၙ⊽݅Ł ⧁ ᙹ ᯩ݅.

ᯕᨱᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᨱᩢ⨆ᮥၙ⊹۵ᙹ݉✚ᖒᮝಽ

༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹ᗭ᫵᜽e, ☖⧪እᬊ, ⠙ญ⧉ŝ⏭ᱢ⧉ᮥŁಅ⦹Ł, ᯕᨱ ݡ⧕ Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ ĥ⊖ᄥಽ ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᨱ ᯩᨕ ྕᨨᮥ ޵

ᵲ᫵⦹í ᯙ᜾⦹۵ḡෝ እƱ ᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅.

ᇥᕾႊჶᮝಽ۵ᖅྙ᳑ᔍᨱᕽ༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹ᯕ࠺ᙹ݉ᮝಽᕽ

᜚ᬊ₉ӹݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᖁ┾⦹۵ʑᵡᮝಽbᖁ┾᫵ᯙᨱݡ⦽ᝮݡ

እƱႊ᜾ᮝಽᵲ᫵ࠥෝḩྙ⦹ᩡŁ, AHPʑჶ(Hierarchy Process:

ĥ⊖ᇥᕾႊჶ)ᮥᯕᬊ⦹ᩍᙹ݉ᖁ┾᮹ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙᨱݡ⦽ᵲ᫵ࠥෝ

ᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅.

4.2 ৤ۚট೿ઽේ૬଴ଭण֗ंজ

ᇥᕾđŝෝTable 4ᨱӹ┡ԕᨩᮝ໑, ᱥℕᱢᮝಽ༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹

ᗭ᫵᜽eᨱݡ⧕ᵲ᫵ࠥa0.34ಽaᰆ׳ᦹᮝ໑, ݅ᮭᮝಽ⠙ญ⧉

(0.23), ⏭ᱢ⧉(0.22), እᬊ(0.21) ॒᮹ ᙽᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᄥಽ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ၰᖁ┾⊖ᮡݡᵲƱ☖

᮹᳕⊖ၰᖁ┾⊖ᨱእ⧕ᔢݡᱢᮝಽ⠙ญ⧉ŝ⏭ᱢᖒᮥᵲ᫵⦹í

ᯙ᜾⦹Łᯩ۵ၹ໕, ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ၰ᮹᳕⊖ᮡ༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹

ᗭ᫵᜽e ၰ እᬊᨱ ݡ⧕ ᵲ᫵ࠥa ׳ᮡ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

✚⯩༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹ᗭ᫵᜽eᨱݡ⧕ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖᮹ᵲ᫵ࠥ

a0.41ಽaᰆᵲ᫵⦹íᯙ᜾⦹Łᯩᮝ໑, ☖⧪እᬊᨱݡ⧕ᕽ۵

ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᯕ0.24ಽaᰆ׳íӹ┡ԍ݅. ੱ⦽᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖

ᮡ⠙ญ⧉ᯕ0.27ಽ݅ෙĥ⊖ᅕ݅ᵲ᫵ࠥa׳ᮝ໑, ☖⧪እᬊᨱ

ݡ⧕ᕽ۵ 0.18ಽ aᰆ ԏᮡ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

᜚ᬊ₉ෝᵝಽᯕᬊ⦹ӹᖁ┾ᱢᮝಽݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᯕᬊ⦹۵᜚ᬊ

₉ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ᜽eᯕӹ⏭ᱢ⧉ᨱݡ⧕ᕽ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ŝ₉ᯕa

ᨧᮝӹ⠙ญ⧉ᅕ݅۵☖⧪እᬊᨱݡ⧕ᵲ᫵ࠥa׳ᦥ᜚ᬊ₉ၰ

ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ☖⧪እᬊᨱ঑௝Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ ᖁ┾ᯕᮁ࠺ᱢᯝ

ᙹ ᯩᮭᮥ ӹ┡ԕᨩ݅.

5. ݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅอ᳒ࠥእƱ

Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᄥݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅ⧎༊ᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥෝ

እƱᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅. ᯕ۵Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญᱶ₦ᨱᯩᨕ᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽⬉

ᬊ᮹ᨖᱽ᪡޵ᇩᨕḡᗮᱢᯙݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅ᮹ᱽŁෝ☖⧕ݡᵲ Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᮝಽ᮹ᱥ⪹ᮥࠥ༉⦽݅۵⊂໕ᨱᕽbĥ⊖ᄥಽݡᵲƱ☖

ᕽእᜅ⧎༊ᨱݡ⦽⩥ᰍ᮹อ᳒ࠥෝ❭ᦦ⦹Łĥ⊖e᮹₉ᯕෝ

እƱ ᇥᕾ⧉ᮝಽᕽ ᱶ₦⇵ḥ᮹ ႊ⨆ᮥ ༉ᔪ⦹ʑ ᭥⦽ äᯕ݅.

ݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅ⧎༊ᮝಽ۵᫵ɩ, ༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹ᗭ᫵᜽e, ⪹

᜚, ₉ԕ⪝ᰂᨱݡ⦹ᩍๅᬑอ᳒ᇡ░ๅᬑᇩอ᳒ʭḡ5ᱱ⃺ࠥ(3 ᱱᮡᅕ☖ᮥ᮹ၙ)ಽ❭ᦦ⦹ᩡ݅. ᇥᕾđŝෝTable 5ᨱᱶญ⦹ᩡ

(6)

Table 5. Satisfaction Index by Mode Choice Class

Total Fare Travel Time Transfer Crowdedness

CD 3.22 3.29 3.20 3.34 2.85

CC 3.10 3.11 3.05 3.16 2.79

PTC 3.06 3.33 2.98 3.30 2.73

PTD 3.05 3.02 2.98 3.22 2.88

Total 3.14 3.19 3.10 3.27 2.83

Table 6. Summary Statistics for ANOVA

S.S M.S F Sig.

Total

Between 3.039 1.013 4.486 0.004*

Within 110.640 0.226 ¿ ¿

Total 113.678 ¿ ¿ ¿

Fare

Between 7.435 2.478 4.002 0.008*

Within 303.431 0.619 ¿ ¿

Total 310.866 ¿ ¿ ¿

Travel Time

Between 4.749 1.583 2.688 0.046*

Within 280.852 0.589 ¿ ¿

Total 285.601 ¿ ¿ ¿

Transfer

Between 2.594 0.865 1.374 0.25

Within 300.271 0.629 ¿ ¿

Total 302.865 ¿ ¿ ¿

Crowded ness

Between 0.964 0.321 0.45 0.717

Within 341.786 0.714 ¿ ¿

Total 342.749 ¿ ¿ ¿

Table 7. The Result of Multiple Range Test

Total Fare Travel Time

1 2 1 2 1 2

CD 3.222 3.333 3.201

CC 3.102 3.102 3.288 3.050 3.050

PTC 3.055 3.107 3.107 2.984

PTD 3.047 3.016 2.975

ᮝ໑, ༉ुĥ⊖ᨱᕽᅕ☖ᯕᔢ᮹อ᳒ࠥෝӹ┡ԕᨩᮝ໑, ĥ⊖ᄥಽ ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᯕ 3.22ಽaᰆ׳Ł݅ᮭᮝಽ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖

(3.10), ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖(3.06), ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖(3.05)᮹ᙽᮝಽ

ӹ┡ԍ݅.

ᕽእᜅ⧎༊ᄥಽ۵₉ԕ⪝ᰂᯕ2.88ಽᅕ☖ᯕ⦹ಽᇩอ᳒ᮥ

ӹ┡ԕᨩḡอ, ə᫙⧎༊ᨱᕽ۵༉ࢱ3.0 ᯕᔢᮝಽᅕ☖ᯕᔢᯙ

äᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅. aᰆอ᳒ࠥa׳ᮡäᮡ⪹᜚(3.27)ᮝಽᯕ۵

ᖅྙ᳑ᔍ᜽⪹᜚ᨱ঑ෙᝁℕᱢᯙᇡݕqᯕᦥܩ௝⪹᜚ℕĥ(ᱲɝ ᖒ, ྕഭ⪹᜚)ᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥෝḩྙ⦹ᩡʑভྙᯙäᮝಽ❱݉ࡽ݅.

bᕽእᜅ⧎༊ᄥ, ĥ⊖ᄥ₉ᯕෝᇥᕾ⦹ʑ᭥⦹ᩍᯝᬱ႑⊹

ᇥᔑᇥᕾ(Oneway ANOVA)ᮥᝅ᜽⦹ᩡᮝ໑, əđŝෝTable 6ᨱᱶญ⦹ᩡ݅. ᇥᕾđŝᱥℕอ᳒ࠥ᪡᫵ɩ, ᗭ᫵᜽eᮡᮁ᮹ᙹ ᵡ0.05ᨱᕽ☖ĥᱢᮝಽᮁ᮹⦽₉ᯕaᯩᮝ໑, ⪹᜚ၰ₉ԕ⪝ᰂᮡ

ᮁ᮹⦹ḡ ᦫ۵ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

☖ĥᱢᮝಽᮁ᮹⦽⧎༊ᨱݡ⦹ᩍᔍ⬥áᱶᮥᝅ᜽⦹໕, Table 7ᨱӹ┡ԙäŝzᯕᱥℕอ᳒ࠥᨱ঑௝ĥ⊖e᮹₉ᯕෝእƱ⦹

໕᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ŝݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾ၰ᮹᳕⊖eᨱ₉ᯕaᯩᮝ໑,

᫵ɩᨱݡ⧕ᕽ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕ၰᖁ┾⊖ŝݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖, ༊ᱢḡ ʭḡ᮹ᗭ᫵᜽e᮹Ğᬑ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ŝݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕ၰᖁ┾

⊖ eᨱ อ᳒ࠥᨱ ݡ⦽ ₉ᯕa ᯩ۵ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕ၰᖁ┾⊖ᯕݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕ၰᖁ┾⊖ᅕ݅ᱥၹᱢᮝ ಽݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥa׳íӹ┡ӽäᮡݡᵲƱ☖

ᯕᬊኩࠥaԏᮡĥ⊖᮹Ğᬑฯᮡĥ⊖ᅕ݅ݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅෝ

❱݉⧁ᙹᯩ۵ℕqኩࠥaԏʑভྙᮝಽ❱݉ࡹ໑, ੱ⦽᜚ᬊ₉ෝ

ᯕᬊ⦹۵ĥ⊖ᯕ݉ḡݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅᨱᔢݡᱢᮝಽᇩอ᳒ᜅ౞

ʑভྙᮡᦥܩ௝۵äᮥᅕᩍᵝŁᯩ݅. ᷪݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅෝ

׳ᯕ۵ᱶ₦อᮝಽ۵᜚ᬊ₉ಽᇡ░᮹ᱥ⪹ᮥʑݡ⦹ʑ۵ᨕಖ݅۵

äᮥ eᱲᱢᮝಽ ᜽ᔍ⦹Ł ᯩ݅.

6. Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญᱶ₦᫵ᗭᄥݡᵲƱ☖ᱥ⪹᮹᜾እƱ

᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᮥᵥᯕʑ᭥⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊᦩᮡݡℕƱ☖ᙹ݉

ᯙݡᵲƱ☖᮹ᕽእᜅෝᱽŁ⦹ᩍݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾ᨱ঑ෙ⬉ᬊᮥ

׳ᯕ۵äᐱอᦥܩ௝᜚ᬊ₉᮹⬉ᬊᮥԏ⇽ᙹᯩ۵ᵝ₉Ƚᱽӹ

☖⧪እᬊၰ☖⧪᜽eᮥ᷾a᜽┍⦥᫵aᯩ݅. ə్ӹᦿᕽᇥᕾࡽ

ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙၰݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅ อ᳒ࠥ᮹Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾

ĥ⊖ᄥእƱᇥᕾđŝᨱᕽࠥӹ┡ԍॐᯕ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥᨱ঑

௝ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᨱᯩᨕᵲ᫵᜽⦹۵᫵ᯙᯕ݅෕Ł⩥ᰍ᮹ݡᵲƱ☖

ᕽእᜅᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥੱ⦽ݍ௝᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᮥᵥᯕʑ᭥⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ

᫵šญႊᦩᨱ ݡ⦽ ☖⧪⧪┽ࠥ ݅ෝ äᯕ݅.

ᯕᨱᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊᨖᱽෝ᭥⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญႊ

ᦩ᮹ ʑჶ ᵲ ᵝ₉Ƚᱽ᪡ ☖⧪እᬊ᮹ ᷾a, ☖⧪᜽e᮹ ᷾aᨱ

ݡ⦹ᩍƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᄥಽݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ᮹ᱥ⪹᮹᜾ᮥእƱ

ᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅. ᩍʑᕽݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ᮡ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊᯕÑ᮹ᨧÑӹ

ᇩa܆⦽ ĥ⊖ᮝಽ ᇥᕾᨱᕽ ᱽ᫙⦹ᩡ݅.

6.1 ਎૳ఙऀ୪૶ෘ

᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⦹ᩍ☖⧪⧁Ğᬑ༊ᱢḡᨱᕽ10ᇡᱽӹ5ᇡᱽ(᫵

ᯝᱽ)᪡zᯕ᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽ᇡᱽᬕ⧪ᮥ᜽⧪⦹Łᯩ݅໕ᨕਜí

⦹ā۵aෝḩྙ⦹ᩡ݅. əđŝݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ73.8%, ᜚ᬊ₉

ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ47.2%, ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᮡ18.4%aݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᯕᬊ⦹ā

(7)

Fig. 5. Behavior Change for Road Space Rationing Fig. 6. Behavior Change for Fuel Cost Increase

Fig. 7. Behavior Change for Parking Fees Increase

Fig. 8. Behavior Change for Travel Time Increase

݅Ł᮲ݖ⦹ᩍ᜚ᬊ₉ᨱ ݡ⦽᮹᳕ࠥa׳ᮥᙹಾݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ

ᱥ⪹ᮉᯕԏᮡၹ໕, ┾᜽ᯕᬊᯕӹ݅ෙ₉పᮥᯕᬊ⦹۵እᮉᯕ

׳íӹ┡ԍ݅. ✚⯩ᵝᄡࠥಽᨱᇩჶᵝ₉ෝ┾⦽እᮉᯕ᜚ᬊ₉

᮹᳕⊖ᯕ24.1%, ᖁ┾⊖ᯕ15.9%ಽӹ┡ӹ᜚ᬊ₉ᇡᱽᬕ⧪᜽⧪᜽

ᵝᄡࠥಽᨱݡ⦽ᵝ₉݉ᗮᯕᄲ⧪ࡹᨕ᧝⧉ᮥӹ┡ԕᨩ݅(Fig. 5).

6.2 ധෘण૳ஹԧ

☖⧪እᬊᮝಽᩑഭእ᪡ᵝ₉እ᷾aᨱݡ⧕Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖

ᄥಽ ݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ᮹ ᱥ⪹ ᮹᜾ᮥ እƱ ᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅. ຝᱡ ⩥ᰍ

ᩑഭእaญ░ݚ1,900ᬱᯙߑᨕ۱ᱶࠥಽᯙᔢࡹ໕ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥ

ᯕᬊ⦹ā۵a௝۵ḩྙᨱݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᯕᩑഭእ᷾aᨱݡ⧕

ၝq⦹í ၹ᮲⦹ᩍ ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥ ᯕᬊ⦹ā݅Ł ⦹ᩡᮝ໑, ᜚ᬊ₉

ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ1,900ᬱᨱᕽ2,500ᬱᮝಽ᷾a⧁ভ57.0%, 3,500ᬱᯕ ໕ᱥℕ᮹83.2%aݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᯕᬊ⦹ā݅Ł⦹ᩍݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾

⊖ŝ݅ᗭ₉ᯕ۵ᯩᮝӹᩑഭእ᷾aᨱݡ⧕ၝq⦹íၹ᮲⦹ᩡ݅.

ၹ໕, ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᮡ3,500ᬱʭḡᯙᔢࢁĞᬑ40.8%, 5,000ᬱᯕ ໕72.3%aݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ᮹ᱥ⪹᮹ᔍaᯩ݅Ł⦹ᩡ݅. ✚⯩ᩑഭ እᯙᔢŝšĥᨧᯕ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⦹ā݅۵እᮉᯕ18.0%ಽ᜚ᬊ

₉ᖁ┾⊖ᯕ4.7%ᯙäŝእƱ⦹ᩍ᜚ᬊ₉ᨱݡ⦽᮹᳕ࠥaๅᬑ

׳í ӹ┡ԍ݅(Fig. 6).

ᵝ₉እ᷾aᨱ঑ෙƱ☖⧪┽᮹ᄡ⪵ෝᔕ⠕ᅕʑ᭥⦹ᩍ1᜽e ษ݅ᵝ₉᫵ɩᯕᨕ۱ᱶࠥᯕ໕ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᯕᬊ⧁äᯙḡෝḩྙ

⦹ᩡ݅. ݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ3,000ᬱᨱᕽ50.0%, 5,000ᬱᯕ໕٥ᱢ

83.8%ಽᵝ₉እ᷾aᨱ݅ෙĥ⊖ᅕ݅ๅᬑၝq⦽äᮝಽӹ┡ԍ

݅. ᜚ᬊ₉ ᖁ┾⊖ࠥ ݡᵲƱ☖ ᖁ┾⊖ᅕ݅ ԏᮝӹ 5,000ᬱᨱᕽ

٥ᱢ73.8%ಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ၹ໕᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ᮡ3,000ᬱᯙĞᬑ

6.7%, 5,000ᬱᯕ໕٥ᱢ45.8%ಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ✚⯩8.9%۵ᵝ₉᫵

ɩ᷾a᪡šĥᨧᯕ ᜚ᬊ₉ෝᯕᬊ⦹ā݅۵᮹᜾ᮥӹ┡ԕᨩ݅

(Fig. 7).

6.3 ധෘਏԩஹԧ

༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹ᗭ᫵᜽eᄡ⪵ᨱ঑ෙƱ☖⧪┽ᄡ⪵ಽᕽᵝࡽ

༊ᱢʭḡƱ☖⪝ᰂၰ☖⧪Ƚᱽ॒ᮝಽᗭ᫵᜽eᯕ⩥ᰍ᪡እƱ⧕

ᨕ۱ ᱶࠥ ᷾a⦹໕ ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥ ᯕᬊ⦹ā۵ḡෝ ḩྙ⦹ᩡ݅.

݅ෙƱ☖⪹Ğᄡ⪵᫵ᗭ᪡ษ₍aḡಽݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ᯕṈᮡ

ᗭ᫵᜽e᷾aᨱࠥݡᵲƱ☖ᮥᖁ┾⦹ā݅Ł⦽ၹ໕, ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾

⊖ၰ᮹᳕⊖ᮡᔢݡᱢᮝಽ޵ʕᗭ᫵᜽e᷾aᨱᕽƱ☖⧪┽᮹

ᄡ⪵ෝ ӹ┡ԕᨩ݅(Fig. 8).

(8)

7. đುၰ⨆⬥ᩑǍŝᱽ

ᅙᩑǍᨱᕽ۵᜚ᬊ₉᪡ݡᵲƱ☖ᮥݡᔢᮝಽᇩ✚ᱶ݅ᙹ᮹

☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥᨱ঑௝ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙᯕӹݡᵲ Ʊ☖ᕽእᜅᨱݡ⦽อ᳒ࠥ, ☖⧪᜽eᯕӹእᬊ, ᵝ₉Ƚᱽ॒Ʊ☖⪹

Ğ᮹ᄡ⪵ᨱݡ⦽☖⧪⧪┽ᨱ₉ᯕaᯩᮭᮥᱽ᜽⦹Łᯱ⦹ᩡ݅.

ᯕෝ᭥⧕ຝᱡᖅྙ᳑ᔍෝ☖⧕ᇩ✚ᱶ݅ᙹ᮹☖⧪ᨱᕽ᜚ᬊ₉

᪡ݡᵲƱ☖᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥෝ᳑ᔍ⦹Łᯕෝᯕᬊ⦹ᩍ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊ ኩࠥᨱ঑௝᜚ᬊ₉ၰݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ŝᖁ┾⊖ᮝಽƱ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ

┾ ĥ⊖ᮥ ᇥඹ⦹Ł ĥ⊖ᄥ ₉ᯕෝ እƱ ᇥᕾ⦹ᩡ݅.

ຝᱡᙹ݉ᖁ┾ᩢ⨆᫵ᯙᯙ☖⧪᜽eŝእᬊ, ⠙ญ⧉ŝ⏭ᱢ⧉ᨱ

ݡ⧕AHPʑჶᮥᯕᬊ⦹ᩍᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖ᄥಽᵲ᫵ࠥෝᇥᕾ⦽

đŝ, ༉ुĥ⊖ᨱᕽ☖⧪᜽eᮥaᰆᵲ᫵᜽⦹໑, ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊኩࠥ

aԏᮡĥ⊖ᯝᙹಾ޵ᵲ᫵⦹íᯙ᜾⦹Łᯩ۵äᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅.

ੱ⦽᜚ᬊ₉ෝฯᯕᯕᬊ⦹۵᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ၰᖁ┾⊖ᮡ⠙ญ⧉ŝ

⏭ᱢ⧉ᮥ☖⧪እᬊᅕ݅ᵲ᫵᜽⦹ḡอ, ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ၰᖁ┾⊖

ᮡ☖⧪᜽e݅ᮭᮝಽ☖⧪እᬊᮥᵲ᫵᜽⦹۵äᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅.

⩥ᰍ᮹ݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅᨱݡ⦽⧎༊ᄥอ᳒ࠥᇥᕾᨱᕽ۵☖⧪

᜽eၰ᫵ɩ, ⪹᜚, ₉ԕ⪝ᰂᵲ༉ुĥ⊖ᨱᕽ₉ԕ⪝ᰂᨱݡ⦽

อ᳒ࠥaaᰆԏᮡäᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ĥ⊖ᄥಽ☖ĥᱢᮝಽᮁ᮹⦽

₉ᯕෝӹ┡ԙäᮡ ☖⧪᜽eŝ᫵ɩᮝಽ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥa

ฯᮡĥ⊖ᯝᙹಾอ᳒ࠥa׳ᮡäᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ᯕ۵ݡᵲƱ☖᮹

ᯕᬊኩࠥ₉ᯕᨱ঑ෙℕqอ᳒ࠥ᮹₉ᯕಽᅝᙹᯩᮝӹᵲ᫵⦽

ÕݡᵲƱ☖ᕽእᜅෝ׳ᯕ۵ᱶ₦อᮝಽ۵᜚ᬊ₉ಽᇡ░᮹ᱥ⪹

ᮥ ʑݡ⦹ʑ۵ ᨕಖ݅۵ äᮥ eᱲᱢᮝಽ ᜽ᔍ⦹Ł ᯩ݅.

ݡᵲƱ☖᮹᳕⊖ᮥᱽ᫙⦽᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊĥ⊖ᨱݡ⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵š ญᱶ₦᫵ᗭᄥ(ᵝ₉Ƚᱽ, ☖⧪እᬊၰ᜽e᷾a) ݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ᮹

ᱥ⪹᮹᜾ᮥ እƱ⦽ đŝ, ຝᱡ ᵝ₉Ƚᱽ᮹ Ğᬑ ᜚ᬊ₉ᨱ ݡ⦽

᮹᳕ࠥa׳ᮥᙹಾݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾እᮉᯕԏᮡၹ໕, ┾᜽᮹ᖁ┾እ ᮉᯕ׳Łੱ⦽ᵝᄡࠥಽᨱᇩჶᵝ₉⦹ā݅۵እᮉᯕ׳íӹ┡ԍ

݅. ᯕ۵ᵝ₉Ƚᱽෝ☖⦽ᱶ₦⇵ḥ᜽ᵝᄡࠥಽᨱݡ⦽ᵝ₉݉ᗮᯕ

ᄲ⧪ࡹᨕ᧝ ᱶ₦ᱢᯙ ⬉ŝෝ ׳ᯝ ᙹ ᯩ݅۵ äᮥ ᅕᩍ ᵡ݅.

ᩑഭእӹᵝ₉እᬊŝzᯕ☖⧪እᬊᮥ᷾a᜽┅۵Ğᬑ, ษ₍a ḡಽ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊኩࠥa׳ᮥᙹಾݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽᱥ⪹እᮉᯕԏí

ӹ┡ԍᮝӹ᜚ᬊ₉ᖁ┾⊖ᮡᵝ₉እᬊ᷾aᨱݡᵲƱ☖ᖁ┾⊖ᮡ

ᩑഭእ᷾aᨱᅕ݅ၝq⦽äᮝಽӹ┡ԍ݅. ᯕ۵᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊኩࠥ

a ׳ᮥᙹಾ ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ ⅾ ᯕᬊÑญa ᷾a⦹ᩍ ᩑഭእᨱ ݡ⦽

Ğᱽᱢ ᇡݕᯕ ׳ᦥḡḡอ, ᵝ₉እᬊᮡ ᮁഭᵝ₉ᰆ ᯕᬊኩࠥ᪡

ᩑšࡹʑ ভྙᮝಽ ❱݉ࡽ݅.

༊ᱢḡʭḡ᮹ ☖⧪᜽e ᗭ᫵᜽e ᷾aᨱ ݡ⧕ᕽ۵ ݡᵲƱ☖

᮹᳕⊖ᮡ20ᇥᯕᔢ, ᜚ᬊ₉᮹᳕⊖ၰᖁ┾⊖ᮡ30ᇥᯕᔢ᷾a⧕

᧝ ᮲ݖᯱ᮹ 50% ᯕᔢᯕ ݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ ᱥ⪹⧁ ᮹ᔍa ᯩ݅Ł

⦹ᩍ᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥaᱢᮡĥ⊖ᯝᙹಾ ☖⧪᜽e᮹᷾aᨱ

঑ෙ ݡᵲƱ☖ᮝಽ᮹ ᱥ⪹ᨱ ၝq⦽ äᮝಽ ӹ┡ԍ݅.

ᯕᔢ᮹ᩑǍđŝಽᇡ░᜚ᬊ₉᮹ᯕᬊኩࠥᷪ᮹᳕ࠥᨱ঑௝

ᔢᯕ⦽ᯙ᜾᮹₉ᯕaᯩᮭᮥӹ┡ԕᨩᮝ໑, ᵝ₉Ƚᱽᱶ₦⇵ḥ᜽

ᵝᄡࠥಽ᮹ᵝ₉݉ᗮᯕᄲ⧪ࡹᨕ᧝⦹໑, Ğᱽᱢᯙᇡݕᮥaᵲ᜽

┅۵ႊჶᮝಽ۵ᵝ₉᫵ɩŝzᯕ᜚ᬊ₉ᯕᬊ᜽ᖁ┾ᱢᮝಽၽᔾ

ࡹ۵እᬊᅕ݅ᩑഭእᯙᔢŝzᯕᔢ᜽ᱢᯙእᬊᇡݕᯕaᵲࢁ

ᙹᯩ۵ႊჶᯕᅕ݅⬉ŝᱢᯕ௝۵ᱶ₦ᱢᯙ᜽ᔍᱱᮥࠥ⇽⦹ᩡ݅.

⨆⬥ᩑǍŝᱽಽ۵Ʊ☖ᙹ݉ᖁ┾ĥ⊖᮹ᇥඹᨱᯩᨕ᜚ᬊ₉᮹

ᯕᬊኩࠥᨱ঑௝Ḳĥᱢᯙႊჶᮝಽᇥඹ⦹ᩡᮝӹ}ᯙ᮹ᝍญᱢ

✚ᖒᯕӹᝁℕᱢᱽ᧞, ᔍ⫭Ğᱽᱢᯙ✚ᖒॅŝ᮹ᯙŝšĥෝᇥᕾ

⦹ᩍᇥඹႊჶ᮹⧊ญᖒᮥᅕ᪥⧁⦥᫵aᯩᮥäᯕ݅. ੱ⦽ᅕ݅

݅᧲⦽Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญʑჶᨱݡ⦽ᱶ₦ᱢ⬉ŝෝእƱᇥᕾ⧁⦥᫵

aᯩᮝ໑, ӹᦥaᅖᙹ᮹Ʊ☖ᙹ᫵šญʑჶᮥᱢᬊ⧁Ğᬑᨕਁ⦽

ᱶ₦ᱢ᜽թḡ⬉ŝaᯩ۵ḡᨱݡ⦽ᩑǍࠥ⦥᫵⧁äᯕ݅. Ҿᮝಽ

ᅙᩑǍ۵⢽ᅙᮥݡᔢᮝಽ⦽ᖅྙ᳑ᔍđŝෝᯕᬊ⦹ᩡʑভྙᨱ

⢽ᅙ᮹Ⓧʑӹ⇵⇽ႊჶᨱ঑௝ᇥᕾđŝᨱ᪅₉aᯩᮥᙹᯩᨕ

ᅕ݅ᯝၹ⪵ࡽđŝෝࠥ⇽⦹۵ߑ۵⦽ĥaᯩᮥᙹᯩᮝ໑, ⇵⬥

⢽ᅙᖅĥ᮹ }ᖁ ၰ ḡᩎe እƱ ᩑǍ ॒ᯕ ⦥᫵⧁ äᯕ݅.

References

Bae, Y. K., Jung, J. H. and Kim, H. J. (2010). “Latent class analysis for mode choice behavior.” Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 99-107 (in Korean).

Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., Hiscock, R. and Kearns, A. (2003). “In driving seat: Psychosocial benefits from private motor transport compared to public transport.” Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 6, pp. 217-231.

Hwang, K. Y., Kim, I. K. and Lee, Y. C. (1998). “Parameter estimation and validation of a multinomial logit model for the prediction of mode shift as a result of TDM schemes in Seoul.”

Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 53-63 (in Korean).

Jung, D. Y., Yun. J. H., Park, S. W. and Kim, J. Y. (2011). “The strategies of transport demand management to decrease the geenhous gases in transportation part.” Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 29-38 (in Korean).

Johansson M. V., Heldt T. and Johansson P. (2006). “The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 40, pp. 507-525.

Kim, J. H., Jung, J. H and Sohn, K. M. (2010). “combined RP/SP model with latent variables.” Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 28, No.

4, pp. 119-128 (in Korean).

(9)

Lee, B. S. and Lee, E. S. (1996). “The impacts of the traffic demand management policies across the different income classes in seoul.” Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 7-27 (in Korean).

Lee, H. K. and Kim, J. H. (2005). “Travel behavior change and air quality improvement by integrating TDM measures: Forcusing on BRT(Bus Rapid Transit) and road pricing measures.” Journal of Korea Planners Association, Korea Planners Association, Vol.

40, No. 4, pp. 175-185 (in Korean).

Oh, J. H. (2005). “Analyzing the effects of transport demand management measures using the concept of compensating variation.”

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Korean Society of Civil

Engineers, Vol. 25, No. 3D, pp. 429-437 (in Korean).

Sohn, K. M. and Yun, J. Y. (2009). “Separation of car-dependent commuters from normal-choice riders in mode-choice analysis.”

Transportation, Vol. 36, pp. 423-436.

Steg, L. (2005). “Car use: Lust and must. instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 39, pp. 147-162.

Yeo, K. D., Kim, G. H. and Lee, S. W. (2011). “Development of

modified ratio of pairwise comparison for determining weighting

in AHP.” The Korea Spatial Planning Review, Korea Research

Institute, Vol. 71, pp. 25-46 (in Korean).

(10)

수치

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Frequence Gender Male 602(62.7%) Female 358(37.3%) Age 20~29 153(15.9%)30~39292(30.4%)40~49276(28.8%) 50~59 183(19.1%) 60 55(5.8%) Job Employee 447(46.6%)Self-Employed147(15.3%)Student161(16.8%) Housewife 186
Table 3. Classification Criteria of Mode-Choice Class Qualitative  criteria Quantitative criteria (Car use) Sample (persons)
Fig. 4. Job Ratio by Mode-Choice Group
Table 6. Summary Statistics for ANOVA
+2

참조

관련 문서