지속가능한 고속철도망 계획을 위한 투자우선순위 선정에 관한 연구 : 다원-속성 효용이론을 이용하여

Priority Decision Making for Planning A Long-term Sustainable High-speed Rail Network using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory

  • 박진경 (한국철도기술연구원 철도정책물류연구본부 교통계획연구팀) ;
  • 엄진기 (한국철도기술연구원 철도정책물류연구본부 교통계획연구팀) ;
  • 이준 (한국철도기술연구원 철도정책물류연구본부 교통계획연구팀)
  • 발행 : 2008.02.29

초록

본 연구는 중장기적 고속철도망 계획을 위한 투자우선순위를 전통적인 평가기법에서 벗어나 지속가능 한 교통의 관점에서 이를 분석할 수 있는 방법론을 제안하고, 다원-개준 의사결정기법 중의 하나인 다원-속성 효용이론(MAUT)을 이용하여 이를 분석하였다. 지속가능 한 교통지표는 경제지표, 사회지표 및 환경지표로 구분하였으며, 지속가능 한 고속철도망 지수 분석 결과 경부와 호남 고속철도 이후에 건설되어야 할 우리나라의 고속철도망 노선축의 투자우선순위는 동서축, 남해축, 서해축 등의 순서로 분석되었다.

With the growing international consensus regarding sustainable development of transportation, the plan of transportation infrastructure needs to meet various requirements toward enhancing environmental conditions. Accordingly, the upcoming long-term plan of high-speed rail network has to be reflecting the sustainability of transportation systems. In this paper, we demonstrate an application of methodologies based on multi-attribute utility theory for determining priorities of sustainable high-speed rail investment. The proposed methodologies identify indicators for sustainable transportation systems such as economic, environmental, and social ones and then, evaluate priority for planning a long-term sustainable high-speed rail network by comparing the relative importance among indicators. This will help transportation agencies to prioritize high-speed rail investment toward sustainable transportation systems.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 건설교통부(1999), 국가기간교통망계획(2000-2019)
  2. 건설교통부(2006), 국가철도망 구축계획(2006-2015)
  3. 임강원(1997), 도시교통계획-이론과 모형
  4. 한국개발연구원(2004), 도로.철도 부문사업의 예비타당성 조사 표준지침 수정.보완 연구(제4판)
  5. 한국교통연구원(2007), 국가기간교통망 수정계획(안) 공청회
  6. Black, W. R. (2000), "Toward a Measure of Transport Sustainability", Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C
  7. Cantos, P. M. Gumbau-Albert and J. Maudos (2005), "Transport Infrastructures, Spillover Effects and Regional Growth: Evidence of the Spanich Case", Transport Reviews, Vol.25, pp.25-50 https://doi.org/10.1080/014416410001676852
  8. Chu, X. and S. E. Polzin (2000), "Timing Rule for Major Transportation Investments", Transportation, Vol.27, pp.201-219 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005235423898
  9. Fruente, A. (2004), "Second-Best Redistribution Through Public Investment: A Characterization, an Empirical Test and an Application to the Case of Spain", Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol.34, pp.489-503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2003.06.001
  10. Hayashi, H. and H. Morisugi (2000), "International Comparison of Background Concept and Methodology of Transportation Project Appraisal", Transport Policy, Vol.7, pp.73-88 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00015-9
  11. Jeon, C. M. and A. Amekudzi (2005), "Addressing Sustainability in Transportation System: Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics", Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C
  12. Jeon, C. M., A. Amekudzi and R. A. Guensler (2007), "Evaluating Transportation System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region", Proceedings of the 86th Annual Meetings of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C
  13. Kennedy (2002), "A Comparison of the Sustainability of Public and Private Transportation System: Study of the Greater Toronto Area", Transportation, Vol.29, pp.459-493 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016302913909
  14. Litman, T. (2007), "Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning", Victoria Transport Policy Institute Paper 07-2706, Victoria, Canada
  15. Yoon, K. P. and C. L. Hwang (1995), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, Sage Publication Inc
  16. Zietsman, J., R. R. Laurence and S. J. Kim (2006), "Transportation Corridor Decision-Making with Multi-Attribute Utility Theory", Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol.7, pp.254-266 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2006.009147