Best public transport options for different city scales: a comprehensive assessment using the Best Worst-based TOPSIS Method
F. Yildizhan, Ö.F. Rençber, Ş. Bilgiç, M. Günal
Pages: 105-120
Abstract:
This paper aims to provide a comparative evaluation of public transport options for two cities of different scales. The study utilizes the Best Worst Method (BWM) based on the TOPSIS and also conventional economic assessment techniques. This comprehensive evaluation takes into account both monetary and non-monetary impacts of public transport. The results of the study indicate that in terms of conventional economic assessment, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and tram systems are profitable for Eskişehir (small & medium-sized city), while all systems are profitable for Istanbul (metropolis city). These results suggest that public transport options for small & medium-sized cities are limited and the wrong public transport system selection can lead to significant economic losses. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of public transport for metropolis cities, as each system has diverse and crucial economic effects. According to the findings of BWM, the research highlights relationship between capacity, technology and economy-budget. Also, the study shows the positive impact of rail systems on the urban image-prestige, as many governments prefer rail systems due to their positive association with urban development. Conversely, BRT systems are negatively affected in terms of urban image due to their indirect relationship with buses. The vehicle cost comparison between rail system vehicles and BRT vehicles further supports this observation. Ranking and the best option were listed as BRT, metro, LRT, monorail and tram for two city-sized, according to Best Worst-based TOPSIS results. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the comparative evaluation of public transport systems for two cities of different scales. It emphasizes the need for careful consideration of monetary and non-monetary impacts when selecting the most suitable public transport option. The findings can assist policymakers and urban planners in making informed decisions regarding public transport infrastructure.
Keywords: public transport; economic assessment; MCDM; BWM
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES