Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine Gelen Toplu Taşıma Araçlarının Hizmet Düzeyinin TCRP 100 ve TCRP 165 Raporlarına Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2020, , 1621 - 1640, 25.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.632038

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya
Çelebi Yerleşkesine yolcu taşıyan toplu taşıma sisteminin hizmet düzeyi ele
alınmıştır. İlk olarak, Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesinde ulaşım hizmetinin kalitesi,
sistemin ulaşılabilirliği, hizmet sıklığı, hizmet saatleri ve hizmet kapsamı
açılarından incelenmiştir. İkinci olarak, Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesinde ulaşım
sistemince sağlanan rahatlık ve kolaylık araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla,
araçlardaki genel doluluk seviyeleri, sefer aralıklarına bağlılık ve toplu taşıma
ile otomobil seyahat süreleri arasındaki fark göz önüne ele alınmıştır.
Gerçekleştirilen analizlerde, TCRP 100 ve TCRP 165 raporlarındaki yöntemler
izlenmiştir. Ayrıca, iki rapor arasında bazı kriterler bakımından bulunan farklılıklar
da çalışmada açıklanmıştır. Bununla birlikte, toplu taşıma hizmet düzeyinin
toplu taşıma ile
otomobil seyahat sürelerinin farkı ve t
oplu
taşıma
ile otomobil seyahat sürelerinin oranı bakımından
saptanması, bu araştırmanın temelini oluşturmuştur. Bu amaçla,
Google
Maps
’te bulunan “yol tarifleri” özelliği, otomobil
kullanımına bir referans olması açısından kullanılmıştır. Böylece, Kütahya’daki
Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine yolcu taşıyan tüm otobüs toplu taşımacılık
hatlarının seyahat süreleri, aynı güzergâh için
Google Maps ile
belirlenen özel araç seyahat süreleri ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak,
toplu taşıma hizmet düzeyi, toplu taşıma ile otomobil
seyahat süreleri arasındaki fark ve toplu taşıma ile otomobil seyahat süreleri arasındaki
oran olarak değerlendirilmiştir.

References

  • 1. Tyrinopoulos Y., Antoniou C. 2008. Public Transit User Satisfaction: Variability and Policy Implications. Transport Policy, 15: 260-272.
  • 2. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. Transit capacity and quality of service manual, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100, second edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
  • 3. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 1999. A handbook for measuring customer satisfaction and service quality, TRCP Report 47, TRB, Washington, D.C.
  • 4. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2002. Transportation - logistics and services - public passenger transport - service quality definition, targeting and measurement, CEN-EN 13816, CEN, Brussels.
  • 5. Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) Limited. 2004. The demand for public transport: a practical guide, TRL Report TRL593, ISSN 0968-4107, TRL, Crowthorne.
  • 6. Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme. 2003. PORTAL Promotion of results in transport research and learning, Final Report, EU, RTD Programme.
  • 7. 4th RTD Framework Programme. 2000. EQUIP Extending the quality of public transport. Final Report and its Annex: Practical Handbook, EU, RTD Programme.
  • 8. 4th RTD Framework Programme. 1998. QUATTRO Quality approach in tendering/contracting urban public transport operations. Final Report, EU, RTD Programme.
  • 9. Lai W.-T., Chen C.-F. 2011. Behavioral Intentions of Public Transit Passengers - The Roles of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Involvement. Transport Policy, 18: 318-325.
  • 10. Hensher D. A., Stopher P., Bullock P. 2003. Service Quality - Developing a Service Quality Index in the Provision of Commercial Bus Contracts. Transportation Research Part A, 37: 499-517.
  • 11. Yedla S., Shrestha R.M. 2003. Multi-criteria Approach for the Selection of Alternative Options for Environmentally Sustainable Transport System in Delhi. Transportation Research Part A, 37 (8): 717-729.
  • 12. Awasthi A., Chauhan S. S., Omrani H., Panahi A. 2011. A Hybrid Approach Based on SERVQUAL and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Evaluating Transportation Service Quality. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61: 637-646.
  • 13. Joewono T. B., Kubota H. 2007. User Satisfaction with Paratransit in Competition with Motorization in Indonesia: Anticipation of Future Implications. Transportation, 34 (4): 337-354.
  • 14. Paquette J., Cordeau J. F., Laporte G. 2009. Quality of Service in Dial-a-ride Operations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56 (4): 1721-1734.
  • 15. Eboli L., Mazzulla G. 2011. A Methodology for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objective Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View. Transport Policy, 18 (1): 172-181.
  • 16. Nathanail E. 2008. Measuring the Quality of Service for Passengers on the Hellenic Railways. Transportation Research Part A, 42 (1): 48-66.
  • 17. Friman, M. 2004. Implementing Quality Improvements in Public Transport. Journal of Public Transportation, 7 (4): 49-65.
  • 18. Gomes, L. F. A. M. 1989. Multi-criteria Ranking of Urban Transportation System Alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 23 (1): 43-52.
  • 19. Lin C. L., Hsieh M. S., Tzeng G. H. 2010. Evaluating Vehicle Telematics System by Using a Novel MCDM Techniques with Dependence and Feedback. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (10): 6723-6736.
  • 20. Liou J. J. H., Chuang Y. T. 2010. Developing a Hybrid Multi-criteria Model for Selection of Outsourcing Providers. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (5): 3755-3761.
  • 21. Yang J. L., Tzeng G. H. 2011. An Integrated MCDM Technique Combined with DEMATEL for a Novel Cluster-weighted with ANP Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (3): 1417-1424.
  • 22. Fielding G. J., Babitsky T. T., Brenner M. E. 1985. Performance Evaluation for Bus Transit. Transportation Research Part A, 19 (1): 73-82.
  • 23. Pullen W. T. 1993. Definition and Measurement of Quality of Service for Local Public Transport Management. Transport Reviews, 13 (3): 247-264.
  • 24. Hensher D. A., Daniels R. 1995. Productivity Measurement in the Urban Bus Sector. Transport Policy, 2 (3): 179-194.
  • 25. Hensher D. A. 2007. Bus Transport: Economics, Policy, and Planning, JAI Press, New York.
  • 26. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 88, TRB, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • 27. Hu K. C., Jen W. 2006. Passengers’ Perceived Service Quality of City Buses in Taipei: Scale Development and Measurement. Transport Reviews, 26 (5): 645-662.
  • 28. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49 (4): 41-50.
  • 29. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1): 12-40.
  • 30. Cronin J. J., Taylor S. A. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (3): 55-68.
  • 31. Triplett J. L., Yau O. H. M., Neal C. 1994. Assessing the Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL in a Longitudinal Study: the Experiences of an Australian Organization. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 6 (12): 41-62.
  • 32. Yeh C. H., Deng H., Chang Y. H. 2000. Fuzzy Multi-criteria Analysis for Performance Evaluation of Bus Companies. European Journal of Operational Research, 126 (3): 459-473.
  • 33. Tsaur S. H., Chang T. Y., Yeh C. H. 2002. The Evaluation of Airline Service Quality by Fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23 (2): 107-115.
  • 34. D’Ovidioa F. D., Leograndeb D., Mancarellab R., Schinzanob A., Violab D. 2014. A Multivariate Analysis of the Quality of Public Transport Services. Innovation and Society 2013 Conference, IES 2013, Procedia Economics and Finance, 17: 238-247.
  • 35. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2013. Transit capacity and quality of service manual, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 165, third edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
  • 36. Vuchic V. R. 2007. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
  • 37. Karakoç E. 2015. Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine Gelen Toplu Taşıma Araçlarının Hizmet Düzeyi Analizi. KDPÜ, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü, Ulaştırma Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, Lisans Tezi, 62s, Kütahya.
Year 2020, , 1621 - 1640, 25.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.632038

Abstract

References

  • 1. Tyrinopoulos Y., Antoniou C. 2008. Public Transit User Satisfaction: Variability and Policy Implications. Transport Policy, 15: 260-272.
  • 2. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. Transit capacity and quality of service manual, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100, second edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
  • 3. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 1999. A handbook for measuring customer satisfaction and service quality, TRCP Report 47, TRB, Washington, D.C.
  • 4. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2002. Transportation - logistics and services - public passenger transport - service quality definition, targeting and measurement, CEN-EN 13816, CEN, Brussels.
  • 5. Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) Limited. 2004. The demand for public transport: a practical guide, TRL Report TRL593, ISSN 0968-4107, TRL, Crowthorne.
  • 6. Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme. 2003. PORTAL Promotion of results in transport research and learning, Final Report, EU, RTD Programme.
  • 7. 4th RTD Framework Programme. 2000. EQUIP Extending the quality of public transport. Final Report and its Annex: Practical Handbook, EU, RTD Programme.
  • 8. 4th RTD Framework Programme. 1998. QUATTRO Quality approach in tendering/contracting urban public transport operations. Final Report, EU, RTD Programme.
  • 9. Lai W.-T., Chen C.-F. 2011. Behavioral Intentions of Public Transit Passengers - The Roles of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Involvement. Transport Policy, 18: 318-325.
  • 10. Hensher D. A., Stopher P., Bullock P. 2003. Service Quality - Developing a Service Quality Index in the Provision of Commercial Bus Contracts. Transportation Research Part A, 37: 499-517.
  • 11. Yedla S., Shrestha R.M. 2003. Multi-criteria Approach for the Selection of Alternative Options for Environmentally Sustainable Transport System in Delhi. Transportation Research Part A, 37 (8): 717-729.
  • 12. Awasthi A., Chauhan S. S., Omrani H., Panahi A. 2011. A Hybrid Approach Based on SERVQUAL and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Evaluating Transportation Service Quality. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61: 637-646.
  • 13. Joewono T. B., Kubota H. 2007. User Satisfaction with Paratransit in Competition with Motorization in Indonesia: Anticipation of Future Implications. Transportation, 34 (4): 337-354.
  • 14. Paquette J., Cordeau J. F., Laporte G. 2009. Quality of Service in Dial-a-ride Operations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56 (4): 1721-1734.
  • 15. Eboli L., Mazzulla G. 2011. A Methodology for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objective Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View. Transport Policy, 18 (1): 172-181.
  • 16. Nathanail E. 2008. Measuring the Quality of Service for Passengers on the Hellenic Railways. Transportation Research Part A, 42 (1): 48-66.
  • 17. Friman, M. 2004. Implementing Quality Improvements in Public Transport. Journal of Public Transportation, 7 (4): 49-65.
  • 18. Gomes, L. F. A. M. 1989. Multi-criteria Ranking of Urban Transportation System Alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 23 (1): 43-52.
  • 19. Lin C. L., Hsieh M. S., Tzeng G. H. 2010. Evaluating Vehicle Telematics System by Using a Novel MCDM Techniques with Dependence and Feedback. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (10): 6723-6736.
  • 20. Liou J. J. H., Chuang Y. T. 2010. Developing a Hybrid Multi-criteria Model for Selection of Outsourcing Providers. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (5): 3755-3761.
  • 21. Yang J. L., Tzeng G. H. 2011. An Integrated MCDM Technique Combined with DEMATEL for a Novel Cluster-weighted with ANP Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (3): 1417-1424.
  • 22. Fielding G. J., Babitsky T. T., Brenner M. E. 1985. Performance Evaluation for Bus Transit. Transportation Research Part A, 19 (1): 73-82.
  • 23. Pullen W. T. 1993. Definition and Measurement of Quality of Service for Local Public Transport Management. Transport Reviews, 13 (3): 247-264.
  • 24. Hensher D. A., Daniels R. 1995. Productivity Measurement in the Urban Bus Sector. Transport Policy, 2 (3): 179-194.
  • 25. Hensher D. A. 2007. Bus Transport: Economics, Policy, and Planning, JAI Press, New York.
  • 26. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 88, TRB, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • 27. Hu K. C., Jen W. 2006. Passengers’ Perceived Service Quality of City Buses in Taipei: Scale Development and Measurement. Transport Reviews, 26 (5): 645-662.
  • 28. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49 (4): 41-50.
  • 29. Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1): 12-40.
  • 30. Cronin J. J., Taylor S. A. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (3): 55-68.
  • 31. Triplett J. L., Yau O. H. M., Neal C. 1994. Assessing the Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL in a Longitudinal Study: the Experiences of an Australian Organization. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 6 (12): 41-62.
  • 32. Yeh C. H., Deng H., Chang Y. H. 2000. Fuzzy Multi-criteria Analysis for Performance Evaluation of Bus Companies. European Journal of Operational Research, 126 (3): 459-473.
  • 33. Tsaur S. H., Chang T. Y., Yeh C. H. 2002. The Evaluation of Airline Service Quality by Fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23 (2): 107-115.
  • 34. D’Ovidioa F. D., Leograndeb D., Mancarellab R., Schinzanob A., Violab D. 2014. A Multivariate Analysis of the Quality of Public Transport Services. Innovation and Society 2013 Conference, IES 2013, Procedia Economics and Finance, 17: 238-247.
  • 35. Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2013. Transit capacity and quality of service manual, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 165, third edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
  • 36. Vuchic V. R. 2007. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
  • 37. Karakoç E. 2015. Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine Gelen Toplu Taşıma Araçlarının Hizmet Düzeyi Analizi. KDPÜ, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü, Ulaştırma Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, Lisans Tezi, 62s, Kütahya.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Araştırma Makalesi
Authors

Polat Yalınız 0000-0003-0373-9727

Yaşar Vitoşoğlu This is me 0000-0002-5543-9673

Şafak Bilgiç 0000-0002-9336-7762

Publication Date December 25, 2020
Submission Date October 11, 2019
Acceptance Date October 30, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020

Cite

IEEE P. Yalınız, Y. Vitoşoğlu, and Ş. Bilgiç, “Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine Gelen Toplu Taşıma Araçlarının Hizmet Düzeyinin TCRP 100 ve TCRP 165 Raporlarına Göre Değerlendirilmesi”, Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1621–1640, 2020, doi: 10.17798/bitlisfen.632038.



Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi
Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Editörlüğü

Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü        
Beş Minare Mah. Ahmet Eren Bulvarı, Merkez Kampüs, 13000 BİTLİS        
E-posta: fbe@beu.edu.tr