Evaluation of Alternatives to Integrate Special Transportation Services for People with Movement Disorders

Open access

Abstract

Integrating the most appropriate special transportation service for people with movement disorders model may result in great economy efficiency and social benefit balance. However, most existing researches are based on improving the accessibility of public transport services or development of routing and scheduling under stochastic input data. The aim of this paper is to project the evaluation algorithm for the purpose of assessing the appropriate model of integration which would enable the employment of existing resources and filling the gap in assurance the mobility needs of people with mobility impairments. This paper identifies the evaluation indicators which are selected from international publications. Firstly the performance indicators of special transportation services were selected, further the sustainable development of public transport services evaluation indicators were selected, classified and adjusted to the goal of this paper. As a final result of indicators selection, a set of indicators classified into two groups - cost and benefit - was carried out. The decision making is based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution methods. A case study is provided to demonstrate the application of proposed evaluation algorithm.

1. Abdullah, L., Najib, L. (2014) A new type-2 fuzzy set of linguistic variables for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications 41 (7): 3297-3305. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.11.028

2. Aktan, H.E., Tosun, O. (2013) An integrated fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach for AS/RS selection. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management 11 (2): 228-245. DOI: 10.1504/IJPQM.2013.052026

3. Alonso, A., Monzon, A., Cascajo, R. (2015) Comparative analysis of passenger transport sustainability in European cities. Ecological Indicators 48: 578-592. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.022

4. Bazaras, D., Verseckienė, A., Palšaitis, R. (2013) Analyzing the aspects of organising paratransit services in Vilnius. Transport 28 (1): 60-68. DOI: 10.3846/16484142.2013.781541

5. Berdie, A.D., Osaci, M., Muscalagiu, I., Barz., C. (2017) A combined approach of AHP and TOPSIS methods applied in the field of integrated software systems. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 200: 1-7. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/200/1/012041

6. Bhutia, P.W., Phipon, R. (2012) Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection problem. IOSR Journal of Engineering 2 (10): 43-50.

7. Boujelbene, Y., Derbel, A. (2015) The performance analysis of public transport operators in Tunisia using AHP method. Procedia Computer Science 73: 498 - 508. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.039.

8. Charles, P. (2014) What is successful transport integration? Transport futures institute. Online access: http://www.transport-futures.com/what-is-successful-transport-integration/.

9. CIVITAS. (2010) Enhancing the quality of public transport services. CIVITAS: Policy advice notes. Online access: http://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civitas_ii_policy_advice_notes_11_public_transport_quality.pdf

10. Duarte, F., Rojas, F. (2012) Intermodal connectivity to BRT: a comparative analysis of Bogotá and Curitiba. Journal of Public Transportation 15 (2): 1-18. DOI: 10.5038/2375-0901.15.2.1

11. European Union. (2002) EN 13816 Transportation - Logistics and services - Public passenger transport - Service quality definition, targeting and measurement, s.l.: European Standard.

12. Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T., Tzeng, G.H. (2004) Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management 22: 573-584. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002

13. Friedrich, M., Leruent, F., Jackiva, I., Fini, V., Raveau, S. (2016) From Transit Systems to Models: Purpose of Modelling. In book: Modelling Public Transport Passenger Flows in the Era of Intelligent Transport Systems. Editors: Gentile, Guido, Noekel, Klaus. (Eds.). Published by Springer International Publishing, 641 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25082-3, ISBN 978-3-319-25080-9

14. IPCD. (2013) Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC.

15. Jain, D., Tiwari, G. (2017) Sustainable mobility indicators for Indian cities: Selection methodology and application. Ecological Indicators 79: 310-322. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.059

16. Kabir, G., Hasin, M.A.A. (2012) Comparative analysis of TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS for the evaluation of travel website service quality. International Journal for Quality Research 6 (3): 169 -185.

17. Kubler, S., Robert, J., Derigent, W., Voisin, A., Traon, Y.L. (2016) A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Systems With Applications: 1-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.064.

18. Macharis, C., Witte, A., Ampe, J. (2009) The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. Journal of Advanced Transportation 43 (2): 183 - 202. DOI: 10.1002/atr.5670430206

19. Nicolas, J.P., Pochet, P., Poimboeuf, H. (2003) Towards Sustainable Mobility Indicators: Application to the Lyons Conurbation. Transport Policy 10 (3): 197-208. DOI: 10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00021-0

20. OECD. (2015) Intermodal connectivity for destinations. OECD: Tourism Committee.

21. Palšaitis, R; Verseckienė, A. (2014) Sustainable development of urban public transport: the case of integrating paratransit service. Pre-conference proceedings of the 11th International conference on Logistics & Sustainable Transport 2014, University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics, Celje, Slovenia, 19-21 June 2014, 1-9.

22. Pticina I., Yatskiv I. (2105) Weighting the urban public transport system quality index (UPTQI) using the analytical hierarchy process, International Journal of Society Systems Science (7): 107-126.

23. Qu, M., Yu, S., Yu, M. (2017) An improved approach to evaluate car sharing options, Ecological Indicators 72: 686-702. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.018

24. Saliara, K. (2014) Public transport integration: the case study of Thessaloniki, Greece. Transportation Research Procedia 4: 535-552. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.041

25. Shang, J.S., Tjader, Y., Ding, Y. (2004) A Unified Framework for Multicriteria Evaluation of Transportation Projects. IEEE transactions on engineering management 51 (3): 300 - 313. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2004.830848

26. SM. (2017) What is an indicator of sustainability? Sustainable measures. Open access: http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/node/89

27. Sodhi, B., Prabhakar, T.V. (2012) A Simplified Description of Fuzzy TOPSIS. Open access: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2939/30c4913d8d33362984e4fbbb3c25e2eced3e.pdf

28. SPUTNIC. (2009) Guidelines in market organization: public transport integration. UITP, International Association for Public Transport.

29. Sun, C.C. (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (12): 7745-7754. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.066

30. Tafidis, P., Sdoukopoulos, A., Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M. (2017) Sustainable urban mobility indicators: policy versus practice in the case of Greek cities. Transportation Research Procedia 24: 304-312. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.122

31. VTPI. (2008) Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

32. VTPI. (2016) Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

33. WBCSD. (2015) Methodology and indicator calculation method for sustainable urban mobility. World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

34. Zadeh, L.A. (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences 8: 199-249. DOI: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8

Transport and Telecommunication Journal

The Journal of Transport and Telecommunication Institute

Journal Information


Cite Score 2017: 1.21

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.294
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.539

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 147 147 39
PDF Downloads 65 65 33