Multi Criteria-GIS Supported Approach to Light Rail Transit (LRT) Route Problem Solution: Gebze-Darıca LRT

Year 2021, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 67 - 88, 17.11.2021

Ömer Murat Urhan , Tayfun Salihoğlu

Abstract

In this study, an approach has been developed in the route planning of Light Rail Transit, which is one of the optimum solutions for cities experiencing problems arising from automobile-oriented transportation planning. This modern approach that uses the Analytical Hierarchy Process, which is one of the most frequently used methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making, and Geographic Information Systems tools together. The aim of the study is to determine the optimum routes in the north-south direction, similarly to Light Rail Transit route under construction between Gebze and Darıca, the districts of Kocaeli. In the Analytical Hierarchy Process, survey results from experts belonging to the most suitable criteria for the region are processed with Expert Choice and converted into criterion weights. Gebze-Darıca Light Rail System Suitability Map was created as a result of the integration of these criteria weights into the Geographical Information Systems computer program ArcGIS’s data generation and data conversion from the required data. The Light Rail Transit route under construction was placed on this map and the accuracy of both this route and the model established in this study were tested. In the last part of the study, three stages were presented as suggestions on this suitability map.

Keywords

Light Rail Transit, Route Design, Geographic Information Systems Supported Design, Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Hafif Raylı Sistem (HRS) Güzergâh Problemi Çözümüne Yönelik Çok Kriterli-CBS Destekli Yaklaşım: Gebze-Darıca HRS Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, otomobil odaklı ulaşım planlamalarından kaynaklanan problemler yaşayan kentler için optimum çözümlerden olan HRS’lerin güzergah planlamasında yaklaşım geliştirilmiştir. Kullanılan yaklaşım, ÇKKV yöntemlerinin en sık kullanılanlarından AHS ile CBS araçlarını birlikte kullanan modern bir yaklaşımdır. Çalışmanın amacı, Kocaeli kentinin ilçeleri olan Gebze-Darıca arasında inşaat halindeki HRS güzergâhı gibi kuzey-güney doğrultusundaki farklı öneri etapların belirlenmesidir. AHS’de bölgeye en uygun ölçütlere ait uzmanlardan gelen anket sonuçları Expert Choice ile işlenerek ölçüt ağırlıklarına dönüştürülmüştür. CBS yazılımı ArcGIS’e bu ölçüt ağırlıklarının entegre edilmesi ve gerekli veriden veri üretme ve veri dönüştürme işlemleri sonucu Gebze-Darıca Hafif Raylı Sistem Uygunluk Haritası oluşturulmuştur. Bu harita üzerine, inşa halindeki Hafif Raylı Sistem hattı yerleştirilerek hem bu HRS hattının hem de bu çalışmada kurulan modelin doğruluğu test edilmiştir. Çalışmanın son bölümünde ise bu uygunluk haritası üzerinde üç adet etap öneri olarak sunulmuştur.

Keywords

Hafif Raylı Sistemler, Güzergâh Tasarımı, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Destekli Tasarım

References

• APTA (2013). Economic Recovery: Promoting Growth. American Public Transportation Association Publications (APTA), Washington, USA.
• ARUP (2017). Gebze-Darıca Hafif Raylı Sistem (HRS) Hattı Proje Tanıtım Raporu-AYGM. Kocaeli Büyükşehir Belediyesi- Mühendislik Hizmetleri Alım İşi. Banai R (2006). 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.
• Brunner I, Kim K & Yamashita E (2011). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems to Identify Optimal Transit Alignments. Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2215. 59-66.
• Burrough P A & McDonnell R A (2015). Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Press, ISBN: 978-019-8742-84-5.
• Chang K (2002). Introduction to Geographic Information Systems. McGraw-Hill, Boston Massachusetts.
• Djenaliev A & Ban Y (2007). Multicriteria Decision Making and GIS for Railroad Planning in Kyrgyzstan. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
• El-Hallaq M & El-Yazory K (2017). Metro Route Site Selection in Gaza City Using GIS and Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation. International journal of Engineering inventions. 6, 2278-7461.
• Elker C (1999). Çağdaş Ulaşım Politikaları. II. Ulaşım ve Trafik Kongresi, Ankara, TMMOB Makine Mühendisleri Odası Yayını.
• Elker C (2004). Ulaşımda Karar Zamanı. Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri Dergisi, 2004/1, 429, 25-28.
• Expert Choice Inc. (1993). Expert Choice Version 8: User Manual, (McLean, VA: Decision Support Software, Inc.).
• Farkas A (2009). Route/Site Selection of Urban Transportation Facilities: An Integrated GIS/MCDM Approach. Proceeding of MEB 2009-7th International Conference on Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking, June 5-6 2009, Budapest, Hungary.
• Gal T, Stewart T & Hanne T (2013). Multicriteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science.
• Hamilton Public Works (2020). Hamilton Rapid Transit Benefits Report. Hamilton Public Works, Ontario, Canada.
• Hamurcu M & Eren T (2015). Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi’nde Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemi İle Monoray Güzergâh Seçimi. Conference: Transist 8. Uluslararası Ulaşım Teknolojileri Sempozyumu ve Fuarı, İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Heywood I, Cornelius S & Carver S (2011). An introduction to Geographical Information Systems. Addison Wesley Longman, ISBN: 978-027-3722-59-5.
• Ho D, Newell G & Walker A (2005). The Importance of Property-Specific Attributes in Assessing CBD Office Building Quality. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 23(5), 424-444.
• Jendia S M & Skaik M Z (2016). Gaza Metro Network - Route Site Selection. Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 3, 6-15.
• Jones C (2013). Geographical Information Systems and Computer Cartography. Routledge, ISBN: 978-058-2044-39-5.
• Kırlangıçoğlu C (2014). Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Tabanlı Raylı Sistem Güzergâh Tasarımı: İstanbul Örneği. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Kırlangıçoğlu C (2016). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Kent İçi Raylı Sistem Koridor Planlaması. Coğrafya Dergisi, 33, 53-71.
• Liang G S (1999). Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts. European Journal of Operational Research, 112, 682–691.
• Liu Y C, Kuo R L & Shih S R (2020). COVID-19: the first documented coronavirus pandemic in history. Biomedical Journal, 43(4), 328-333.
• Lo C P & Yeung A K W (2007). Concepts and Techniques in Geographic Information Systems. Prentice Hall, ISBN: 978-812-0322-30-1.
• Longley P A, Goodchild M F, Maguire D J & Rhind D W (2015). Geographic Information Science and Systems. Wiley, ISBN: 978-111-9031-30-7.
• Ludin A & Latip S N H M (2006). Using multi-criteria analysis to identify suitable light rail transit route. Map Asia Geo ICT for Good Governance; Geospatial World: Bangkok, Thailand, 29.
• Miller H & Shaw S L (2001). Geographic Information Systems For Transportation: Principles and Applications. Oxford University Press, ISBN: 978-019-5123-94-4.
• Pucha-Cofrep F, Fries A, Cánovas-García F, Oñate-Valdivieso F, González-Jaramillo V & Pucha-Cofrep D (2018). Fundamentals of GIS: Applications with ArcGIS. Franz Pucha Cofrep, ISBN: 978-994- 2308-17-7.
• Rezaei J (2015). Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Omega, 53, 49-57.
• Rosenberg J & Esnard A (2008). Applying a Hybrid Scoring Methodology to Transit Site Selection. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 134 (4), 180-186.
• Quinby H D (1962). Major Urban Corridor Facilities: A New Concept. Traffic Quarterly, 16(2), 242–259.
• Saaty T L (1990). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications, ISBN: 978-0-9620317-8-6.
• Saaty T L (2004). Decision making – the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHS/ ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 13 (1), 1–35.
• Saaty T L (2008). Decision Making With The Analytic Hierarchy Process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
• Saaty T L & Ozdemir M (2003). Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38, 233-244.
• Sarımehmet B, Hamurcu M & Eren T (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme: Kırıkkale YHT istasyonu - şehir bağlantısının sağlanması. Demiryolu Mühendisliği, 11, 26-40.
• T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2013). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı (2014-2018). TBMM, Ankara.
• T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı (2019). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023). T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı, Ankara.
• T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı (2014). Türkiye Habitat III. Ulusal Raporu. TBMM, Ankara.
• T.C. Ulaştırma Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı (2013). 11. Ulaştırma, Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Şurası Kentiçi Ulaşım Çalışma Grubu Şura Raporu. TBMM, Ankara.
• Valley Metro- Light Rail Transit Projects. (2018). LRT Design Criteria Manual. Phoenix, America.
• Verma A, Upadhyay D & Goel R (2011). An integrated approach for optimal rail transit corridor identification and scheduling using geographical information system. Journal of King Saud University - Science. 23. 255-271.
• Wilkie C & Petersen K (2010). TTF Transport Position Paper: The Benefits of Light Rail. Tourism & Transport Forum, Australia.
• Zeiler M (1999). Modelling our World: The ESRI Guide to Geodatabase Design. ESRI Pres, ISBN: 978-187-9102-62-0.