Prioritizing Railway Network Development Options from the Passenger Transportation Point of View; Case Study: I.R. Iran
Author(s)
Naser Bakhtiari , Iraj Radmehr , Kamran Yeganegi ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 86-93 | Views: 1263 | Downloads: 334 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3484277
Abstract
the development of railway transportation network has been paid attention to in recent years because of some advantages over the other transportation ways such as lower fuel consumption, lower pollutant production, environmental protection, lower area occupation and higher safety levels. The construction of important lines such as Bafq- Bandar Abbas, Mashhad-Sarakhs, Ardakan- chadormalu, Bafq-Mashhad and two-way lines of Tehran-Qom and Tehran-Mashhad confirms are examples of the efforts for the railway network development.
In order to choose and propose a line to be constructed and provide technical and economic justification reports for the projects, usually the “freight transportation” is considered as the important factor in the calculations because of the higher economic gains and lower operational costs in comparison with the “passenger transportation.” Besides this factor, there are some other important factors such as social and cultural development and reducing human fatalities. By considering these factors in spite of the cost as the design factors, it is possible to include the “passenger transportation” in the selection factors of proposing new lines for construction. In this paper, by reviewing previous researches in the field of railway network development and gathering the most recent information about the development plans, the proposed plans for the development are presented. The criteria for comparison of the plans are chosen and prioritizing the plans is performed using “TOPSIS” decision analysis method with the “passenger transportation” approach.
Keywords
railway transportation, railway network development, MADM, TOPSIS
References
i. Saaty, T.L. and L.G. Vargas, Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process, Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities Costs and Risks. 2006, New York: Springer.
ii. Bhushan, N. and K. Rai, Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. 2007: Springer Science & Business Media.
iii. Fülöp, J., Introduction to decision making methods. Laboratory of operations research and decision systems, Computer and automation institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2005. 1.
iv. Zavadskas, E.K., Z. Turskis, and S. Kildienė, State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and economic development of economy, 2014. 20(1): p. 165-179.
v. Ho, W., P.K. Dey, and H.E. Higson, Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in higher education. International journal of educational management, 2006. 20(5): p. 319-337.
vi. Hwang, C.-L. and A.S.M. Masud, Multiple objective decision making—methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Vol. 164. 2012: Springer Science & Business Media.
vii. Sabaei, D., J. Erkoyuncu, and R. Roy, A review of multi-criteria decision making methods for enhanced maintenance delivery. Procedia CIRP, 2015. 37: p. 30-35.
viii. Coelli, T.J., et al., An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. 2005: Springer Science & Business Media.
ix. Bolloju, N., Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers’ preferences. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001. 128(3): p. 499-508.
x. Hwang, C.-L. and K. Yoon, Methods for multiple attribute decision making, in Multiple attribute decision making. 1981, Springer. p. 58-191.
Cite this Article: