| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立成功大學 === 交通管理學系碩博士班 === 93 === Accompanying the rapid growth of current information technology, it makes possible to push the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ahead for most countries, especially in Europe, America, and Japan. In recent years, the ITS development has achieved a remarkable success. Some countries have even stepped into the commercial application in ITS.
So far the domestic freeway traveler information, generated by the government sectors, is primarily provided to implement traffic control measures but not to meet freeway drivers’ information needs. Some international successful cases, which include “VICS in Japan”, “Trafficmaster in U.K.” and “511 in USA”, are introduced and reviewed in the study. The business models of these ATIMS System are analyzed from the following aspects: “Development History”, “Products & Services”, “Charging System”, and “Information Supply Chain”. Then the commercial framework of them are induced to derive a feasible freeway ATIMS business model and followed by a real-world validation study based on a domestic freeway drivers’ survey.
The findings of the questionnaire study are summarized as follows:
1.The top three consumer preferred information items are: ”Road Condition Inquiry”, “Satellite Positioning and Navigation” and “Alternative Route Information” in the value-added information dimension.
2.The top three consumer preferred marketing programs are: ”Gifting new car buyers with system products”, “Upgrading of electronic maps with free of charge for registered members”, and “extending the warranty of product parts” in the marketing strategy dimension.
Moreover, the financial feasibility analysis of freeway traveler information system is done in three scenarios: “Optimistic Situation”, “Normal Situation” and “Pessimistic Situation”. In the first scenario, the private sector’s Payoff Ratio and Investment Return Rate are both quite high. It means the private sector is able to establish the system individually without the public sector’s funding. In the second scenario, the private sector’s Payoff Ratio and Investment Return Rate cannot reach its threshold value. It means the private sector is unable to establish the system individually and needs both of the public sector’s funding and an extension of the concession years to over 23 years. In the third scenario, the private sector’s Payoff Ratio and Investment Return Rate cannot reach its threshold value. It means the private sector does need both of the public sector’s funding and an extension of the concession years to over 30 years.
|
|---|
