Ankara’da Monoray projelerinin analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ve 0-1 hedef programlama yöntemleri ile seçimi

Öz

Hızla artan nüfus, plansız kentleşme ve özel araç sayısındaki artış kentsel alanlarda trafik sorununu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu durum ulaşım planlarının yeniden şekillenmesine ve öneminin artmasına sebep olmuştur. Bu sebeple, toplu ulaşım sistemini daha verimli hale getirmek için yoğun çalışmalar yapılmaktadır. Bunun sonucunda alternatif ulaşım türlerine eğilim başlamıştır. Bu noktada hızlı, emniyetli ve konforlu ulaşım sistemi olarak monoray teknolojisi öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemlerinden Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ve 0-1 Hedef Programlama yöntemleri kullanılarak Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi’nde belirlenen güzergâhlara en uygun ulaştırma projelerinin seçimi yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Analitik hiyerarşi proses,Hedef programlama,Proje seçimi,Kentsel ulaşım

Selecting of Monorail projects with analytic hierarchy process and 0-1 goal programming methods in Ankara

Abstract

Uncontrolled increasing population, unplanned urbanization and enhancement in private vehicles number have revealed the of congestion traffic problem in urban area. These conditions have led to increase the need to remodeling the transportation plans. For this reason, a huge number of intensive studies were carried out in order to insure more efficiency to the public transport system by their different modes. One of these studies concerns the monorail service in Ankara, one of the most safe, fast and comfortable transport modes. Indeed, we made selection from several transport projects in Ankara Metropolitan Municipality using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and 0-1 Goal Programming methods.

Keywords

• Analytic hierarchy process,Goal programming,Project selection,Urban transportation

Kaynakça

1. Toraman D. Mekânsal Çok Ölçütlü Karar Analizi: Ulaştırma İçin Güzergah Seçenekleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2009.
2. Akgüngör AP, Demirel A. “Türkiye’deki ulaştırma sistemlerinin analizi ve ulaştırma politikaları”. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 10(3), 423-430, 2011.
3. Ergün D. Hedef Programlama ile Üretim Planlaması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye, 2006.
4. Özkan Ö. Personel Seçiminde Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin İncelenmesi: AHP, ELECTRE ve TOPSIS Örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye, 2007.
5. Saaty T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation. New York, USA, McGraw, 1980.
6. Aydın G. Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ve Bir Sanayi İşletmesinde Uygulanması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Kocaeli, Türkiye, 2008.
7. Özder E. Tedarikçi Seçiminde Analitik Ağ Süreci ve Hedef Programlama Tekniklerinin Entegrasyonu: Örnek Olay Çalışması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Kırıkkale, Türkiye, 2015.
8. Aboul‐Ela MT, Wilson FR, Stevens AM. “On the use of mathematical programming in the evaluation of transport policies”. Transportation Planning and Technology, 7(4), 267-273, 1982.

9. Tsamboulas D, Yiotis, GS, Panou KD. “Use of multi criteria methods for assessment of transport projects”. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 125(5), 407-414, 1999.
10. Yedla S, Shrestha RM. “Multi-Criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(8), 717-729, 2003.
11. Yang CP. “Primary influential factors in the management of public transportation projects in Taiwan”. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34(1), 1-11, 2007.
12. Li YT, Huang B, Lee DH. “Multimodal, Multicriteria Dynamic Route Choice: A GIS-Microscopic Traffic Simulation Approach”. Annals of GIS, 17(3), 173-187, 2001.
13. Chien S, Yang Z, Hou E. “Genetic algorithm approach for transit route planning and design”. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 127(3), 200-207, 2001.
14. Beiler MRO, Treat, C. “Integrating GIS and AHP to prioritize transportation infrastructure using sustainability metrics”. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(3), 2014.
15. Ferrari P. “A method for choosing from among alternative transportation projects”. European Journal of Operational Research, 150(1), 194-203, 2003.
16. Gerçek H, Karpak B, Kılınçaslan T. “A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul”. Transportation, 31(2), 203-228, 2004.
17. Shang JS, Tjader Y, Ding Y. “A unified framework for multi criteria evaluation of transportation projects”. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on 51(3), 300-313, 2004.
18. Cheng EW, Li H. “Analytic network process applied to project selection”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(4), 459-466, 2005.
19. Mishra S, Prakash, Tiwari MK, Lashkari RS. “A fuzzy goalprogramming model of machine-tool selection and operation allocation problem in FMS: A quick converging simulated annealing-based approach”. International Journal of Production Research, 44(1), 43-76, 2006.
20. Su CW, Cheng MY, Lin FB. “Simulation‐Enhanced approach for ranking major transport projects”. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 12(4), 285-291, 2006.
21. Ahern A, Anandarajah G. “Railway projects prioritization for investment: application of goal programming”. Transport Policy, 14(1), 70-80, 2007.
22. Tripathy BB, Biswal MP. “A zero-one goal programming approach for project selection”. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 28(4), 619-626, 2007.
23. Wey WM, Wu KY. “Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource allocation in transportation”. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 46(7), 985-1000, 2007.
24. Alp S. Doğrusal Hedef Programlama Yöntemi Kullanılarak Kent içi Otobüsle Toplu Taşma Sistemi İçin Bir Model Oluşturulması ve Uygulanması. Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2008.
25. Ravi V, Shankar R, Tiwari MK. “Selection of a reverse logistics project for end-of-life computers: ANP and goal programing approach”. International Journal of Production Research, 46(17), 4849-4870, 2008.
26. Šelih J, Kne A, Srdić A, Žura M. “Multiple‐Criteria decision support system in highway infrastructure management”. Transport, 23(4), 299-305, 2008.
27. Arslan T. “A hybrid model of fuzzy and AHP for handling public assessments on transportation projects”. Transportation, 36(1), 97-112, 2009. Chang YH, Wey WM, Tseng HY. “Using ANP priorities with goal programming for revitalization strategies in historic transport: A case study of the alishan forest railway”. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8682-8690, 2009. Begičević N, Divjak B, Hunjak T. “Decision-Making on prioritization of projects in higher education institutions using the analytic network process approach”. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 18(3), 341-364, 2010.
28. Teng JY, Huang WC, Lin MC. “Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: A case in Taiwan”. Transportation, 37(2), 331-361, 2010.
29. Nandi S, Paul S, Phadtare M. “An AHP-Based construction project selection method”. Decision, 38(1), 91-118, 2011.
30. Bilgen B, Şen M. “Project selection through fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and a case study on six sigma implementation in an automotive industry”. Production Planning & Control, 23(1), 2-25, 2012.
31. Görgülü İ, Korkmaz M, Eren T. “Analytic network process and TOPSIS methods with selection of optimal investment strategy”. Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 31, 203-213, 2013.
32. Ivanović I, Grujičić D, Macura D, Jović J, Bojović N. “One approach for road transport project selection”. Transport Policy, 25, 22-29, 2013.
33. Jones S, Tefe M, Appiah-Opoku S. “Proposed framework for sustainability screening of urban transport projects in developing countries: A case study of Accra, Ghana”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 21-34, 2013.
34. Özbek A, Eren T. “Analitik ağ süreci yaklaşımıyla üçüncü parti lojistik (3PL) firma seçimi”. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 95-113, 2013.
35. Shiau TA. “Evaluating sustainable transport strategies for the counties of taiwan based on their degree of urbanization”. Transport Policy, 30, 101-108, 2013.
36. Mandic D, Jovanovic P, Bugarinovic M. “Two-phase model for multi-criteria project ranking: Serbian Railways case study”. Transport Policy, 36, 88-104, 2014.
37. Barfod MB, Salling KB. “A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 72, 1-15, 2015.
38. Hamurcu M, Eren T. “Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi’nde çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemi ile monoray güzergâh seçimi”. Transit 8. Uluslararası Ulaşım Teknolojileri Sempozyumu ve Fuarı, İstanbul, Türkiye, 17-19 Aralık 2015.
39. Hamurcu M, Ünal FM, Eren T. “The solution of shift scheduling problem by using analytic network process and goal programming method”. 11th International Conference on Multiple Objective Programming, Tlemcen, Algeria, 13-15 December 2015.
40. Hamurcu M, Eren T. “Using analytic hierarchy process and goal programming methods for investment project selection in Ankara”. 11th International Conference on Multiple Objective Programming and Goal Programming, Tlemcen, Algeria, 13-15 December 2015.
41. Hamurcu M, Eren T. “A multi criteria decision-making for monorail route selection in Ankara”. 32nd International Academic Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovations (IACETI), Dubai, UAE, 5-6 March 2016.
42. Özder E, Bedir N, Eren T. “Academic Staff Selection with ANP & PROMETHEE Method: A Case Study in Turkey”. 32nd International Academic Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovations (IACETI), Dubai, UAE, 1-5 March 2016. Lindo Systems, Inc, Hyper LINDO/PC Release 6.01, Chicago, USA, 1997.