Kentiçi Toplu Taşıma Sistemlerinde Performansa Dayalı Ödeme Modelinin Geliştirilmesi

Türkiye'de toplu taşıma sistemleri temel olarak üç tipte işletilmektedir: sadece kamu işletmeciliği, sadece özel işletmecilik ve karma tip (hem kamu hem de özel işletmeci). Özel işletmelerin bulunduğu toplu taşıma sistemlerinde, ayrıcalıklı yolcuların (65 yaş üstü, engelli, öğrenci vb.) ücretsiz veya indirimli ulaşımı, işletme maliyetlerinin sürekli artmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu sebeple, merkezi ve yerel yönetimler tarafından özel işletmelere sübvansiyon yapılması gündeme gelmiştir. Yapılan farklı uygulamalarda, özel işletmecilerin maliyetlerinin düşürülmesi, verimliliklerinin artırılması ve hizmet kalitesinin geliştirilmesine yönelik bir standart bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, toplu taşıma sisteminde özel toplu taşıma şirketlerinin faaliyet göstermesi için çeşitli yöntemlerle yapılacak sözleşmeler kapsamında değerlendirilmesi gereken performans kriterleri ve ödeme esasları ele alınmıştır. Örnek alınan toplu taşıma sisteminde performansa dayalı bir ödeme modelinin oluşturulması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için literatürde uygulanan sözleşme ve ödeme modelleri değerlendirilmiş, performansa dayalı bir ödeme modeli için matematiksel bir model oluşturulmuştur. ANFIS (Adaptive Neural-Fuzzy Inference Systems) yöntemi kullanılarak örneklenen özel toplu taşıma işletmesinin önceki dönem verileri kullanılarak maliyet değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Belirlenen performans kriterlerinin ağırlıkları AHP (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci) yöntemi ile belirlenerek ödeme modeli katsayıları oluşturulmuştur. Yapılan simülasyonlar ile önerilen performansa dayalı ödeme modelinin yolcu bazlı model ile karşılaştırması yapılmıştır. Analiz çalışması ile, önerilen modelin özel taşımacıların gelir-gider oranında %37 daha iyi sonuç verdiği ve taşımacıların maliyetlerinin tamamen karşılandığı sonucu elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada önerilen yöntem kullanılarak toplu taşıma sisteminin sürekliliğinin sağlanabileceği, ilave performans ödemesi ile de hizmet kalitesinin artırılarak toplu taşıma cazip hale getirilebilecektir.

Developing a Performance-Based Payment Model in Urban Public Transport Systems

In Turkey, public transportation systems are operated mainly on three types: Only public operations, only private operations, and mixed types (both public and private operators). As a result of privatization used in the last two types, free or discounted transportation of privileged passengers (Over 65 years old, disabled, students, etc.), cause continuously increasing operating costs. Although subsidies to transportation companies by central and local governments have come to the agenda, different practices are carried out. There is no standard for evaluating performance criteria and improving travel service quality in order to reduce costs of private operators, increase their efficiency and improve service quality. In this study, the performance criteria and payment principles that have to be evaluated within the scope of the contracts to be executed by various methods for the operation of private-public transportation companies in the public transportation system have been handled. Based on this, It has been aimed to establish a performance-based payment model in the sample transportation system. For this, the contract and payment models applied in the literature were evaluated, a mathematical model was established for a performance-based payment model. Cost assessment was made by using the previous period data of the private-public transportation company, which was sampled by using the ANFIS (Adaptive Neural-Fuzzy Inference Systems) method. The payment model coefficients were created by determining the weights of the determined performance criteria with AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method. A simulation study was conducted to compare the proposed performance-based payment model and the applied model. As a result; it is seen that the income-expense ratio of private operators gives better results in the proposed model.

___

  • J. Pucher, A. Markstedt, ve I. Hirschman, “Impacts of subsidies on the costs of urban public transport ( USA).”, Journal of Transport Economics & Policy, c. 17, sayı 2, ss. 155–176, 1983.
  • P. Tisato, “A comparison of optimisation formulations in public transport subsi dy”, International Journal of Transport Economics, 2000.
  • K. A. Small ve E. T. Verhoef, The economics of urban transportation. 2007.
  • I. W. H. Parry ve K. A. Small, “Should urban transit subsidies be reduced?”, American Economic Review, 2009, doi: 10.1257/aer.99.3.700.
  • J. Mattson ve D. Ripplinger, “Marginal cost pricing and subsidy of small urban transit”, Transportation Research Record, 2012, doi: 10.3141/2274-08.
  • A. Mouwen ve J. Van Ommeren, “The effect of contract renewal and competitive tendering on public transport costs, subsidies and ridership”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.003.
  • M. Ševrović, D. Brčić, ve G. Kos, “Transportation Costs and Subsidy Distribution Model for Urban and Suburban Public Passenger Transport”, PROMET - Traffic&Transportation, 2015, doi: 10.7307/ptt.v27i1.1486.
  • A. Gautier ve A. Yvrande-Billon, “Contract Renewal as an Incentive Device. An Application to the French Urban Public Transport Sector”, Review of Economics and Institutions, 2013, doi: 10.5202/rei.v4i1.88.
  • D. A. Hensher, C. Mulley, ve N. Smith, “Towards a simplified performance-linked value for money model as a reference point for bus contract payments”, Research in Transportation Economics, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.018.
  • F. Canıtez, D. Çelebi, M. Deveci, ve Y. Kuvvetli, “Selecting an optimal contractual payment model for Istanbul’s public bus operators using non-linear mathematical programming”, Research in Transportation Economics, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2019.100750.
  • W. Roy ve A. Yvrande-Billon, “Ownership, contractual practices and technical efficiency: The case of urban public transport in france”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, c. 41, sayı 2, ss. 257–282, 2007.
  • D. A. Hensher ve E. Houghton, “Instıtute Of Transport Studıes The Australian Key Centre in Transport Management”, 2004.
  • G. J. Fielding, R. E. Glauthier, ve C. A. Lave, “Performance indicators for transit management”, Transportation, 1978, doi: 10.1007/BF00168037.
  • J. Attanucci, L. Jaeger, ve J. Becker, “Bus Service Evaluation Procedures : A Review”, Washington, D.C., 1979.
  • Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro), “Bus Service Evaluation Methods A Review”, Washington, D.C., 1984.
  • Y. J. Nakanishi, “Bus performance indicators: On-time performance and service regularity”, Transportation Research Record, 1997.
  • E. Randall, B. Condry, ve M. Trompet, “International bus system benchmarking: Performance measurement development, challenges, and lessons learned”, 2006.
  • B. Kocaman; S. Kumbar; T. Tezer; Ö. Yılmaz, “Performance Measurement and Determination of Performance Indicators in Public Transport: Kocaeli Application”, içinde TRANSIST 2011 IV. Transportation Symposium And Exhibition Presentations, 2011, ss. 230–244, [Çevrimiçi]. Available at: https://www.iett.istanbul/webimage/file/sempozyumlar/Transist2011Bildiri.pdf.
  • J. R. Jang, “ANFIS Adaptive-Network-based Fuzzy Inference System”, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, sayı June 1993, 1993, doi: 10.1109/21.256541.
  • A. Yücel, “Integrated neural fuzzy logic approach in supplier selection problem”, Yıldız Technical University, 2010.
  • D. Pamučar, V. . Lukovac, Ve S. Pejčıć-Tarle, “Applıcatıon Of Adaptıve Neuro Fuzzy Inference System In The Process Of Transportatıon Support”, Asia Pacific Journal of Operational Research, c. 30, sayı 02, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595912500534.
  • D. Pamučar, S. Ljubojević, D. Kostadinović, ve B. Đorović, “Cost and risk aggregation in multi-objective route planning for hazardous materials transportation—A neuro-fuzzy and artificial bee colony approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, c. 65, ss. 1–15, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.024.
  • R. Islam, S. R. Musabbir, I. U. Ahmed, M. Hadiuzzaman, M. Hasnat, ve S. Hossain, “Bus service quality prediction and attribute ranking using probabilistic neural network and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, c. 43, sayı 9, ss. 822–829, 2016, doi: 10.1139/cjce-2016-0119.
  • S. Duleba, T. Mishina, ve Y. Shimazaki, “A dynamic analysis on public bus transport’s supply quality by using AHP”, Transport, c. 27, sayı 3, ss. 268–275, 2012, doi: 10.3846/16484142.2012.719838.
  • M. Deveci, F. Canıtez, ve N. Ç. Demirel, “Setting The Optimal Transit Fare in Public Transportation By Using Analytical Hierarchy Process ( AHP ): The Case of IETT , Istanbul”, sayı 1059, 2016.
  • S. Güner, “Operational Efficiency and Service Quality Analysis in Public Transportation Systems”, Journal of Transportation and Logistics, c. 2, sayı 2, ss. 34–48, 2017, doi: 10.22532/jtl.358727.
  • K. Goepel, “Implementation of an Online software tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP-OS)”, International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2018, doi: 10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590.
  • L. Mikhailov, “Group prioritization in the AHP by fuzzy preference programming method”, Computers and Operations Research, 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0305-0548(03)00012-1.