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

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

The Transportation Master Plan, includes the processes of producing, election and evaluatingprocess for scenarios that can respond to transportation problems. In this election process, ascenario should be selected by a scientific method as transportation plan from among thedetermined alternatives. This study explains in details how inter-scenario selection criteria aredetermined by using the analytic hierarchy process that is a multi-criteria evaluation method intransportation 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 Ankararegion and the prospective estimates and results are evaluated depending on the selectedalternative.

___

  • Haghshenas, H., Vaziri, M., “Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison”, Ecological Indicators, 15(1): 115-121, (2012).
  • Snyder, L.V., “Facility location under uncertainty: A review”, IIE Transactions, 38: 537–555, (2006).
  • Van Wee, B., Handy, S., “Key research themes on urban space, scale and sustainable urban mobility”, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(1): 18-24, (2016).
  • Banister, D., Anderton, K., Bonilla, D., Givoni, M., Schwanen, T., “Transportation and the environment”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36: 247-270, (2011).
  • Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Teytelboym, A., “Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport”, Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1): 46-91, (2010).
  • Zuidgeest, M., van Maarseveen, M., “Transportation planning for sustainable development. Transport for the New Millenium”, Proceedings of the South African Transportation Conference, South Africa, (2000).
  • Edward, A., Mierzejewski, P.E., “A new strategic urban transportation planning process”, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, (1995).
  • Macharis, C., 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).
  • De Brücker, K., Macharis, C., Verbeke, A., “Multi-criteria analysis in transport project evaluation: An institutional approach”, European Transport, 47: 3-24, (2011).
  • Schutte, I.C., Brits, A., “Prioritising transport infrastructure projects: Towards a multi-criterion analysis”, Southern African Business Review, 16(3): 97-117, (2012).
  • Chen, C.T., “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1): 1-9, (2000).
  • Kopytov, E., Abramov, D., “Multiple-criteria analysis and choice of transportation alternatives in multimodal freight transport system”, Transport and Telecommunication, 13(2): 148-158, (2012).
  • Macharis, C., De Witte, A., 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).
  • Keyvan-Ekbatani, M., Cats, M., “Multi-criteria appraisal of multi-modal urban public transport systems”, 18th Euro Working Group on Transportation, Delft-The Netherlands, (2015).
  • 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).
  • TÜSTAŞ Sınai Tesisler A.Ş., Schlegel-Dr.Ing. Spiekermann Gmbh. & Co. Consulting Engineers, “Gaziantep Kentiçi ve Yakın Çevre Ulaşım Etüdü Final Raporu”, Ankara, Tüstas-Spiekermann, 1- 18, (1999).
  • Yedla, S., 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).
  • Akad, M., Gedizlioğlu, E., “Simulation supported analytic hierarchy approach in public transport mode selection”, Journal of İTÜ/d, 6(1): 88-98, (2007).
  • Pinto, D., Shrestha, S., Babel, M.S., 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).
  • Baldemir, E., Şahin, T.K., Kaya, F., “Evaluation of being slow city with analytic hierarchy process”, Journal of Economics and Management Research, 2(1): 29-50, (2013).
  • Ejder, E., “Selection of plant location with the method of analytic hierarchy process in furniture industry”, MSc., Hacettepe University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ankara, (2000).
  • Vargas, L.G., “An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1): 2-8, (1990).
  • Saaty, T.L., “How to make a decision: The analytical hierarchy process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1): 9-26, (1990).
  • Yılmaz, D.C., Gercek, H., “Prioritization of integrated bicycle network clusters in Istanbul using analytic hierarchy process”, Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 20(6): 215-224, (2013).
  • 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).
  • Jacyna, M., Wasiak, M., “Multicriteria decision support in designing transport systems”, 15th International Conference on Transport Systems Telematics Selected Papers, SpringerLink, Wrocław, Poland, 11-23, (2015).
  • 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).
  • 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, (2008).
  • Ludin, A., Latip, S., “Using multi-criteria analysis to identify suitable light rail transit route”, Jurnal Alam Bina, 9(1): 131-142, (2007).
  • Piantanakulchai, M., 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).
  • Nassi, C.D., Costa, F.C., “Use of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate transit fare system”, Research in Transportation Economics, 36(1): 50-62, (2012).
  • Duleba, S.Z., 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).
  • Kılıçaslan, T., “Kentsel Ulaşım”, Ninova Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, (2012).
  • Sutcliffe, E.B., “Ulaşım Ana Planı”, Kentsel Planlama Ansiklopedik Sözlük, Editor: Ersoy M., Ninova Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye, 452, (2012).
  • IBI Group and MMM Group, “Winnipeg Transportation Master Plan Executive Summary”, Winnipeg, Canada, (2011).
  • Edmonton City Government Services, “City of Edmonton Transportation Master Plan”, Edmonton, Canada, (2009).
  • Ottawa City Services, “Transportation Master Plan”, Ottowa, Canada, (2013).
  • Evren, G., “Türkiye ulaştırma politikalarına eleştirel bir bakış”, II. Ulaşım ve Trafik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, TMMOB Makine Mühendisleri Odası Yayınları, Ankara, 3-14, (1999).
  • Çelik, M., “Studying the effects of socio-demographic characteristics and urban spatial structure on individuals’ transport behaviors: Case study of Istanbul metropolitan area”, MSc., Gebze Technical University Institute of Engineering and Science, Kocaeli, (2010).
  • Gündüz, A., Kaya, M., Aydemir, C., “Alternative to road transport in the urban transport system: Rail transport system”, Journal of Academic Approaches, 2(1): 134-151, (2011).
  • Kaman, I.Y., Özalp, M., “AB üyesi ülkeler ve Türkiye’de kentsel ulaşım planlaması”, Ulaştırma Politikaları Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, İMO Yayınları, Ankara, 123-137, (2003).
  • Weiner, E., “Urban Transportation Planning in The United States: History, Policy and Practice”, Springer, USA, (2016).
  • Dimitriou, H.T., “Transport Planning for Third World Cities (Routledge Revivals)”, Routledge, Abingdon, England, (2013).
  • Türkiye Belediyeler Birliği, “Ulaşım Planlama Çalışmaları ve Ulaşım Ana Planı Hazırlama Kılavuzu”, TBB Yayınları, Ankara, Turkey, (2014).
  • Özalp, M., “The approaches in urban transportation planning studies in Turkey; problems and solutions”, MSc., Gazi University Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ankara, (2007).
  • Gülhan, G., Ceylan, H., Oral, Y., “Ulaşım Talebinin belirlenmesinde erişebilirlik ve arazi kullanım modellerinden yararlanılması”, 10. Ulaştırma Kongresi, İMO, İzmir-Türkiye, 26-29, (2013).
  • Aplak, H., Köse, E., Burmaoğlu, S., “Analysis of projects towards future by scenario planning technique”, The Journal of Defense Sciences, 9(2): 41-65, (2010).
  • Kandakoglu, A., Akgun, I., 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).
  • Özyörük, B., Özcan, E.C., “Application of analytical hierarchy process in the supplier selection: An example from automotive sector”, Süleyman Demirel University the Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 13(1): 133-144, (2008).
  • Saaty, T.L., “Decision making with analytic hierarchy process”, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1): 83- 98, (2008).
  • Massam, B.H., “Spatial Search: Applications to Planning Problems in the Public Sector”, Pergamon Press , USA, (1980).
  • Rajabifard, A., Feeney, M.E.F., 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).
  • Toraman, D., “Spatial multi criteria decision analysis: Alternative routes for transportation”, MSc., İTÜ Graduate School of Science and Engineering, İstanbul, (2009).
  • Yalçın, M., Batuk, F., “Location selection for mass buildings with GIS-multi criteria decision making method: Bakirkoy district”, III. Uzaktan Algılama ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, Kocaeli, 579-585, (2010).
  • Velasquez, M., Hester, P., “An analysis of multi- criteria decision making methods”, International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2): 56-66, (2013).
  • Dyer, R.F. and Forman, E.H., “Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process”, Decision Support Systems, 8(2): 99-124, (1992).
  • Subramanian, N., Ramanathan, R., “A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management”, International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2): 215-241, (2012).
  • Teknomo, K, “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tutorial”, http://web.cjcu.edu.tw/~lcc/Courses/ TUTORIAL/AHP%20Tutorialdoc, (2016).
  • Abali, Y.A., Kutlu, S.B., Eren, T., “Multicriteria decision making methods with selection of scholarship holder: Application in an educational institution”, Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 26(3-4): 259-272, (2012).
  • Arpacioglu, U.T., Ersoy, H.Y., Daylight and energy oriented architecture design support model. Gazi University Journal of Science, 26(2): 331-346, (2013).
  • Saaty, T., “Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World”, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA, (2013).
  • David, J., Saaty, D., “Use analytic hierarchy process for project selection”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 6(4): 22-29, (2007).
  • Tudela, A., Akiki, N., 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).
  • Sadasivuni, R., O’Hara, C.G., Nobrega, R., 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).
  • Ozcelik, G., Unver, M., 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).
  • 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).
  • Urban Transportation Technology, Accessibility Implementation and Research Center (UTTAC), AUAP Ankara Kenti Genel Yapısı, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, (2014a).
  • UTTAC, AUAP Plan Raporu, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, (2014b).
  • UTTAC, AUAP Hane Halkı Araştırması Sonuçları, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, (2014c).
  • UTTAC, AUAP Trafik Sayımı ve Taşıt Doluluk Etüdü, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, (2014d).
  • UTTAC, AUAP Toplu Taşıma Sistemleri Entegrasyonu ve Hatların Optimizasyonunun Değerlendirilmesi, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, (2014e).
  • UTTAC, AUAP Ulaşım Modeli ve Kalibrasyonu, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey, (2014f).
  • UTTAC, AUAP Toplu Taşım Yolculuklarında İndi–Bindi Etüdü, Gazi Turkey, Ankara, Turkey, (2014g).