Analysis of Potential High-Speed Rail Routes: A Case of GIS-Based Multicriteria Evaluation in Turkey
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 147, Issue 2
Abstract
All over the world, governments, policy makers, and practitioners are searching for proper routes and corridors to invest transportation infrastructures such as new railways, highways, and multimodal ways. Although it is one of the important steps of development, finding a suitable route for new transport infrastructure is a complicated and conflicting task for of various reasons. Possible social and environmental impacts on society and increasing cost and technical pressures on decision makers are some of these reasons. Taking into consideration aspects of different evaluation criteria, a geographic information system (GIS)-based multicriteria solution approach is proposed in this study. Potential high-speed rail (HSR) routes in Turkey are considered as a case study. After gathering and processing the related GIS data, weights are assigned to each criterion by using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in order to indicate their relative importance. Then, the additive ratio assessment method is applied to carry out the multicriteria (13 technical, social, and demographic criteria) evaluation and selection of the suitable alternatives (among 20 HSR routes) under given circumstances. It was found that the corridor from the west part of Turkey (from İzmir and Manisa) to the Marmara region (Kocaeli and İstanbul) had the highest priority, followed by the corridor from Ankara to Kayseri. HSR trains could potentially reduce the journey times to Kocaeli and İstanbul from İzmir and Manisa, as compared with driving, by 46% and 45%, respectively. The results of this study can be used to evaluate potential HSR corridors/routes or similar transport infrastructures in other countries.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data that are available upon request are pairwise matrix of experts and criteria values.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for useful comments that have led to an improvement in the paper.
References
Akgungor, A. P., and A. Demirel. 2007. “Evaluation of Ankara-Istanbul high speed train project.” Transport 22 (1): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/16484142.2007.9638098.
Anton, J. M., and J. B. Grau. 2004. “Madrid–Valencia high-speed rail line: A route selection.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Transp. 157 (3): 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1680/tran.2004.157.3.153.
Balogun, A., A. Matori, D. U. Lawal, and I. Chandio. 2012. “Optimal oil pipeline route selection using GIS: Community participation in weight derivation and disaster mitigation.” In Vol. 28 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Future Environment and Energy, 100–104. Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Boroushaki, S., and J. Malczewski. 2010. “Using the fuzzy majority approach for GIS-based multicriteria group decision-making.” Comput. Geosci. 36 (3): 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.05.011.
Chan, H. K., X. Sun, and S.-H. Chung. 2019. “When should fuzzy analytic hierarchy process be used instead of analytic hierarchy process?” Decis. Support Syst. 125: 113114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113114.
Chatterjee, P., and S. Chakraborty. 2013. “Gear material selection using complex proportional assessment and additive ratio assessment-based approaches: A comparative study.” Int. J. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1 (2): 104–111. https://doi.org/10.12720/ijmse.1.2.104-111.
Çetinkaya, C., M. Kabak, and E. Özceylan. 2017. “3D printer selection by using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE.” Int. J. Inf. Technol. 10 (4): 371–380. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.347610.
De Luca, M., G. Dell’Acqua, and R. Lamberti. 2012. “High-speed rail track design using GIS and multi-criteria analysis.” Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 54: 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.778.
Dobruszkes, F. 2011. “High-speed rail and air transport competition in Western Europe: A supply-oriented perspective.” Transp. Policy 18: 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.06.002.
Facchinetti, G., and R. G. Ricci. 2004. “A characterization of a general class of ranking functions on triangular fuzzy numbers.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 146 (2): 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2003.10.023.
Farooq, A., M. Xie, S. Stoilova, and F. Ahmad. 2019. “Multi-criteria evaluation of transport plan for high-speed rail: An application to Beijing-Xiongan.” Math. Probl. Eng. 2019: 8319432. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8319432.
Gao, Y., W. Su, and K. Wang. 2019. “Does high-speed rail boost tourism growth? New evidence from China.” Tourism Manag. 72: 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.003.
Givoni, M. 2006. “Development and impact of the modern high-speed train: A review.” Trans. Rev. 26 (5): 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640600589319.
Greene, R., R. Devillers, J. E. Luther, and B. G. Eddy. 2011. “GIS-based multiple-criteria decision analysis.” Geogr. Compass 5 (6): 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00431.x.
Guarini, M. R., M. Locurcio, and F. Battisti. 2015. “GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for the “highway in the sky”.” In Proc., 15th Int. Conf. on Computational Science and Its Applications, edited by O. Gervasi et al., 146–161. Cham: Springer.
Guirao, B., and J. L. Campa. 2016. “Cross effects between high speed rail lines and tourism: Looking for empirical evidence using the Spanish case study.” Transp. Res. Procedia 14: 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.091.
Hagler, Y., Todorovich, P., 2011. “Where high-speed rail works best, America 2050.” Accessed November 6, 2020. http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf.
Hamurcu, M., and T. Eren. 2018. “Prioritization of high-speed rail projects.” Int. Adv. Res. Eng. J. 2 (2): 98–103.
Ho, W., and X. Ma. 2018. “The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 267 (2): 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.007.
Kabir, G., R. Sadiq, and S. Tesfamariam. 2014. “A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 10 (9): 1176–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.795978.
Keshkamat, S. S., J. M. Looijen, and M. H. P. Zuidgeest. 2009. “The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: A spatial decision support system for the via Baltica project, Poland.” J. Trans. Geogr. 17 (1): 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.04.010.
Macharis, C., and A. Bernardini. 2015. “Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach.” Trans. Policy 37: 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002.
Mateus, R., J. A. Ferreira, and J. Carreira. 2008. “Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): Central Porto high-speed railway station.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 187 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.006.
Panchal, S., and A. Debbarma. 2017. “Rail-route planning using a geographical information system (GIS).” Eng., Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 7 (5): 2010–2013. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.1329.
Raut, R. D., H. V. Bhasin, and K. S. Kamble. 2011. “Evaluation of supplier selection criteria by combination of AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL method.” Int. J. Bus. Innovation Res. 5 (4): 359–392. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2011.041056.
Saat, M. R., and J. A. Serrano. 2015. “Multi-criteria high-speed rail route selection: Application to Malaysia’s high-speed rail corridor prioritization.” Transp. Plann. Technol. 38 (2): 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2014.997446.
Saaty, T. L. 1977. “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.” J. Math. Psychol. 15 (3): 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. 1988. “What is the analytic hierarchy process?.” In Vol. 48 of Mathematical models for decision support, edited by G. Mitra, H. J. Greenberg, F. A. Lootsma, M. J. Rijkaert, H. J. Zimmermann, 109–121. Berlin: Springer. NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences).
Sadasivuni, R., C. G. O’Hara, R. Nobrega, and J. Dumas. 2009. “A transportation corridor case study for multi-criteria decision analysis.” In Proc., American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Conf., 11–14. Baltimore, MD: Np.
Sánchez-Lozano, J. M., J. Teruel-Solano, P. L. Soto-Elvira, and M. S. García-Cascales. 2013. “Geographical information systems (GIS) and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: Case study in south-eastern Spain.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 24: 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.019.
Shi, W., K. C. Lin, H. McLaughlin, G. Qi, and M. Jin. 2020. “Spatial distribution of job opportunities in China: Evidence from the opening of the high-speed rail.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 133: 138–147.
Thanki, S., K. Govindan, and J. Thakkar. 2016. “An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach.” J. Cleaner Prod. 135: 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.105.
TSR (Turkish State Railways). 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020. www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr
Villacreses, G., G. Gaona, J. Martínez-Gomez, and D. J. Jijon. 2017. “Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador.” Renewable Energy 109: 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.041.
Yang, H., and A. Zhang. 2012. “Effects of high-speed rail and air transport competition on prices, profits and welfare.” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 46: 1322–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2012.09.001.
Yilmaz, V., and E. Ari. 2017. “The effects of service quality, image, and customer satisfaction on customer complaints and loyalty in high-speed rail service in Turkey: A proposal of the structural equation model.” Transportmetrica A: Trans. Sci. 13 (1): 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2016.1209255.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. “Fuzzy sets.” Inf. Control 8 (3): 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Zavadskas, E. K., and Z. Turskis. 2010. “A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multi-criteria decision-making.” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16 (2): 159–172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10.
Zhang, Q., H. Yang, and Q. Wang. 2017. “Impact of high-speed rail on China’s big three airlines.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 98: 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.02.005.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 147 • Issue 2 • June 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 26, 2020
Accepted: Nov 17, 2020
Published online: Feb 25, 2021
Published in print: Jun 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Jul 25, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.