"Over the years, risk analysis methodologies have been developed and implemented by many industries. NASA has implemented a cost efficient Continuous Risk Analysis methodology with good results. The U. S. Department of Transportation also states that a continuous risk analysis is the key in identifying, addressing, and handling risks before they become threats to success. However, current practices seldom incorporate this concept into real transportation projects. In general, risk is simply disregarded in feasibility studies. One of primary reasons is the lack of a feasible and effective risk analysis approach to guide efficient implementation in real projects. This thesis reviews current risk analysis practices used in public transportation projects. Using a case study, it also explores potential obstacles encountered in the implementation of systematic risk analysis. Finally, this thesis presents a preliminary risk analysis framework developed through the case study and enriched subsequently by incorporating material documented in the literature. The proposed risk analysis approach is to help achieve continuous risk analysis in transportation projects by enabling early start, frequent implementation, extensive application and flexible adoption."

司法院釋字第520號解釋於理由書指出：「基於法治國原則，縱令實質正當亦不可取代程序合法」，即一語道出程序正義之重要性。 民間參與公共建設具專業性、複雜性及高風險性、隔代性、利益衝突等特性，在政府與民間合作理念的推動下，法律規定模式已呈現由「條件式」的模式轉向「目的式」模式，致使政府合作對象的甄審（選）成為一種高度專業趨向之判斷，並且可能陷於「決策於未知之中」的困境。民間參與公共建設的推動上，除技術層面之實體審查標準外，實應認真思考面對決策的程序問題，藉由程序之提升，用以補足實體規範的不足。據此，有關引進民間參與公共建設之法規，甄審程序選出的最佳締約對象、最優申請案件或最優申請人「是否即屬適當」，應思考甄審（或評選）程序與組織設計，是否妥適。 本文擬由正當法律程序於美國及日本之發展出發，藉以了解其規範基礎與發展情形，並分析我國司法實務有關正當法律程序原則之解釋，理解我國對於正當法律程序之內涵與要求。其後聚焦行政實務上經常引用作為民間參與公共建設案件辦理依據之獎參條例、採購法及促參法，就其甄審、評選或評審程序與爭議處理程序檢視正當法律程序實踐情形。 本於基本權保障意旨及法律承認權利之保障，基本上本文認同至少應有一最低限度之保障（即聽證權）。至於其他要求為何？本於民間參與公共建設之興建或營運，涉及政府有限資源之分配及申請人(營業自由、契約自由)與使用者（生命、身體、財產）之基本權保障相關，應可由司法院釋字第384號解釋及釋字第709號解釋推導出「組織」要求，而其他如公正作為(迴避、禁止程序外接觸)、受告知權、說明理由及資訊公開，亦正是落實組織適法與聽證權，所不可或缺之要素。