Investigation of the Effects of Important Factors in Suburban Rail Route Determination with MCDM

Abstract

Thorough evaluation of suburban rail route alternatives is essential for determining the appropriate route. Suburban lines provide transportation services to suburban areas; that is, they provide transportation services to distant points of the city where demand is high. In this study, five alternative suburban rail routes in the commuter rail standard, starting from the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge’s European exit and ending at Istanbul Airport, were determined as a sample corridor in the province of Istanbul. High-standard suburban rail routes and their infrastructure construction costs were determined, and route options were delineated according to their construction costs. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods were examined, including the application of the decision matrix method (DMM) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to rank the routes in terms of the factors examined in the study. These routes were ranked according to the construction costs and according to the DMM and AHP methods, and the results were compared. In the decision matrix application, geomorphological-geological, geotechnical, infrastructural, and environmental factors were considered in the evaluation and determination process. A solution was developed in which all aspects were weighted to indicate their relevance, and these factors contributed to the determination of the results. The AHP method was also applied, in which five criteria were included in the evaluation: geology (including geomorphology and soil properties), engineering structures, construction costs, population values addressed by the routes, and railroad length. In addition, the distances to the active faults were examined according to the Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map specified in the Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBDY) 2018. Depending on the factors studied, the ordering of the routes was the same for all three methods.

Keywords

Infrastructure cost of railroad / Infrastructural factors / Decision matrix / Analytical hierarchy process / Route selection / Suburban rail

References

[1] Tunalıoglu N, Soycan M. An alternative approach based on angle and distance in horizontal route design. J Eng Nat Sci, 2012, 30: 193-204.

[2] Fwa T, Chan W, Sim Y. Optimal vertical route analysis for highway design. J Transp Eng, 2002, 128(5): 395-402

[3] Goh CJ, Chew EP, Fwa TF. Discrete and continuous models for computation of optimal vertical highway alignment. Transp Res Part B Methodol, 1988, 22(6): 399-409

[4] Jha MK, Schonfeld P. A highway route optimization model using geographic information systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract, 2004, 38(6): 455-481

[5] Yıldırım BF (2019) Multi-criteria decision making, Blod Series, Istanbul University Transport and Logistics. pp 1–2, 16–30 March, 2019

[6] Vilke S, Debelic B, Mance D (2020) Application of the multi criteria analysis for the railway route evaluation and selection. In: 20th Internationale Scientific Conference Business Logistics in Modern Management, Osijek, Croatia, October 7–9, 2020

[7] Kırlangıcoğlu C. Urban rail system corridor planning with multi-criteria decision-making methods: multi-layer weighted overlay method I.U. Faculty of Letters. J Geogr, 2016, 33: 53-71.

[8] Marković L, Cvetković M, Marković LM. Multi-criteria decision-making when choosing variant solution of highway route at the level of preliminary design. Facta Univ Arch Civ Eng Ser, 2013, 11(1): 74-76.

[9] Organ A. Application of fuzzy PROMETHEE method in container selection, one of the multi-criteria decision-making methods. Electr J Soc Sci, 2013, 12(45): 252-269.

[10] Temiz İ (2017) Applicability of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the selection of excavation machines, Ege University, Department of Civil Engineering, Master's thesis, pp 13–15, İzmir

[11] Eyuboglu R (1999) Investigation of Harşit Valley Dogankent (Giresun)-Yurtköyü (Gümüşhane) in terms of Slope Stability, Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, Geological Eng. Dr. Thesis

[12] Topcu İ (2017), The analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process, presentation, Istanbul Technical University

[13] Zhang Q, Yang S. Evaluating the sustainability of big data centers using the analytic network process and fuzzy TOPSIS. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 2021, 28: 17913-17927

[14] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: a new a approach to deal with fuzziness in architecture. Arch Sci Rev, 1982, 25(3): 64-69

[15] Özdagoglu A, Ozdagoglu G. Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP for the multi criteria decision making processes with linguistic evaluations. J Sci, 2007, 11(1): 65-85.

[16] Saaty L, Vargas LG. Decision making with the analytic network process, 2013, New York: Springer

[17] Atmaca E, Basar H. Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP). Energy, 2012, 44: 555-563

[18] Niemira M, Saaty T. An analytic network process model for financial-crisis forecasting. Int J Forecast, 2004, 20: 573-587

[19] Ranjan R, Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S. Performance evaluation of Indian Railway zones using DEMATEL and VIKOR methods. Benchmark Int J, 2016, 23(1): 78-95

[20] Rao, RV Evaluating flexible manufacturing systems using a combined multiple attribute decision making method, International Journal of Production Research, 46 (7), pp. 1975–1989, 2008.

[21] Opricovic S. Fuzzy Vikor with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst, 2011, 38: 12983-12990

[22] Omurbek N, Karaatlı M, Eren H, Sanli B. Selection of light commercial vehicles with AHP based PROMETHEE sorting method. J Fac Econ Adm Sci, 2014, 19(4): 47-64.

[23] IBB (2007) Istanbul Environmental Plan Report, Chapter 3, Istanbul Province Research Findings

[24] IBB (2018) Earthquake and Soil Investigation Directorate, current maps and digital bases

[25] MTA (2018) General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, current maps and digital bases

[26] AECOM (2013) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Northern Marmara Motorway Project, ESIA, Final Report, 2 August 2013

[27] KGM (2014) General Directorate of Highways, Highway Design Handbook, Ankara

[28] T.R., Ministry of Transportation Railways, Ports, Airports General Directorate of Construction Railways Planning and Design Technical Principles, Ankara, (2007)

[29] Yurtsever A, Çağlayan MA (2002) Istanbul Gayrettepe Metro Line Studies, F21 and G21 maps

[30] Ozgul N (2011) Geology of the Istanbul Provincial Area, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Earthquake and Soil Investigation Directorate, December, 2011

[31] Ozgul N. Stratigraphy and some structural features of the Istanbul Palaeozoic. Turk J Earth Sci, 2012, 21: 817-866.

[32] TBDY (2018) Turkey Building Earthquake Regulation, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Official Gazette, No: 30, 364

[33] Ulusay R. Applied geotechnical information. TMMOB Chamber Geol Eng, 2010, 38: 458-460.

[34] Ozgul N, Uner K, Bilgin İ, Korkmaz R, Ozcan İ, Akmese İ, Yıldız Z, Yıldırım U, Akdag O, Tekin M (2005) Istanbul provincial area general geology properties, İBB Earthquake and Ground Inspection Directorate

[35] Erguvanlı K (2016) Engineering Geology, TMMOB Geology Engineer. Chamber, Ankara

[36] Republic of Turkey Official Gazette, Regulation on the protection and use of agricultural lands, number: 25137, 16 March, 2005

[37] Jackson SD, Griffin CR (2000) A strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife

[38] Özaydın K. Soil mechanics, 2008, Istanbul: Birsen Publishing House

[39] Kumbasar V, Kumbasar F, Önalp A (1970) Soil mechanics for road engineers, Part 1, ITU Printing House, Gümüşsuyu

[40] Vardar M (2016) Engineering geology and geomechanics in geotechnics, Engineering Geology, 21–27, 5th edition, Istanbul

[41] Ozturk O, Bozkurtoglu E (2020) Examination of some programs and methods used in determining road crossing, In: The 2nd International Symposium of Engineering Applications on Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences 2020 IEACES2020), Karabük

[42] Padaya J, Jurelamani J, Prakash I (2017) Design of railway route: conventional and modern method. Int Res J Eng Technol. Vol 4

[43] Ozturk O, Bozkurtoglu E. Examination of the effect of geomorphology on the infrastructure construction cost of the highway crossing in a sample section. Al Cezeri Sci Eng, 2018, 5(2): 298-309.

[44] IBB (2000) Istanbul Province Entire Research Data, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality 1/100,000 scale Istanbul Environmental Plan Report, Part 3

[45] Sahinkaya O, Ozturk O, Bozkurtoglu E. Comparison of Turkish-Croatian Technical Specifications in terms of Road Infrastructure. El Cezeri Sci Eng, 2017, 5(2): 458-466.

[46] Saaty T, Vargas L (2013) Decision making with the analytic network process (ANP). pp 1–40

[47] Safitri DM, Surjandari I (2017) Travel mode switching prediction using decision tree in Jakarta greater area. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), Bandung, Indonesia, 23–24 October 2017; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): Piscataway, NJ, USA, 246–250.

[48] Lehmann H. Bahnsysteme und ihr wirtschaftlicher Betrieb, 1978, Darmstadt: Tetzlaff Verlag, GmbH

[49] UITP (1989) Kriterien für die Wahl von Stadtbahn systemen, ETR 38, H7/8, Juli/August, Germany

[50] Bayraktar Z (1992) Suburban Train Transportation in Istanbul, Istanbul 2nd Urban Transportation Congress, Chamber of Civil Engineers, Istanbul

[51] DLH (2018) TR Ministry of Transport, General Directorate of Railways Ports Airports Construction, Railways, Reaching and Reaching Turkey, Ankara

[52] Munier N. A strategy for using multi-criteria analysis in decision-making, 2011, Berlin: Springer

[53] Tsami M, Adamos G, Nathanail E, Budilovicˇa EB, Jackiva IY, Magginas V. A decision tree approach for achieving high customer satisfaction at urban interchanges. Transp Telecommun J, 2018, 19: 194-202.

[54] Ochiai Y, Masuma Y, Tomii N. Improvement of timetable robustness by analysis of drivers' operation based on decision trees. J Rail Transp Plan Manag, 2019, 9: 57-65.

[55] Munier N. A new approach to the rank reversal phenomenon in MSDM with the SIMUS method. Mult Criteria Decis Mak, 2016, 11: 137-152

[56] Munier N, Hontoria E, Jiménez-Sáez F (2019) Strategic approach in multi-criteria decision making. In: International series in operations research & management science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland