Prioritization of Integrated Bicycle Network Clusters in Istanbul Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Year 2014, Volume: 20 Issue: 6, 215 - 224, 01.06.2014

Dilek Çol Yılmaz , Haluk Gerçek

Abstract

In this study, the impact of the integration of nonmotorized transport and public transport on hypermobility was evaluated. The role of bicycle in non-motorized transportation, and its contribution to sustainable travel goals were examined. A decision support model was established in order to plan the phases of a bicycle network integrated with the public transport sytem in Istanbul Metropolitan Area. Data such as public transport routes planned for the target year 2023, locations of transfer centers, number of passengers at transfer centers, and a revised bicycle network were used as layers for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map produced. Based on the survey data collected from the experts, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is a multi-criteria decision-making procedure that contains both qualitative and quantitative factors was used to prioritize the bicycle network clusters integrated with public transport system in Istanbul.

Keywords

Analytical hierarchy process, Multicriteria decision making, Bicycle network clusters, Nonmotorized transportation, Sustainability.

Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi İle İstanbul'da Bütünleşik Bisiklet Ağı Kümelerinin Önceliklendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada motorsuz ulaşım ve toplu taşıma entegrasyonunun yüksek seviyede hareketliliğe etkisi değerlendirilmiştir. Önemli bir ulaşım türü olan bisikletin motorsuz ulaşımdaki rolü, sürdürülebilir yolculuk hedefine katkıları ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada İstanbul metropoliten alanında toplu taşıma sistemi ile bütünleşik bisiklet ulaşım ağının aşamalı olarak gerçekleştirilmesi için bir karar destek modeli kurulmuştur. Model oluşturulurken 2023 yılı için planlanmış olan toplu taşıma hatları, aktarma merkezi noktaları, bu noktalara ait yolcu sayıları, yeniden düzenlenen bisiklet ağı gibi veriler Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ortamında geliştirilen haritaya altlık olarak kullanılmıştır. Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme yöntemlerinden nitel ve nicel değerlendirmeye olanak veren Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi (AHY) kullanılarak ulaşım planlaması konusunda uzmanların değerlendirmeleri doğrultusunda, İstanbul metropoliten alanında toplu taşıma ile bütünleşik bisiklet ağı kümelerinin öncelikleri belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi, Çok ölçütlü karar verme, Bisiklet ağı kümeleri, Motorsuz ulaşım, Sürdürülebilirlik.

References

• Stringer P, Wenzel H. Transportation Planning for a Better Environment. 1st ed. NATO Scientific Affairs Division by NATO conference series II, Systems science, New York, USA, Plenum Press, 1976.
• Gakenheimer RA. The automobile and the environment: An international perspective. Cambridge, Mass., USA, MIT Press, 1978.
• Newman P, Kenworthy J. Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, D.C., USA, Island Press, 1999.
• World Commission on Environment and Development. “From One Earth to One World: An Overview”. Oxford University Press, 1987.
• Crawford JH. Carfree Cities. Utrecht, Holland, International Books, 2002. [6] World Economic Forum (WEF). “Sustainable Transportation Ecosystem: Addressing Sustainability from an Integrated Systems Perspective”. 2012.
• Crass M, Miyake M. National Policies to Promote Cycling. Paris, France, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2004.
• Reichardt T. “Mehrkriterielle Entscheidungen mit dem Seminar AHP-Verfahren”. Betriebswirtschaftlehre, Halle (Saale), Deutschland, 2003. zur Allgemeinen
• Saaty T. Decision Making for Leaders. 1999/2000 Edition. Pittsburgh, USA, RWS Publications, 2000. [10] Albayrak C, Albayrak E. “Kredi Taleplerinin Değerlendirilmesinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Yönteminin Kullanılması”. I. Sistem Mühendisliği ve Savunma Uygulamaları Sempozyumu-Bildiriler-I. 1995.
• Starr MK, Zeleny M. MCDM: State and Future of the Arts. Editors: Starr MK, Zeleny M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 5-29, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1977.
• Malczewski J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis, New York, USA, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1999.
• Massam BH. Spatial Search. Oxford, USA, Pergamon Press, 1980.
• Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, USA, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
• Doumpos M, Zopounidis C. “Multicriteria Classification and Sorting Methods: A Literature Review”, European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246, 2002.
• Gökalp B, Soylu B. “Tedarikçinin Süreçlerini İyileştirme Amaçlı Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi”, Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 23(1), 4-15, 2011.
• Saaty, T. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. Pittsburgh, USA, RWS Publications, 2000.
• Crawford GB. “The Geometric Mean Procedure for Estimating the Scale of a Judgment Matrix”. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 327-334, 1987.
• Weiss EN. “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Dynamic Environment”. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 285–292, 1987.
• Pamukkale Univ Muh Bilim Derg, 20(6), 215-224, 2014
• Pamukkale Univ J Eng Sci, 20(6), 215-224, 2014
• D. Çol Yılmaz, H. Gerçek
• Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburg, USA, RWS Publications, 1990.
• Ho W. “Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Applications- A Literature Review”. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228, 2008.
• Bayraktar D, Gözlü S. Tekstil İmalat Firmalarında Teknoloji Seçimi için Analitik Hiyerarşi Yaklaşımı. Maçka- İstanbul, İTÜ İşletme Fakültesi, 1997.
• Vargas LG. “An Overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Applications”. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2-8, 1990.
• Zahedi F. “A Utility Approach to the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 387-395, 1987.
• Pogarcic I, Francic M, Davidovic V. “Application of AHP Method in Traffic Planning”. Proceedings of 16th International Symposium on Electronics in Transport, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9–10 October 2008.
• Saaty TL. “How to Make a Decision: The Analytical Hierarchy Process”. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26, 1990.
• Kuruüzüm A, Atsan N. “Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi ve İşletmecilik Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 83-105, 2001.
• Uygulamaları”. Akdeniz
• Güngör İ, İşler B. “Analitik Hiyerarşi Yaklaşımı ile Otomobil Seçimi”. Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 21-33, 2005.
• Özyörük B, Özcan EC. “Analitik Hiyerarşi Sürecinin Tedarikçi Seçiminde Uygulanması: Otomotiv Sektöründen Bir Örnek”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 133-144, 2008.
• Shrestha RK, Alavalapatı JRR, Kalmbacher RS. “Exploring the Potential for Silvopasture Adoption in South-Central Florida: An Application of SWOT-AHP Method”. Agricultural Systems, 81(3), 185-199, 2004.
• Saaty TL. “Transport Planning with Multiple Criteria: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Applications and Progress Review”. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 29(1), 81-126, 1995.
• Yedla S, Shrestha RM. Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options-Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods. Mumbai, India, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, 2007.
• Akad M, Gedizlioğlu E. “Toplu Taşıma Türü Seçiminde Simülasyon Destekli Analitik Hiyerarşi Yaklaşımı”. İTÜ Dergisi, 6(1), 88-98, 2007.
• 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.
• Gerçek H, Karpak B, Kılınçaslan T. “A Multiple Criteria Approach for the Evaluation of the Rail Transit Networks in Istanbul”. Transportation, 31(11), 203-228, 2004.
• Ludin A, Latip S. Using Multi-Criteria Analysis to Identify Suitable Light Rail Transit Route. Bangkok, Thailand, Map Asia GeoICT for Good Governance, 2006.
• Piantanakulchai M, Saengkhao N. “Evaluation of Alternatives in Transportation Planning Using Multi- Stakeholders Proceedings of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 4 October 2003. AHP Modeling”.
• Sadasivuni R, O’Hara CG, Dumas J. “Rating the Sustainability of Transportation Investments: Corridors as a Case Study”. ASPRS Annual Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 2009.
• Nassi CD, Costa FC. “Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Evaluate Transit Fare System”. Research in Transportation Economics, 36(1), 50-62, 2012.
• Duleba SZ, Mishina T, Shimazaki J. “An Analysis of the Public Transport’s Supply Quality by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. JOMSA Conference Papers, Osaka, Japan, 2010.
• Khasnabis S, Chaudhury B. “Prioritizing Transit Markets Hierarchy Transportation Engineering, 120(1), 74–93, 1994. Process”. Journal of
• Banai-Kashani R. “Discrete Mode-Choice Analysis of Urban Travel Demand by the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Transportation, 16(1), 81–96, 1989.
• Chan WT, Suja T. “A Multi-Criteria Approach in Designing Bicycle Tracks”. Map Asia Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2003.
• Rybarczyk G, Wu C. “Bicycle Facility Planning Using GIS and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis”. Applied Geography, 30(2), 282–293, 2010.
• İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi. “İstanbul Genelinde Bisiklet Yolları ve Yaya Yollarının Etüd, Planlama, Projelendirilmesi ile Bölgesel Ulaşım ve Trafik Etüdlerinin Yaptırılması”. Bimtaş, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2006.