1. 請將下文摘要部份翻譯為中文。(30%)

1. 請將畫框部份翻譯成中文(佔30分)。 The American transportation research board (TRB) defines light rail as follows: Light rail transit is a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains alongexclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and dischargepassengers at track or car-floor level (TRB, 1978). This definition is in line with the more recent one of Jackson (2000), Working from this definition this section provides afurther description of light rail and an overview of the fifteen most promising light rail projects in the Netherlands.The essenice of light rail is that it is a hybrid form of public transport. It involves passenger rail transport in which thevehicle, as regards size and weight, stands between urban tram and a conventional train. The tram characteristics of lightrail are generally found in a lower floor and small wheels that allow passengers to board and exit on the street or low plat-forms. Vehicles are larger then trans, but have a lighter design then heavy rail allowing for lighter engines and more efficientoperation. Thanks to the lighter vehicles the infrastructure can also have a lighter format than required for conventionaltrains. Due to its hybrid character, light rail services can adopt elements of heavy rail, urban tram and even subway operationmodels. These include operating speeds and stop distances can be adopted from tram and train, schedules can be fixed times(at 17,23 h) or intervals (every 5 min), boarding regimes can have in-vehicle ticket sales and validation or off-vehicle saleswith in-vehicle or platform inspection.The promise of light rail relates to the synergetic combination of aspects of train and tram (Barry, 1991 and Voermanet al., 2001). Due to the lesser weight and smaller scale the operating and construction costs are lower than for heavy rail.The smaller scale means light rail can penetrate into city centres without the need for heavy investments in undergroundinfrastructure such as required for the subway. This gives medium-sized urban centres the chance to create direct links be-tween the inner city, the outlying districts and the surrounding population centres. Through the lighter operating require-ments (like a tram), the transport service can be denser in terms of time (higher frequency) and space (more lines and stops)according to the needs. It can be operated at grade and is faster then trams. All these factors mean that light rail providesstronger links within a metropolitan district and thus contributes to a more cohesive metropolitan district.There are many examples of these hybrid forms of rail transport. Some are characterized by combined use of train andtram infrastructure, such as the Periurbain in the French city of Mulhouse and the 51 in the German city of Karlsruhe. Otherexamples feature mixed forms of tram and train using their own infrastructure, such as MAX in Portiand in the United Statesand the Supertram in the English city of Sheffield.In the last decades a variety of projects for new light rail links have been initiated in the Netherlands. As early as 1997 thenational government noted 30 initiatives. Fifteen of these projects were ultimately identified by the government as prom-ising and received support. Table 1 indicates which promising projects are cited in the various national government whitepapers. These range from 6 in 1997 to 15 in 2001.Around the turn of the millennium, however, the Dutch light rail projects showed a tendency to slow down. Manyprojects met with resistance and implementation of plans slowed or stopped. One good example is a project that originallyaimed to connect a high-speed tram from Nieuwegein and IJsselstein (two 'new', fast-growing towns close to Utrecht)through the centre of Utrecht towards the campus of the University of Utrecht. In 1999 this project met with majorresistance due to its potential effects on the centre of Utrecht, and the light rail project was ultimately implemented as aseparate bus lane, This perceived bog down was the focus of this research: why did realization of these promising projectswith financial backing take this long? What were the most important reasons for this slowdown and how could it beavoided?Table 1Light rail projects on the agenda of the national government over the years and status in 2004 (Source: Voerman et al. (2001)).

2.依本文,請以中文說明輕軌系統之長處(佔 30分)。

3.依本文,請以中文說明輕軌系統適用之區域(佔20分)。

4.請說明輕軌建設會遭遇困難及 其可能原因。(佔30分)

2. 請依下文,說明都市運輸成為推動綠色運輸重要對象之理由。(5%)

3. 請依下文,說明運輸政策改變之主要障礙。(25%)

4. 請說明下文所稱「都市運輸政策改變」之內涵大致為何?(20%) ABSTRACT Transport policy has proven highly resistant to change despite growing environ- mental problems. However, in the Swedish city of Örebro, objectives and policy measures in support of ecological sustainability have successfully been introduced in urban transport policies adopted by the local government. This article explains how this 'greening' became possible. Three variables of change proved highly important to understand policy change in this case: (i) new policy ideas of sustainable transport, (ii) reorganization of the local administration and (iii) the pressure of green policy entrepreneurs. A common denominator behind all these changes was the reformation of urban transport into a political issue through discursive changes and an active involvement by elected politicians, that is, politicization. The continuing importance of politics in contemporary policy processes as complex as trans- port is an important lesson from this case, that is, politics still matters. Introduction Transport is one of the key areas for achieving sustainable development that has so far been unsuccessfully addressed in policy-making and implementation. The contribution of the transport sector to environmental degradation has even worsened in comparison to other sectors (Banister, 2005). This lack of progress towards sustainability has generated growing criticism. In his keynote address to the International Transport Forum (a worldwide platform for transport minis- ters, industry and civil society) in Leipzig in May 2008, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change Yvo de Boer argued that 'present political action in the transport sector is woefully inadequate' and that the stakeholders of transport had a choice, either to proactively participate in the global process related to climate change or to have their policies determined by this process (De Boer, 2008). In this debate, growing interest has been given to urban transport, a sub-policy area in which major environmental improvement can and must be made (cf. Commission of the European Communities, 2007). First, urban transport is respon- sible for severe local environmental problems such as air pollution, noise, degraded natural habitats, etc. and also contributes considerably and increasingly to global environmental problems such as climate change (Commission of the European Communities, 2007； Lidskog et al., 2003). Second, urban areas offer unique opportu- nities for dealing with unsustainable transport. Short distance travelling and a high concentration of people make non-motorized and public transport viable alter- natives to private cars (Banister, 2005). Although the need for sustainable transport has been more and more accepted, transport policy has proven highly resistant to change (Goldman & Gorham, 2006； Low et al., 2003). At least four major barriers to change have been identified: First, transport policy is locked in a certain trajectory by the physical design and technical solutions of existing transport infrastructure, making policy change costly. Second, powerful discursive constructions and stories about automobile mobility legitimize certain practices, beliefs and actors while discrediting others in transport planning and policymaking (Sheller & Urry, 2000). Third, transport is institutionally set-up as a separate policy area, governed by authorities and organizations that are only responsible for transport. Lack of integration and co-ordination with other policy sectors (such as environment, land-use, health, business, etc.) is seen as a hindrance for policy change. On the other hand, integration risks complicating decision-making processes and thus reducing institutional capacity for action. Finally, transport policy is of great importance for a range of highly entrenched interests and networks making the stakes in policy change high for several powerful actors (Flyvbjerg, 2001； Hansen,

5； Lindseth & Reitan, 2007； Low, 2007； Low et al., 2003； Stead, 2008； Vigar, 2000). To summarize, transport policy change is a complex and difficult process with multiple factors that can make or break initiatives of change. The aim of this article is to add to our understanding of policy change by studying the development of urban transport policy in the Swedish city of Örebro. In this mid-size city of about 130,000 residents, urban transport has become a key political issue and a frequent subject in public debate. Through the development of a sustainable urban transport plan (SUTP), objectives and measures in support of ecological sustainability have been included in urban transport policy formulation, and to some extent in the organization and implementation of urban planning and design. How has urban transport policy changed and how can we understand and explain this transformation? (摘自 Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning) Vol.11, No.3, September 2009

1. 請將以下短文翻譯成中文。(40%)Risk-based Inspection for Cargo Containers"There is no consensus on the number of cargo containers entering U.S. portseach year — the figures quoted range from 11.6 to 15 million. There is aconsensus, however, that implementing the congressionally mandated 100-percent inspection of these containers is a Herculean task； some suggestinstead a risk-based inspection combined with more incentives to the privatesector to make containers secure. "An incentive system for shippers could help push some of the costs andresponsibilities of port security from the federal government to privateindustry, according to an article — 'Securing the Containerized Supply Chain:Analysis of Government Incentives for Private Investment,' by Nitin Bakshi ofthe London Business School and Noah Gans of the Wharton School — in thecurrent issue of Management Science, the journal of the Institute forOperations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)."

2. 請以題 1 的短文為基礎,加上自己的判斷,以中文回答以下兩個問題:「Why is the 100-percent inspection of the containers a Herculean task? 」,以及「How can the incentive system for shippers make containers secure? 」。(20%)