Yaşar VİTOŞOĞLU, Şafak BİLGİÇ, Polat YALINIZ

Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine Gelen Toplu Taşıma Araçlarının Hizmet Düzeyinin TCRP 100 ve TCRP 165 Raporlarına Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Bu çalışmada, Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine yolcu taşıyan toplu taşıma sisteminin hizmet düzeyi ele alınmıştır. İlk olarak, Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesinde toplu taşıma hizmetinin kalitesi, sistemin ulaşılabilirliği, hizmet sıklığı, hizmet saatleri ve hizmet kapsamı açılarından incelenmiştir. İkinci olarak, Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesinde toplu taşıma sistemi tarafından sağlanan rahatlık ve kolaylık araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla, araçlardaki genel doluluk seviyeleri, sefer aralıklarına bağlılık ve toplu taşıma ile otomobil seyahat süreleri arasındaki fark incelenmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen analizlerde, TCRP 100 ve TCRP 165 raporlarındaki yöntemler izlenmiştir. Ayrıca, iki rapor arasında bazı kriterler bakımından bulunan farklılıklar da çalışmada açıklanmıştır. Bununla birlikte, toplu taşıma hizmet düzeyinin toplu taşıma ile otomobil seyahat sürelerinin farkı ve toplu taşıma ile otomobil seyahat sürelerinin oranı bakımından saptanması, bu araştırmanın temelini oluşturmuştur. Bu amaçla, Google Maps’te bulunan “yol tarifleri” özelliği, otomobil kullanımına bir referans olması açısından kullanılmıştır. Böylece, Kütahya’daki Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine yolcu taşıyan tüm otobüs toplu taşımacılık hatlarının seyahat süreleri, aynı güzergâh için Google Maps yardımıyla oluşturulan güzergâh verileri esas alınarak belirlenen özel araç seyahat süreleri ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, toplu taşıma hizmet düzeyi, toplu taşıma ile otomobil seyahat süreleri arasındaki fark ve toplu taşıma ile otomobil seyahat süreleri arasındaki oran olarak değerlendirilmiştir.Anahtar kelimeler: Toplu taşıma, hizmet düzeyi, google maps.

Evaluation of Level of Service for Public Transportation Vehicles Incoming Evliya Çelebi Campus of Kütahya Dumlupınar University According to TCRP 100 and TCRP 165 Reports

In this study, the level of service of public transportation system carrying passengers to Evliya Çelebi Campus of Kütahya Dumlupınar University has been discussed. At first, the quality of public transportation service in Evliya Çelebi Campus was examined in terms of accessibility of the system, service frequency, hours of service and service coverage. Secondly, the comfort and convenience provided by the public transportation system in Evliya Çelebi Campus was investigated. For this purpose, the general occupancy levels in vehicles, the adherence to headways and the difference between the travel times of public transport and automobile were examined. In the analyses performed, the methods in TCRP 100 and TCRP 165 reports were followed. In addition, the differences between the two reports in terms of some criteria were also explained in the study. However, determining the level of service for public transport in terms of the difference between public transport and automobile travel times and the ratio of public transport and automobile travel times formed the basis of this study. For this purpose, the feature of “driving directions” in Google Maps was used in terms of being a reference to automobile usage. Thus, the travel times of all bus public transportation lines carrying passengers to Evliya Çelebi Campus in Kütahya were compared with the private car travel times determined according to the route data created with the help of Google Maps for the same route. As a result, the level of service for public transport was evaluated as the difference between public transport and automobile travel times and the ratio between public transport and automobile travel times.Keywords: Public transport, level of service, google maps.

PDF

___

[1] Tyrinopoulos Y., Antoniou C. 2008. Public Transit User Satisfaction: Variability and Policy Implications. Transport Policy, 15: 260-272.
[2] Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2003. Transit capacity and quality of service manual, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100. Second edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
[3] Transportation Research Board (TRB). 1999. A handbook for measuring customer satisfaction and service quality. TRCP Report 47, TRB, Washington, D.C.
[4] European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2002. Transportation - logistics and services -public passenger transport - service quality definition, targeting and measurement. CEN-EN 13816, CEN, Brussels.
[5] Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) Limited, 2004. The demand for public transport: a practical guide. TRL Report TRL593, ISSN 0968-4107, TRL, Crowthorne.
[6] Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme, 2003. PORTAL Promotion of results in transport research and learning. Final Report, EU, RTD Programme.
[7] 4th RTD Framework Programme, 2000. EQUIP Extending the quality of public transport. Final Report and its Annex: Practical Handbook, EU, RTD Programme.
[8] 4th RTD Framework Programme, 1998. QUATTRO Quality approach in tendering/contracting urban public transport operations. Final Report, EU, RTD Programme.
[9] Lai W.-T., Chen C.-F. 2011. Behavioral Intentions of Public Transit Passengers - The Roles of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Involvement. Transport Policy, 18: 318-325.
[10] Hensher D.A., Stopher P., Bullock P. 2003. Service Quality - Developing a Service Quality Index in the Provision of Commercial Bus Contracts. Transportation Research Part A, 37: 499-517.
[11] Yedla S., Shrestha R.M. 2003. Multi-criteria Approach for the Selection of Alternative Options for Environmentally Sustainable Transport System in Delhi. Transportation Research Part A, 37 (8): 717-729.
[12] Awasthi A., Chauhan S.S., Omrani H., Panahi A. 2011. A Hybrid Approach Based on SERVQUAL and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Evaluating Transportation Service Quality. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61: 637-646.
[13] Joewono T.B., Kubota H. 2007. User Satisfaction with Paratransit in Competition with Motorization in Indonesia: Anticipation of Future Implications. Transportation, 34 (4): 337-354.
[14] Paquette J., Cordeau J.F., Laporte G. 2009. Quality of Service in Dial-a-ride Operations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56 (4): 1721-1734.
[15] Eboli L., Mazzulla G. 2011. A Methodology for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objective Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View. Transport Policy, 18 (1): 172-181.
[16] Nathanail E. 2008. Measuring the Quality of Service for Passengers on the Hellenic Railways. Transportation Research Part A, 42 (1): 48-66.
[17] Friman M. 2004. Implementing Quality Improvements in Public Transport. Journal of Public Transportation, 7 (4): 49-65.
[18] Gomes L.F.A.M. 1989. Multi-criteria Ranking of Urban Transportation System Alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 23 (1): 43-52.
[19] Lin C.L., Hsieh M.S., Tzeng G.H. 2010. Evaluating Vehicle Telematics System by Using a Novel MCDM Techniques with Dependence and Feedback. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (10): 6723-6736.
[20] Liou J.J.H., Chuang Y.T. 2010. Developing a Hybrid Multi-criteria Model for Selection of Outsourcing Providers. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (5): 3755-3761.
[21] Yang J.L., Tzeng G.H. 2011. An Integrated MCDM Technique Combined with DEMATEL for a Novel Cluster-weighted with ANP Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (3): 1417-1424.
[22] Fielding G.J., Babitsky T.T., Brenner M.E. 1985. Performance Evaluation for Bus Transit. Transportation Research Part A, 19 (1): 73-82.
[23] Pullen W.T. 1993. Definition and Measurement of Quality of Service for Local Public Transport Management. Transport Reviews, 13 (3): 247-264.
[24] Hensher D.A., Daniels R. 1995. Productivity Measurement in the Urban Bus Sector. Transport Policy, 2 (3): 179-194.
[25] Hensher D.A. 2007. Bus Transport: Economics, Policy, and Planning. JAI Press, New York.
[26] Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 88, TRB, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
[27] Hu K.C., Jen W. 2006. Passengers’ Perceived Service Quality of City Buses in Taipei: Scale Development and Measurement. Transport Reviews, 26 (5): 645-662.
[28] Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49 (4): 41-50.
[29] Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Customer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1): 12-40.
[30] Cronin J.J., Taylor S.A. 1992. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (3): 55-68.
[31] Triplett J.L., Yau O.H.M., Neal C. 1994. Assessing the Reliability and Validity of SERVQUAL in a Longitudinal Study: the Experiences of an Australian Organization. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 6 (12): 41-62.
[32] Yeh C.H., Deng H., Chang Y.H. 2000. Fuzzy Multi-criteria Analysis for Performance Evaluation of Bus Companies. European Journal of Operational Research, 126 (3): 459-473.
[33] Tsaur S.H., Chang T.Y., Yeh C.H. 2002. The Evaluation of Airline Service Quality by Fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23 (2): 107-115.
[34] D’Ovidioa F.D., Leograndeb D., Mancarellab R., Schinzanob A., Violab D. 2014. A Multivariate Analysis of the Quality of Public Transport Services. Innovation and Society 2013 Conference, IES 2013, Procedia Economics and Finance, 17: 238-247.
[35] Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2013. Transit capacity and quality of service manual. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 165, third edition, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
[36] Vuchic V.R. 2007. Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
[37] Karakoç E. 2015. Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Evliya Çelebi Yerleşkesine Gelen Toplu Taşıma Araçlarının Hizmet Düzeyi Analizi. Lisans Tezi, KDPÜ, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü, Ulaştırma Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı, Kütahya.