Decision Making For Rail System Projects With AHP-GP and ANP-GP

Abstract

As one of the most crowded cities in the world, Istanbul attaches great importance to investments in rail system and makes projects to solve the problem of urban transportation. Due to be impossible for every projected project to be passed on to life, todays, the necessity of project selection is emerge in according to scarce resources. Multicriteria decision making process is required in the transportation project selection due to the evaluation with various factors such as cost, engineering, population, access, integration etc. In this study, the analytic network process and the analitic hierarcy process was used individually to weight the selection criteria and the best suitable projects were selected from the projected rail system projects for Istanbul with the founded AHP-GP and ANP-GP models. Finally, the results found by this method were compared and evaluated. The AHP and ANP ranking were made, then the project selection problem is solved with the AHP-HP and ANP-HP.The ranking found with AHP and ANP in the weighting process varied. However, the same results were obtained in the goal programming solutions. 

Keywords

• ANP,AHP,GP,Rail systems,Project selection

Raylı Sistem Projeleri Kararında Ahs-Hp Ve Aas-Hp Kombinasyonu

Abstract

Dünyanın en kalabalık şehirlerinden biri olan İstanbul, kent içi ulaşım problemini çözmek için raylı sistem yatırımlarına önem vermekte ve projeler ortaya koymaktadır. Düşünülen her projenin hayata geçirilmesinin imkânsız olduğu günümüzde kıt kaynaklar doğrultusunda proje seçiminin yapılması zorunluluğu ortaya çıkmaktadır. Ulaşım projesi seçiminin maliyet, mühendislik, nüfus, erişim, entegrasyon vb. gibi çeşitli faktörler doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi çok kriterli karar verme sürecini gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, analitik ağ süreci (AAS) ve analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS) ile ayrı ayrı projelerin ağırlıklandırılması yapılarak ortaya konulan hedef programlama (HP) modeli ile İstanbul için düşünülen raylı sistem projeleri arasından seçim yapılmıştır. Yapılan ağırlıklandırma ile AHS sırası, AAS sırası ve sonra AHSHP ile AAS-HP çözümleri gösterilmiştir. Ağırlıklandırma sürecinde bulunan sıralamalar farklılık göstermiştir. Ancak hedef programlama çözümlerinde ise aynı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. 

Keywords

• ANP,AHP,GP,Raylı sistemler,Proje seçimi

References

1. [1] Meade L.M., Presley A. R&D project selection using the analytic network process. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 2012, 49:59-66. DOI: 10.1109/17.985748
2. [2] Cheng E.W., Li H. Analytic network process applied to project selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2005, 131: 459-466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:4(459)
3. [3] Begičević N., Divjak B., Hunjak T. Decisionmaking on prioritization of projects in higher education institutions using the analytic network process approach, Central European Journal of Operations Research, 2010, 18:341-364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-009-0113-3
4. [4] Ivanović I., Grujičić D., Macura D., Jović J., Bojović N. One approach for road transport project selection. Transport Policy, 2013, 25:22-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.001
5. [5] Grady C.A., He X., Peeta S. Integrating social network analysis with analytic network process for international development project selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 2015, 42: 5128-5138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.039
6. [6] Tuzkaya U.R., Yolver E. R&D project selectıon by integrated grey analytic network process and grey relational analysis: an implementation for home appliances company. Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies, 2015, 8: 35-41. DOI: 10.7603/s40690-015-0014-8.
7. [7] Lee J.W., Kim S.H. An integrated approach for interdependent information system project selection. International Journal of Project Management, 2001, 19:111-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00053-8
8. [8] Wey W.M., Wu K.Y. Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource allocation in transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 2007, 46:985-1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.017.

9. [9] Ravi V., Shankar R., Tiwari M.K. Selection of a reverse logistics project for end-of-life computers: ANP and goal programing approach. International Journal of Production Research, 2008, 46:4849-4870. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540601115989
10. [10] Hamurcu M., Gür Ş., Özder E.H., Eren T. A multicriteria decision making for monorail projects with analytic network process and 0-1 goal programming. International Journal of Advances in Electronics and Computer Science (IJAECS), 2016, 3:8-12.
11. [11] Gür Ş., Hamurcu M., Eren T., Ankara‟da monoray projelerinin analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ve 0-1 hedef programlama ile seçimi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2017, 23:437-443. DOI: 10.5505/pajes.2016.03903
12. [12] Gebeyehu, M., & Shin-ei, T. Multi-criteria decision making for public transportation development projects using analytic network process
13. [13] Tripathy B.B., Biswal M.P. A zero-one goal programming approach for project selection. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 2007, 28: 619-626. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02522667.2007.10699763
14. [14] Görgülü İ., Korkmaz M., Eren T. Analytic network process and TOPSIS methods with selection of optımal investment strategy, Sigma, 2013, 31:203-213.
15. [15] Tavana M., Keramatpour M., Santos-Arteaga F.J. Ghorbaniane E. A fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using data envelopment analysis, topsis and integer programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 2015, 42: 8432-8444. DOI: 10.3390/su9081352
16. [16] Hasse, J. Evaluating Alternate Commuter Rail Corridors in Southern New Jersey., The Association of American Geographers 2007 Annual Meeting. San Francisco, California: Association of American Geographers(AAG). 2007.
17. [17] Gerçek, H., Karpak, B., & Kılınçaslan. T., A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul. Transportation, 2004, 31: 203-228. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PORT.0000016572.41816.d2
18. [18] Alkubaisi, M. I. T. Predefined evaluating criteria to select the best tramway route. Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering, 2014, 2: 211-217. DOI: 10.12720/jtle.2.3.211-217.
19. [19] Banai, R. Public transportation decision-making: A case analysis of the Memphis Light Rail Corridor and route selection with analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Public Transportation, 2006, 9(2). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.9.2.1
20. [20] Ludin, A. N. M., & Latip, S. N. H. M. Using multi-criteria analysis to identify suitable light rail transit route. Map Asia 2006: GeoICT for Good Governance, Bangkok, Thailand 29 August – 1 September 2006, 29.
21. [21] Hamurcu, M., Eren, T. Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi‟nde çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemi ile monoray güzergâh seçimi. Transist 8. Uluslararası
22. [22] Hamurcu, M., Eren, T. Using ANP - TOPSIS methods for route selection of monorail in Ankara. 28th European Conference on Operational Research, Poznan, Polland, 2016, July 3-6.
23. [23] Kalamaras, G. S., Brino, L., Carrieri, G., Pline, C., & Grasso, P. Application of multicriteria analysis to select the best highway alignment. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2000, 15:415-420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00010-4
24. [24] Piantanakulchai, M., & Saengkhao, N. Evaluation of alternatives ın transportation planning using multi-stakeholders multi-objectives ahp modeling. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for transportation studies, 2003, 4:1613-1628.
25. [25] Piantanakulchai, M. Analytic network process model for highway corridor planning. Proceedings Of ISAHP, 2005.
26. [26] Effat, H. A., & Hassan, O. A. Designing and evaluation of three alternatives highway routes using the analytical hierarchy process and the least-cost path analysis, application ın Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 2013, 16: 141-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2013.08.001
27. [27] Zhongzhen, Y., & Hayashi, Y. GIS-based analysis of railway's origin/destination path-selecting behavior. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2002, 3: 221-226. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8667.00270
28. [28] Watanabe, K., Gotoh, K., & Tachiiri, K. Route selection for a new transportation system ın hillside urban areas: a case study ın nagasaki, Japan.Journal of urban planning and development, 2006, 132: 89-96.
29. [29] Yao, X. Where are public transit needed: examining potential demand for public transit for commuting trips, Computers, Environment & Urban Systems, 2007, 5: 535-550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:2(89)
30. [30] Farkas, A. Route/site selection of urban transportation facilities: an ıntegrated gıs/mcdm approach, Proceedings-7th International Conference
31. [31] Brunner, I., Kim, K., and Yamashita, E. Analytic hierarchy process and geographic information systems to identify optimal transit alignments, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011, 1,59-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3141/2215-06
32. [32] Kim, H. Y., Wunneburger, D. F., & Neuman, M. High-speed rail route and regional mobility with a ras-ter-based decision support system: the Texas urban triangle case. Journal of Geographic Information System, 2013, 5:559-566. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2013.56053
33. [33] Kennedy, J. Using cadastral maps to accommodate high-speed rail systems in Texas. Esri Survey & Engineering GIS Summits. San Diego, CA: ESRI, 2011.
34. [34] Hayati, E., Abdi, E., Majnounian, B., & Makhdom, M. Application of sensitivity analysis in forest road networks planning and assessment. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2013, 15: 781-792.
35. [35] Saaty, T.L. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996.
36. [36] Saaty, T. L. Decision making the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of systems science and systems engineering, 2004, 13, 1-35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5
37. [37] Dağdeviren, M., Dönmez, N. ve Kurt, M. Bir işletmede tedarikçi değerlendirme süreci için yeni bir model tasarımı ve uygulaması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 2006, 21:247-255. DOI:http://www.mmfdergi.gazi.edu.tr/article/view/1061001329/10 61001077
38. [38] Hamurcu M., Eren T., “A Hybrid Approach Based on Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS for Selection of Academic Conference”, The 5th International Fuzzy Systems Smposiom, Ankara, Turkey, s. 27. 14-15 Ekim 2017.
39. [39] Hamurcu M., Eren T., “Selection Of Urban Rail Mass Transport Type By Using Fuzzy AHP”, The 5th International Fuzzy Systems Smposiom, Ankara, Turkey. s. 13, 14-15 Ekim 2017,
40. [40] Hamurcu M., Eren T., “Evaluation of Monorail Route Alternatives by Using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process”, The 5th International Fuzzy Systems Smposiom, Ankara, Turkey.p. 46, 14-15 Ekim 2017.
41. [41] Hamurcu M., Eren T., “Academic Journal Selection for Academicians by Using Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Making Methods”, The 5th International Fuzzy Systems Smposiom, Ankara, Turkey, s 42, 14-15 Ekim 2017,
42. [42] Hamurcu, M., Eren, T., “Sürdürülebilir Kent İçi Ulaşım İçin Bulanık AHP Tabanlı VIKOR Yöntemi İle Proje Seçimi”, International Conference on Advanced Engineering Technologies (ICADET 2017), Bayburt, Turkey, September 22-23, 2017.
43. [43] Hamurcu M., Alağaş H.M., Eren T.,”Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Kırıkkale Yüksek Hızlı Tren İstasyon Yerinin Seçimi”, 5th International Symposium on Innovative Technologies in Engineering and Science (ISITES2017), Baku – Azerbaijan, September 29-30 2017.
44. [44] Hamurcu, M., Eren, T., “Toplu Taşıma Türünün Seçiminde AHP-ANP Yöntemlerinin Kullanımı” International Conference on Advanced Engineering Technologies (ICADET 2017), Bayburt, Turkey, September 22-23, 2017.
45. [45] Hamurcu M., Eren T., “Science Citation Index (SCI) Kapsamında Dergi Seçimi için Analitik Ağ Süreci Yönteminin Kullanılması”, Harran üniversitesi mühendislik dergisi, 2(2), p. 54-70, 2017.
46. [46] Aouni B., Kettani O. Goal programming model: a glorious history and a promising future, European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 133:225-231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00294-0
47. [47] Bhattacharya, U. K. A chance constraints goal programming model for the advertising planning problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 192: 382-395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.09.039
48. [48] Lee, J., Kang, S. H., Rosenberger, J., & Kim, S. B. A hybrid approach of goal programming for weapon systems selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2010, 58: 521-527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2009.11.013
49. [49] Lee, C. W., & Kwak, N. K. Strategic enterprise resource planning in a health-care system using a multicriteria decision-making model. Journal of medical systems, 2011, 35: 265-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-009-9362-x
50. [50] Özcan, E. C., Ünlüsoy, S., & Eren, T. A combined goal programming–AHP approach supported with TOPSIS for maintenance strategy selection in hydroelectric power plants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 78: 1410-1423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.039
51. [51] Gür Ş., Hamurcu M., Eren T. Ankara‟da monoray projelerinin analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ve 0-1 hedef programlama ile seçimi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2017, 23:437-443. DOI: 10.5505/pajes.2016.03903.
52. [52] Taş M., Özlemiş Ş.N., Hamurcu M., Eren T., “Analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ve hedef programlama karma modeli kullanılarak monoray projelerinin seçimi”, Harran Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 2017, 2(2), p. 24-34.
53. [53] Özder, E. H., Eren, T., & Çetin Özel, S. Supplier selection with TOPSIS and goal programming methods: A case study. In 19h International Research/Expert Conference Journal of Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology, 2015, 22-23.
54. [54] Hamurcu, M. and Eren T. Using analytic hierarchy process and goal programming methods for investment project selection in Ankara. The International Conference on Multiple Objective Programming and Goal Programming. Tlemcen, Algeria, 2015, 30-31.
55. [55] Hamurcu, M. Ünal, F.M and Eren T. The solution of shift scheduling problem by using analytic network process and goal programming method. The International Conference on Multiple Objective Programming, Tlemcen, Algeria, 2015.
56. [56] Hamurcu, M., Gür, Ş., Özder, E. H., & Eren, T. A multicriteria decision making for monorail projects with analytic network process and 0-1 goal programming. International Journal of Advances in Electronics and Computer Science (IJAECS), 2016, 3:8-12.
57. [57] Jajimoggala, S., Rao, V. K., & Satyanarayana, B. Maintenance strategy evaluation using ANP and goal programming. In Management Theories and Strategic Practices for Decision Making, 2013, 117-138.
58. [58] Chang, Y. H., Wey, W. M., & Tseng, H. Y. Using ANP priorities with goal programming for revitalization strategies in historic transport: A case study of the Alishan forest railway. Expert Systems with Applications, 2009, 36:8682-8690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.024
59. [59] Başkanlığı, İ. B. B. U. D., & Müdürlüğü. U. P., İstanbul Metropoliten Alanı Kentsel Ulaşım Ana Planı (İUAP). İstanbul, Türkiye, 2012.