A Study on the Performance of Bus Firms in Taipei

[[abstract]]本研究旨在應用確定區域資料包絡分析模式評估民國89-92年台北市聯營公車整體營運績效及個別績效（作業效率、作業效果及服務效果），並採麥氏指數分析跨期生產力變動。本研究採用交叉效率模式分別找出最佳營運績效與最適規模，並應用麥氏指數分析產業生產力變動趨勢。 研究發現：（1）整體績效：年平均技術效率值為0.793；（2）民國88-89年無任何一家公民營業者處於MPSS，但在民國90-92年全數業者處於MPSS；（3）最佳整體營運績效業者為臺北客運（CEM效率值為0.951）、最佳作業效率業者為淡水客運（CEM效率值為0.998）、最佳作業效果業者為臺北客運（CEM效率值為0.915）、最佳服務效果業者為臺北市公車處（CEM效率值為0.984）；（4）民營較優於公營業者；（5）有高作業效率公車業者未必有高作業效果與高服務效果，有高作業效果公車業者會有高服務效果；（6）14家公車業者年平均總因素生產力變動均呈現成長。[[abstract]]The purpose of this study is two-fold：(1) to assess the operational performance of 14 urban bus firms in Taipei; and (2) to measure productivity changes in those firms over 1999-2003. The assurance region (AR) model is first used to measure the overall performance and individual performance on operational efficiency, operational effectiveness and service effectiveness; and to examine returns to scale of those firms. In addition, cross efficiency measure（CEM）is utilized to identify the best practice. Finally, Malmquist index is employed to examine productivity change in these firms. The results of this study show that (1) mean overall performance is all right with a mean efficiency score of 0.793; (2) those bus firms were not experienced MPSS during 1999-2000, but were experienced MPSS over 2001-2003; (3) according to CEM scores of those firms, the best practices of overall performance, operational efficiency, operational effectiveness and service effectiveness are Taipei Bus (0.951), Tamsui Bus (0.998), Taipei Bus (0.915), and Municipal Bus Adm. (0.984) respectively; (4) over a five-year period, the private owned bus firms are better than the public owned bus firms; (5) a bus firm performing well on operational efficiency may not perform well on operational effectiveness and service effectiveness, while a bus firm performing well on operational effectiveness also performs well on service effectiveness; and (6) total productivity change in 14 firms were increased