Multi-Criteria Evaluation by Means of Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Transportation Master Plans: Scenario Selection in the Transportation Master Plan of Ankara

Abstract

The Transportation Master Plan, includes the processes of producing, election and evaluating process for scenarios that can respond to transportation problems. In this election process, a scenario should be selected by a scientific method as transportation plan from among the determined alternatives. This study explains in details how inter-scenario selection criteria are determined by using the analytic hierarchy process that is a multiple criteria evaluation method in transportation master plan implementation processes. The effectiveness of mathematical model, which is set up in the selection processes, is discussed in particular with respect to the Ankara region and the prospective estimates and results are evaluated depending on the selected alternative.

Keywords

• transportation planning,transportation master plan,multiple criteria evaluation,the analytic hierarchy process

References

1. Haghshenas, H. and Vaziri, M., “Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison”, Ecological Indicators, 15(1): 115-121, (2012).
2. Snyder, L.V., “Facility location under uncertainty: A review”, IIE Transactions, 38: 537–555, (2006).
3. Van Wee, B. and Handy, S., “Key research themes on urban space, scale and sustainable urban mobility”, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(1): 18-24, (2016).
4. Banister, D., Anderton, K., Bonilla, D., Givoni, M. and Schwanen, T., “Transportation and the environment”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36: 247-270, (2011).
5. Santos, G., Behrendt, H. and Teytelboym, A., “Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport”, Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1): 46-91, (2010).
6. Zuidgeest, M. and van Maarseveen, M., “Transportation planning for sustainable development. Transport for the New Millenium”, Proceedings of the South African Transportation Conference, South Africa, (2000).
7. Edward, A. and Mierzejewski, P.E., “A new strategic urban transportation planning process”, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, (1995).
8. Macharis, C. and Bernardini, A., “Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach”, Transport Policy, 37: 177-186, (2014).

9. De Brücker, K., Macharis, C. and Verbeke, A., “Multi-criteria analysis in transport project evaluation: An institutional approach”, European Transport, 47: 3-24, (2011).
10. Schutte, I.C. and Brits, A., “Prioritising transport infrastructure projects: Towards a multi-criterion analysis”, Southern African Business Review, 16(3): 97-117, (2012).
11. Chen, C.T., “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1): 1-9, (2000).
12. Kopytov, E. and Abramov, D., “Multiple-criteria analysis and choice of transportation alternatives in multimodal freight transport system”, Transport and Telecommunication, 13(2): 148-158, (2012).
13. Macharis, C., De Witte, A. and Ampe, J., “The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice”, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43(2): 183-202, (2008).
14. Keyvan-Ekbatani, M. and Cats, M., “Multi-criteria appraisal of multi-modal urban public transport systems”, 18th Euro Working Group on Transportation, Delft-The Netherlands, (2015).
15. Majumder, M., “Multi Criteria Decision Making, Impact of Urbanization on Water Shortage in Face of Climatic Aberrations”, editör: Majumder, M., India, Springer, 35-47, (2015).
16. TÜSTAŞ Sınai Tesisler A.Ş. and Schlegel-Dr.Ing. Spiekermann Gmbh. & Co. Consulting Engineers, “Gaziantep Kentiçi ve Yakın Çevre Ulaşım Etüdü Final Raporu”, Ankara, Tüstas-Spiekermann, 1-18, (1999).
17. Yedla, S. and Shrestha, M.R., “Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi”, Transportation Research Part A, 37: 717-729, (2003).
18. Akad, M. and Gedizlioğlu, E., “Toplu taşıma türü seçiminde simülasyon destekli analitik hiyerarşi yaklaşımı”, İTÜ Dergisi/d, 6(1): 88-98, (2007).
19. Pinto, D., Shrestha, S., Babel, M.S. and Ninsawat, S., “Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the comoro watershed, timor leste using GIS, remote sensing and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique”, Applied Water Science, 7(1): 503-519, (2017).
20. Baldemir, E., Şahin, T.K. and Kaya, F., “Yavaş şehir olma durumunun analitik hiyerarşi süreci ile değerlendirilmesi”, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1): 29-50, (2013).
21. Ejder, E., “Mobilya endüstrisinde analitik hiyerarsi süreci (AHS) yöntemi ile kuruluş yeri seçimi”, MSc., Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ankara, (2000).
22. Vargas, L.G., “An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1): 2-8, (1990).
23. Saaty, T.L., “How to make a decision: The analytical hierarchy process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1): 9-26, (1990).
24. Yılmaz, D.Ç. and Gerçek, H., “Analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi ile İstanbul’da bütünleşik bisiklet ağı kümelerinin önceliklendirilmesi”, Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 20(6): 215-224, (2013).
25. 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, 9(2): 1-24, (2006).
26. Jacyna, M. and Wasiak, M., “Multicriteria decision support in designing transport systems”, 15th International Conference on Transport Systems Telematics Selected Papers, SpringerLink, Wrocław, Poland, 11-23, (2015).
27. Saaty, T.L., “Transport planning with multiple criteria: The analytic hierarchy process applications and progress review”, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 29(1): 81-126, (1995).
28. Pogarcic, I., Francic, M. and Davidovic, V., “Application of AHP method in traffic planning”, Proceedings of 16th International Symposium on Electronics in Transport, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9–10, (2008).
29. Ludin, A. and Latip, S., “Using multi-criteria analysis to identify suitable light rail transit route”, Jurnal Alam Bina, 9(1): 131-142, (2007).
30. Piantanakulchai, M. and Saengkhao, N., “Evaluation of alternatives in transportation planning using multi-stakeholders multi-objectives AHP modeling”, Proceedings of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 4: 1613-1628, (2003).
31. Nassi, C.D. and Costa, F.C., “Use of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate transit fare system”, Research in Transportation Economics, 36(1): 50-62, (2012).
32. Duleba, S.Z., Mishina, T. and Shimazaki, J., “An analysis of the public transport’s supply quality by using the analytic hierarchy process”. JOMSA Conference Papers, Osaka, Japan, (2010).
33. Kılıçaslan, T., “Kentsel Ulaşım”, Ninova Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, (2012).
34. Sutcliffe, E.B., “Ulaşım Ana Planı”, Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük, Editor: Ersoy M., Ninova Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, 452, (2012).
35. IBI Group and MMM Group, “Winnipeg Transportation Master Plan Executive Summary”, Winnipeg, Canada, (2011).
36. Edmonton City Government Services, “City of Edmonton Transportation Master Plan”, Edmonton, Canada, (2009).
37. Ottawa City Services, “Transportation Master Plan”, Ottowa, Canada, (2013).
38. Evren, G., “Türkiye ulaştırma politikalarına eleştirel bir bakış”, II. Ulaşım ve Trafik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, TMMOB Makine Mühendisleri Odası Yayınları, Ankara, 3-14, (1999).
39. Çelik, M., “Sosyo-demografik özelliklerin ve kentsel yapının bireylerin kentiçi ulaşım davranışları üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi: İstanbul metropoliten alan örneği”, MSc., Gebze Technical University Institute of Engineering and Science, Kocaeli, (2010).
40. Gündüz, A., Kaya, M. and Aydemir, C., “Kentiçi ulaşımında karayolu ulaşımına alternatif sistem: Raylı ulaşım sistemi”, Akademik Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 2(1): 134-151, (2011).
41. Kaman, I.Y. and Özalp, M., “AB üyesi ülkeler ve Türkiye’de kentsel ulaşım planlaması”, Ulaştırma Politikaları Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, İMO Yayınları, Ankara, 123-137, (2003).
42. Weiner, E., “Urban Transportation Planning in The United States: History, Policy and Practice”, Springer, USA, (2016).
43. Dimitriou, H.T., “Transport Planning for Third World Cities (Routledge Revivals)”, Routledge, Abingdon, England, (2013).
44. Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği, “Ulaşım Planlama Çalışmaları ve Ulaşım Ana Planı Hazırlama Kılavuzu”, TBB Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye, (2014).
45. Özalp, M., “Türkiye’de kentsel ulaşım planlaması çalışmalarında benimsenen yaklaşımlar sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri”, MSc., Gazi University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ankara, (2007).
46. Gülhan, G., Ceylan, H. and Oral, Y., “Ulaşım Talebinin belirlenmesinde erişebilirlik ve arazi kullanım modellerinden yararlanılması”, 10. Ulaştırma Kongresi, İMO, İzmir-Türkiye, 26-29, (2013).
47. Aplak, H., Köse, E. and Burmaoğlu, S., “Geleceğe yönelik projelerin senaryo planlama tekniği ile analizi”, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2): 41-65, (2010).
48. Kandakoglu, A., Akgun, I. and Topcu, Y.I., “Strategy development and evaluation in the battlefield using quantified SWOT analytical method”, 9th International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP), Viña del Mar-Chile, (2007).
49. Özyörük, B. and Özcan, E.C., “Analitik hiyerarşi sürecinin tedarikçi seçiminde uygulanması: Otomotiv sektöründen bir örnek”, Süleyman Demirel University the Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 13(1): 133-144, (2008).
50. Saaty, T.L., “Decision making with analytic hierarchy process”, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1): 83-98, (2008).
51. Massam, B.H., “Spatial Search: Applications to Planning Problems in the Public Sector”, Pergamon Press , USA, (1980).
52. Rajabifard, A., Feeney, M.E.F. and Williamson, I., “Spatial Data Infrastructures: Concepts, Nature and SDI Hierarchy, Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality”, Editors: Rajabifard A., Feeney M.E.F. and Williamson I., Taylor & Francis Group, NY, A.B.D., 17-42, (2003).
53. Toraman, D., “Mekânsal Çok Ölçütlü Karar Analizi: Ulaştırma İçin Güzergâh Seçenekleri”, MSc., İTÜ Graduate School of Science and Engineering, İstanbul, (2009).
54. Yalçın, M. and Batuk, F., “Toplu konut alanlarının cbs/çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemiyle belirlenmesi: Bakırköy ilçesi”, III. Uzaktan Algılama ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, Kocaeli, 579-585, (2010).
55. Velasquez, M. and Hester, P., “An analysis of multi- criteria decision making methods”, International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2): 56-66, (2013).
56. Dyer, R.F. and Forman, E.H., “Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process”, Decision Support Systems, 8(2): 99-124, (1992).
57. Subramanian, N. and Ramanathan, R., “A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management”, International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2): 215-241, (2012).
58. Teknomo, K, “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tutorial”, http://web.cjcu.edu.tw/~lcc/Courses/TUTORIAL/ AHP%20Tutorialdoc, (2016).
59. Abalı, Y.A., Kutlu, S.B. and Eren, T., “Çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemleri ile bursiyer seçimi: Bir öğretim kurumunda uygulama”, Ankara University Journal of İİBF, 26(3-4): 259-272, (2012).
60. Arpacıoğlu , Ü.T. and Ersoy, H.Y., Daylight and energy oriented architecture design support model. Gazi University Journal of Science, 26(2): 331-346, (2013).
61. Saaty, T., “Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World”, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA, (2013).
62. David, J. and Saaty, D., “Use analytic hierarchy process for project selection”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 6(4): 22-29, (2007).
63. Tudela, A., Akiki, N. and Cisternas, R., “Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(5): 414-423, (2006).
64. Sadasivuni, R., O’Hara, C.G., Nobrega, R. and Dumas, J., “A transportation corridor case study for multi-criteria decision analysis”, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Conference, Baltimore-USA, 11-14, (2009).
65. Özçelik, G., Ünver, M. and Gencer, C.T., Evaluation of the Global Warming Impacts Using a Hybrid Method Based on Fuzzy Techniques: A Case Study in Turkey. Gazi University Journal of Science, 29(4): 883-894, (2016).
66. Libertaore, M. and Nydick, R., “Group decision making in higher education using in the analytic hiyerarchy process”, Research in Higher Education, 38(5): 593-614, (2014).
67. Urban Transportation Technology, Accessibility Implementation and Research Center (UTTAC), AUAP Ankara Kenti Genel Yapısı, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2014a.
68. UTTAC, AUAP Plan Raporu, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2014b.
69. UTTAC, AUAP Hane Halkı Araştırması Sonuçları, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2014c.
70. UTTAC, AUAP Trafik Sayımı ve Taşıt Doluluk Etüdü, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2014d.
71. UTTAC, AUAP Toplu Taşıma Sistemleri Entegrasyonu ve Hatların Optimizasyonunun Değerlendirilmesi, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2014e.
72. UTTAC, AUAP Ulaşım Modeli ve Kalibrasyonu, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey, 2014f.
73. UTTAC, AUAP Toplu Taşım Yolculuklarında İndi – Bindi Etüdü, Gazi Turkey, Ankara, Türkiye, 2014g.