SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 6

Prioritization of Integrated Bicycle Network Clusters in Istanbul Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi İle İstanbul'da Bütünleşik Bisiklet Ağı Kümelerinin Önceliklendirilmesi

Dilek Çol YILMAZ
Haluk GERÇEK
Pages
215–224
Publication Date
2014-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the survey data collected from the experts, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is a multi-criteria decision-making procedure that contains both qualitative and quantitative factors was used to prioritize the bicycle network clusters integrated with public transport system in Istanbul.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the impact of the integration of nonmotorized transport and public transport on hypermobility was evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A decision support model was established in order to plan the phases of a bicycle network integrated with the public transport sytem in Istanbul Metropolitan Area.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the survey data collected from the experts, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is a multi-criteria decision-making procedure that contains both qualitative and quantitative factors was used to prioritize the bicycle network clusters integrated with public transport system in Istanbul.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi · Çok ölçütlü karar verme · Bisiklet ağı kümeleri

Abstract

In this study, the impact of the integration of nonmotorized transport and public transport on hypermobility was evaluated. The role of bicycle in non-motorized transportation, and its contribution to sustainable travel goals were examined. A decision support model was established in order to plan the phases of a bicycle network integrated with the public transport sytem in Istanbul Metropolitan Area. Data such as public transport routes planned for the target year 2023, locations of transfer centers, number of passengers at transfer centers, and a revised bicycle network were used as layers for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map produced. Based on the survey data collected from the experts, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is a multi-criteria decision-making procedure that contains both qualitative and quantitative factors was used to prioritize the bicycle network clusters integrated with public transport system in Istanbul.

Özet

Bu çalışmada motorsuz ulaşım ve toplu taşıma entegrasyonunun yüksek seviyede hareketliliğe etkisi değerlendirilmiştir. Önemli bir ulaşım türü olan bisikletin motorsuz ulaşımdaki rolü, sürdürülebilir yolculuk hedefine katkıları ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada İstanbul metropoliten alanında toplu taşıma sistemi ile bütünleşik bisiklet ulaşım ağının aşamalı olarak gerçekleştirilmesi için bir karar destek modeli kurulmuştur. Model oluşturulurken 2023 yılı için planlanmış olan toplu taşıma hatları, aktarma merkezi noktaları, bu noktalara ait yolcu sayıları, yeniden düzenlenen bisiklet ağı gibi veriler Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) ortamında geliştirilen haritaya altlık olarak kullanılmıştır. Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme yöntemlerinden nitel ve nicel değerlendirmeye olanak veren Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi (AHY) kullanılarak ulaşım planlaması konusunda uzmanların değerlendirmeleri doğrultusunda, İstanbul metropoliten alanında toplu taşıma ile bütünleşik bisiklet ağı kümelerinin öncelikleri belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILMAZ, D. Ç., GERÇEK, H. (2014). Prioritization of Integrated Bicycle Network Clusters in Istanbul Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 6, 215–224. https://ajindex.com/articles/42729

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Stringer P, Wenzel H. Transportation Planning for a Better Environment. 1st ed. NATO Scientific Affairs Division by NATO conference series II, Systems science, New York, USA, Plenum Press, 1976. Gakenheimer RA. The automobile and the environment: An international perspective. Cambridge, Mass., USA, MIT Press, 1978.
  2. Newman P, Kenworthy J. Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, D.C., USA, Island Press, 1999. World Commission on Environment and Development. “From One Earth to One World: An Overview”. Oxford University Press, 1987.
  3. Crawford JH. Carfree Cities. Utrecht, Holland, International Books, 2002. [6] World Economic Forum (WEF). “Sustainable Transportation Ecosystem: Addressing Sustainability from an Integrated Systems Perspective”. 2012.
  4. Crass M, Miyake M. National Policies to Promote Cycling. Paris, France, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2004.
  5. Reichardt T. “Mehrkriterielle Entscheidungen mit dem Seminar AHP-Verfahren”. Betriebswirtschaftlehre, Halle (Saale), Deutschland, 2003. zur Allgemeinen Saaty T. Decision Making for Leaders. 1999/2000
  6. Edition.
  7. Pittsburgh, USA, RWS Publications, 2000. [10] Albayrak C, Albayrak E. “Kredi Taleplerinin Değerlendirilmesinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Yönteminin Kullanılması”. I. Sistem Mühendisliği ve Savunma Uygulamaları Sempozyumu-Bildiriler-I. 1995.
  8. Starr MK, Zeleny M. MCDM: State and Future of the Arts. Editors: Starr MK, Zeleny M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 5-29,
  9. Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1977. Malczewski J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis, New York, USA, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1999.
  10. Massam BH. Spatial Search. Oxford, USA, Pergamon Press, 1980. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, USA, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
  11. Doumpos M, Zopounidis C. “Multicriteria Classification and Sorting Methods: A Literature Review”, European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246, 2002.
  12. Gökalp B, Soylu B. “Tedarikçinin Süreçlerini İyileştirme Amaçlı Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi”, Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 23(1), 4-15, 2011.
  13. Saaty, T. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. Pittsburgh, USA, RWS Publications, 2000.
  14. Crawford GB. “The Geometric Mean Procedure for Estimating the Scale of a Judgment Matrix”. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 327-334, 1987.
  15. Weiss EN. “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Dynamic Environment”. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 285–292, 1987. Pamukkale Univ Muh Bilim Derg, 20(6), 215-224, 2014 Pamukkale Univ J Eng Sci, 20