在國內近年來有許多的公共運輸服務正不斷地在擴建中，例如台北捷運路線的擴展;台中BRT的規劃以及高雄市公車計劃等等。國內有將近七成的人口集中於五都，其中台中市以及台南市目前以公車為主要的公共運輸服務。在縣市合併之後，兩個都市各自推出了公車改革計劃，「i384悠遊山海豚」以及「幹線公車」。兩個都市運用了價格促銷以及非價格促銷吸引市民搭乘公車，而公車運量上以台中市的成長最為顯著，台南市的公車運量也有成長。促銷活動是否真的是一個影響市民搭乘公車的重要影響因子為本研究之動機。
本研究採用問卷調查法訪問台中市以及台南市使用過公車的受訪者並運用敘述性偏好法設計問卷。公車以促銷中的價格促銷、抽獎活動、名人拍照以及公車一般項目的轉乘、旅行時間設定為公車擁有的運具屬性變數。本研究使用正交設計組何方案模擬不同情境，先以聯合分析探討公車擁有的運具屬性變數對於受訪者心中的重要性，而後使用羅吉特模式進行資料校估。建構市民之運具選擇行為模式。
聯合分析的統計結果顯示受訪者普遍最重視價格促銷中的里程免費，抽獎以及名人拍照亦佔有相當程度的比例。兩個都市的比較中，台中市受訪者對於八公里免費的重視程度高於台南市受訪者。而在抽獎的部分，台南市受訪者對於抽獎的重視程度高於台中市受訪者。在名人拍照、旅行時間以及轉乘方面，台中市與台南市總體受訪者並未有太大的差異。
此外，羅吉特模式較估結果顯示，本研究所研擬的情境具有提升受訪者使用公車意願的效果。以機車作為基底，台中市受訪者相較於台南市受訪者會偏向選擇搭乘公車。台中市受訪者對於價格促銷的重視程度較台南市受訪者要高。對於抽獎的部份而言，有機會抽中國外雙人遊較能吸引台中市受訪者;台南市受訪者則對於演唱會門票有較高程度的吸引力。在消費者特性的部分，台中市持有汽機車的受訪者相較於台南市持有汽機車的受訪者在公車、汽車與機車的選擇比較下，台中市受訪者更願意選擇公車作為他們的交通工具。在社會經濟變數方面，不論是台中市還是台南市，女性皆偏好使用公車、汽車做為旅次的交通工具，而機車則為男性常用之交通工具。

In recent years, many domestic public transport services are constantly expanding. Nearly seventy percent of the population is concentrated in five major cities. The major public transportation services in Taichung and Tainan City are bus service. The two cities launched "i384" and "Route bus" after city merge. They use price promotions and non-price promotions to attract people taking bus, and the bus traffic has significant growth in Taichung. The bus traffic in Tainan City bus is also growing. Promotional activities are really a motivation for people to take the bus and are important factors in this study.
This study used questionnaires method. Bus with promotional activities including price promotion, drawing and celebrity. This study uses orthogonal design to generate eighteen options. Firstly, we use conjoint analysis to explore the importance between promotional and non-promotional activities according to respondents. Secondly, we use multinomial logistic model.
After conjoint analysis, price promotion, drawing and celebrity are both significant. The respondents in Taichung city pay more attention to eight kilometer distance free than respondents in Tainan city. In drawing activities, respondents in Tainan city pay more attention than respondents in Taichung city. Furthermore, in logistic models, respondents in Taichung city more willing to take the bus than respondents in Tainan city. People who own private vehicles are more willing to take the bus in Taichung than in Tainan. Female are more willing to take the bus than male in both cities.

英文文獻
1. Ahern, A. and Tapley, N. (2008) , “The use of stated preference techniques to model modal choices on interurban trips in Ireland”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , Vol.42, pp.15-27.
2. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S. (1985), “Discrete Choice Analysis-Theory and Application to Travel Demand”, Cambridge: The MIT press.
3. Cervero, R.(2002), Built environment and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D, Vol.7, Issue. 4, pp.265-284.
4. Davidson J. Hugh. (1987), Offensive Marketing : How to make your competitors follow?, 2nd ed. England: Gower Publishing Company Limited.
5. Decrezion, G. Pels, E. and Rietveld, P. (2009), “Modelling the joint access mode and railway station choice”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol.45, Issue. 1, pp.270-283.
6. Diamond, W. and Johnson, R. R. (1990), “The Framing of Sales Promotions: An Approach to Classification”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.17, No. 1, pp.494-500.
7. Dissanayake, D. and Morikawa, T. (2009), “Investigating household vehicle ownership, mode choice and trip sharing decisions using a combined revealed preference/stated preference Nested Logit model: case study in Bangkok Metropolitan Region”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18,Issue.3, pp. 402-410.
8. Diamond, W. and Johnson, R. R. (1990), “The Framing of Sales Promotions:An Approach to Classificaion”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.17, Issue. 1,pp.494-500.
9. Espion, R. and Román, C. (2007), “Understanding suburban travel demand: Flexible modeling with revealed and stated choice data”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , Vol.41, Issue. 10, pp.899-912.
10. Golias, J. C.(2002), Analysis of traffic corridor impacts from the introduction of the new Athens Metro system. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 10,Issue.2, pp. 91-97
11. Hensher, D. A.(1994), Stated Preference analysis of travel choices:the state of practice, Journal of Transportation, Vol.21, Issue. 2, pp.107-133.
12. Hensher, D. A. and Reyes, A. J. (2000), Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport. Journal of Transportation, Vol.27, Issue. 4, pp.341-361.
13. Johansson M. V., Heldt, T. and Johansson, P.(2006), The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol.40, Issue.6,pp.507-525.
14. Junyi, S.(2010), Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transpor mode choice data. Applied Economics, Vol.41, Issue. 22, pp.2915-2924.
15. Kotler P. (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
16. Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
17. Kroes, E. P. and Sheldon, R. J.(1988), Stated preference method an introduction, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol.11, Issue. 1, pp.11-25.
18. Liu (2007), A behavioral model of work-trip mode choice in Shanghai, China Economics Review, Vol 18,Issue.4,pp.456-476.
19. Miciak, Alan R., and William L. Shanklin (1994), Choosing celebrity endorsers, Marketing Management, Issue.3,pp.51-59.
20. Muller, S. (2008), Travel-to-school mode choice modelling and patterns of school choice in urban areas. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.16,Issue.5 pp.342-357.
21. Morikawa, T., Ben-Akiva, M,M and McFadden (1996), “Incorporating Psychometric Data in Econometric Choice Models”, Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
22. O’Fallon, C., Sullivan, C. and Hensher, D. A.(2004), Constraints affecting mode choice by morning car commuters.Transport Policy, Vol.11, Issue. 1, pp.17-29.
23. Palma, A. D. and Rochat, D. (2000), “Mode choice for trips to work in Geneva: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.8,Issue.1, pp.43-51.
24. Quelch, J. A., (1989), Sales Promotion Management, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
25. Raghubir, P. and Corfman, K. (1999), “When Do Price Promotions Affect Pretrial Brand Evaluations?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.36,Issue.2,pp.211-222.
26. Rodriguez, D. A. and Joo, J. (2006), “The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol.40,Issue.9,pp709-730.
27. Satoshi, F. and Ryuichi, K(2003), What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers?.
28. Schultz, Don E. and William A. Robinson (1982), Sales Promotion Management. Chicago, IL:Crain book.
29. Sherman, S.P. (1985), When you wish upon a star. Fortune. Issue 9, pp. 50-55.
30. Vedagiri P. and Arasan V. T.(2009), Estimating modal shift of car travelers to bus on introduction of bus priority system. Journal of Transportation, Vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 120-129.
31. Wang, Y., Li, L., Wang, Z., Lv, T. and Wang, Li.(2013), Mode shift behavior impacts from the introduction of metro service. American Society of Civil Engineers , E65-E70. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000148
32. Wardman, M. (1988), a comparison of revealed preference and stated preference models of travel behavior, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol.11, Issue. 1, pp.71-91.
33. Yanez, M.F., and Ortuzar, S.R.J.D.D.(2010), Inclusion of latent variables in Mixed Logit models:Modelling and forecasting. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol.44,Issue.9, pp.744-753.
34. Zhao, D. B., Du, W., and Liu, J. M. (2009). “Analysis of Chengdu City’s urban public transit system based on disaggregate model theory.” Int. Conf. on Transportation Engineering (ICTE), American Society of Civil Engineers, 2701–2706.

中文文獻
1. 台中市政府交通局(2001)，高潛力公車路往建置計畫。
2. 交通部運輸研究所(2011)，公共運輸發展政策之推動效益評估－運具選擇行為模式與調查計畫初擬
3. 交通部運輸研究所(2011)，交通電子票證系統共通技術規範研究與票證一卡通推動計畫(4-4)
4. 交通部運輸研究所(2012)，99年臺灣地區運輸系統現況及能量分析。
5. 交通部運輸研究所(2013)，100年臺灣地區運輸系統現況及能量分析。
6. 吳萍樺(2005)，私人運具通勤者於不同道路定價情境下之接受意向及旅運相關行為之研究，國立暨南大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
7. 李詩晨(2010)，都市公車發展觀建政策分析-以台中市為例，逢甲大學碩士論文。
8. 林良泰、陳建元、葉昭甫與李詩晨(2011)，台中高潛力公車官建政策變遷分析，運輸計畫季刊，第四十卷第四期，頁423-442。
9. 林韋丞(2011)，觀光地區遊客運具之選擇偏好-以台灣好形日月潭為例，國立交通大學碩士論文。
10. 邱靜淑 (2005)，都市通勤者運具選擇行為之研究，國立暨南大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
11. 洪順慶(2001)，行銷管理，台北:新陸書局。
12. 洪順慶、黃深勳、黃俊英、劉宗其(1998)，行銷管理學，台北:新陸書局。
13. 張顥鐘 (2002)，以敘述性偏好法探討起訖點屬性對城際旅運者運具選擇行為之影響，國立成功大學都市計畫學系碩士論文。
14. 陳永朋 (2006)，台北都會區捷運與公車轉乘優惠效益之分析，國立交通大學碩士論文。
15. 葉文雅(2010)，高鐵價格促銷方案對小汽車駕駛人運具選擇行為之影響，國立交通大學碩士論文。
16. 賴文泰與呂錦隆(2008)，應用涉入理論於運具選擇行為之研究，運輸計畫季刊，第三十七卷第二期，頁237-262。
17. 廖兆奎(1997)，台北市木柵動物園旅次個體選擇運具選擇行為模式之研究，國立台灣大學碩士論文。

網路文獻
1. Public Transport Victoria。取自：http://ptv.vic.gov.au/
2. Transport for London。取自：
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tube-dlr-lo-adult-fares-jan-2014.pdf
3. 大台南公車資訊網。取自：http://citybus.tainan.gov.tw/zh/news/1.html
4. 中華民國運輸學會。取自: http://www.cit.org.tw/index.php/zh/aboout-cit.html
5. 內政部統計資訊網。取自：http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/statfile9.asp
6. 台中市公車動態資暨路網路網轉程系統。取自：http://citybus.taichung.gov.tw/new.aspx
7. 台中市政府交通局。取自：http://www.traffic.taichung.gov.tw/index.asp
8. 台南市公車動態資訊系統網站。取自http://2384.tainan.gov.tw/TNWeb/2384.jsp
9. 台南市政府交通局。取自：http://www.tainan.gov.tw/traffic/
10. 愛上巴士，悠遊山海屯。取自：http://www.i384.com.tw/zh/qa.html