Evaluation and Selection of Public Transportation Projects in Terms of Urban Sustainability Through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Methodology
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Brief Description of TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)
2.2. A Brief Description of the Examined Urban Public Transport Systems
2.2.1. Metro
2.2.2. Tram
2.2.3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
2.2.4. Monorail
3. Inventory of Evaluation Criteria, Suggested Alternatives’ Performance, and Proposed Methodological Framework
3.1. Inventory of Evaluation Criteria Based on International Literature Review
3.2. Suggested Performance Values of the Examined Urban Public Transport Systems with Regard to Each Criterion
- The integration, in terms of ground surface, is underground for a metro, overground for a monorail, and on the ground for a tram and BRT.
- The route length of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail is equal to 10–40 km, 5–20 km, 3–30 km, and 5–50 km (urban use), respectively.
- The distance between successive stops is equal to 500–1000 m for a metro, 200–800 m for a tram, 350–600 m for BRT, and 800–1500 m for a monorail.
- The commercial speed (run time) of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail is equal to 30–40 km/h, 12–30 km/h, 18–40 km/h and 15–40 km/h, respectively.
- The energy consumption of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail (expressed in kwh per passenger-kilometer-kwh/pkm) is equal to approximately 0.03, 0.008, 0.19, 0.07, respectively.
- The maximum transport system capacity (expressed in passengers/hour/direction) of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail is equal to approximately 45,000, 15,000, 15,000, and 12,500 (even 20,000 in certain cases), respectively.
- The travel time (first/last mile) of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail is equal to approximately 4 min, 0 min, 0 min, and 3 min, respectively.
- The headway values are the following: <15 min (usually 2–8 min and minimum 1 min) for a metro, <20 min (usually 5–15 min and minimum 90 s) for a tram, <30 min (usually 3–15 min and minimum headway of 20 s) for BRT, and <20 min (usually 3–15 min and minimum 1 min) for a monorail.
- The land take (width) for a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail equals almost zero for a metro, 6–7 for a tram, 7–8 for BRT, and 2–3 m for a monorail, respectively.
- The track horizontal alignment (minimum curve radius) of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail equals 150 m, 25 m, 90 m, 45 m, respectively.
- The vertical alignment (maximum gradient) (%) of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail equals 5%, 8%, 8%, 20%, respectively.
- The implementation cost (expressed in million euros per kilometer (MEUR/km) for a double track and including infrastructure and rolling stock) of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail is equal to 70–140, 15–35, 3–20, 30–90, respectively.
- The implementation time of a metro, tram, BRT, and monorail is equal to approximately 5–10 years, 2 years, 1–2 years, and 2 years, respectively, for a length of 10 km.
- A tram refers to a conventional system with cables (another evaluation may include a catenary-free system, as mentioned in Section 2.2).
- BRT moves with diesel fuel used by internal combustion engines, as this is a common practice.
3.3. The Steps of the Proposed Methodology and Integrating the Evaluation Criteria Tool and the Alternatives’ Performance Tool
- (a)
- The result (e.g., Net Present Value calculated for each alternative) of a CBA could constitute a criterion for the application of the proposed methodology;
- (b)
- A CBA could be executed for the, e.g., two alternatives found at the top of the final ranking, as derived from the application of the proposed methodology.
4. Case Study
- Metro is characterized by the highest performance with regard to environmental, strategic planning, and functional and operational criteria;
- Tram exhibits relatively high performance regarding environmental, economic, and strategic planning and functional and operational criteria;
- BRT is characterized by the highest performance in terms of social, economic, and design and construction criteria;
- Monorail exhibits relatively high performance regarding design and construction criteria.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
- It can result in direct exclusion from further evaluation of an urban transport system that does not meet one or more “binding” criteria for contracting authorities, thus saving time, effort, and costs.
- It can take into account the preferences and the—often conflicting—interests of different stakeholders, achieving a prompt compromise through a transparent process.
- It can complement CBA, either by integrating its result in the multi-criteria evaluation process as a separate criterion or by evaluating only the top-ranking alternatives through CBA, e.g., the first two in the final ranking.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Bank Blogs. Sustainable Transport for a Livable Future. 2023. Available online: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/sustainable-transport-livable-future (accessed on 24 May 2025).
- Ayan, H.; Bell, M.; Dissanayake, D. Investigating the Factors That Influence the Ridership of Light Rail Transit Systems Using Thematic Analysis of Academic Literature. Future Transp. 2025, 5, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Climate Change Website. Seven Ways Cities Can Take Climate Action. 9 April 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/news/seven-ways-cities-can-take-climate-action (accessed on 31 March 2025).
- UN Environment Programme Website. 2025. Available online: https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities-and-climate-change (accessed on 31 March 2025).
- European Parliament Website. 2024. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20190313STO31218/co2-emissions-from-cars-facts-and-figures-infographics (accessed on 5 April 2025).
- European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 Establishing the Framework for Achieving Climate Neutrality and Amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1119 (accessed on 23 May 2025).
- European Commission Website. Striving to Be the First Climate-Neutral Continent. 2025. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 23 May 2025).
- Liu, X.; Payakkamas, P.; Dijk, M.; de Kraker, J. GIS Models for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning: Current Use, Future Needs and Potentials. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 384–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassi, A.M.; Pallaske, G.; Niño, N.; Casier, L. Does Sustainable Transport Deliver Societal Value? Exploring Concepts, Methods, and Impacts with Case Studies. Future Transp. 2022, 2, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasiadou, K.; Demiridis, N.; Pyrgidis, C.; Ricci, S. Multi-criteria selection of urban guided transport systems: A sustainable mobility approach. Ing. Ferrov. 2022, 77, 197–218. [Google Scholar]
- Pyrgidis, C.; Tsipi, D.; Dolianitis, A.; Barbagli, M. An overview of the metros, trams and monorails in revenue service and under construction worldwide at the end of 2019. Ing. Ferrov. 2021, 2, 101–122. [Google Scholar]
- Aprigliano, V.; Seriani, S.; Toro, C.; Rojas, G.; Fukushi, M.; Cardoso, M.; Silva, M.A.V.D.; Cucumides, C.; de Oliveira, U.R.; Henríquez, C.; et al. Built Environment Effect on Metro Ridership in Metropolitan Area of Valparaíso, Chile, under Different Influence Area Approaches. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frutos-Bernal, E.; Martín del Rey, Á.; Mariñas-Collado, I.; Santos-Martín, M.T. An Analysis of Travel Patterns in Barcelona Metro Using Tucker3 Decomposition. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasiou, E.K.; Nikolos, A. Technical and Operational Applicability Verification for a BRT System. Master’s Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Trubia, S.; Severino, A.; Curto, S.; Arena, F.; Pau, G. On BRT Spread around the World: Analysis of Some Particular Cities. Infrastructures 2020, 5, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macharis, C.; Bernardini, A. Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transp. Policy 2015, 37, 177–186. [Google Scholar]
- Zak, J.; Kruszynski, M. Application of AHP and ELECTRE III/IV methods to multiple level, multiple criteria evaluation of urban transportation projects. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 10, 820–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasiadou, K. Sustainable Mobility Driven Prioritization of New Vehicle Technologies, Based on a New Decision-Aiding Methodology. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, D.; Ryan, L. Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. environment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2011, 31, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beria, P.; Maltese, I.; Mariotti, I. Multi-criteria versus Cost Benefit Analysis: A comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2012, 4, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damart, S.; Roy, B. The uses of cost–benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France. Transp. Policy 2009, 16, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Wee, B. How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transp. Policy 2012, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basbas, S.; Makridakis, C.M. A review of the contribution of multi-criteria analysis to the evaluation process of transportation projects. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plann. 2007, 2, 387–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inturri, G.; Le Pira, M.; Giuffrida, N.; Ignaccolo, M.; Pluchino, A.; Rapisarda, A.; D’Angelo, R. Multi-agent simulation for planning and designing new shared mobility services. Res. Transp. Econ. 2019, 73, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Išoraitė, M.; Jarašūnienė, A.; Samašonok, K. Assessment of the Impact of Advertising in Promoting Sustainable Mobility and Multimodality in the Urban Transport System. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 210–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Lobo, A.; Benavente, J.; Monzon, A. Dynamic Management Tool for Improving Passenger Experience at Transport Interchanges. Future Transp. 2025, 5, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Omrani, H.; Gerber, P. Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects. Transp. Res. Part A 2018, 116, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Ania, A.; Rivero Gutiérrez, L.; De Vicente Oliva, M.A. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis of Sustainable Urban Public Transport Systems. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivero Gutiérrez, L.; De Vicente Oliva, M.A.; Romero-Ania, A. Economic, Ecological and Social Analysis Based on DEA and MCDA for the Management of the Madrid Urban Public Transportation System. Mathematics 2022, 10, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues da Silva, R.; Ditzel Santos, G.; Dalmarino, S. A Multi-Criteria Approach for Urban Mobility Project Selection in Medium-Sized Cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 86, 104096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malinovsky, V.; Subrt, T. Multi-Criteria-Based Optimization Model for Sustainable Mobility and Transport. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsamboulas, D.A. A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments. Transp. Policy 2007, 14, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making; Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 186; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1981; ISBN 978-3-642-48318-9. [Google Scholar]
- STRMTG Website. 2023. Available online: https://www.strmtg.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/en/urban-guided-transport-r25.html (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- Pyrgidis, C. Railway Transportation Systems Design, Construction and Operation, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0367494230. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, D.; Zhou, Z.; Weng, M.; Broere, W.; Cui, J. Metro systems: Construction, operation and impacts. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2024, 143, 105373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, S.; Yang, H.; Lu, X.; Zhang, F.; Wang, P. Exploring the Spatiotemporal Patterns of Passenger Flows in Expanding Urban Metros: A Case Study of Shenzhen. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Xu, R.; Shi, T.; Deng, X.; Liu, Y.; Di, D.; Zhao, C.; Liu, G. Fine-Grained Metro-Trip Detection from Cellular Trajectory Data Using Local and Global Spatial–Temporal Characteristics. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrieri, M. Tramways in Urban Areas: An Overview on Safety at Road Intersections. Urban Rail Transit. 2018, 4, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Federal Transit Administration Website. Bus Rapid Transit. 2015. Available online: https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-rapid-transit (accessed on 22 April 2025).
- Deng, T.; Nelson, J. Recent developments in bus rapid transit: A review of the literature. Transp. Rev. 2011, 31, 69–96. [Google Scholar]
- Cervero, R. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport; Berkley Institute or Urban and Regional Development, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013; Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sn2f5wc (accessed on 20 March 2025).
- Rodriguez, D.A.; Vergel-Tovar, E.; Camargo, W.F. Land development impacts of BRT in a sample of stops in Quito and Bogotá. Transp. Policy 2016, 51, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marletto, G.; Mameli, F. A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2012, 4, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mameli, F.; Marletto, G. Can National Survey Data be Used to Select a Core Set of Sustainability Indicators for Monitoring Urban Mobility Policies? Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2014, 8, 336–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirikijpanichkul, A.; Winyoopadit, S.; Jenpanitsu, A. A multi-actor multi-criteria transit system selection model: A case study of Bangkok feeder system. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 3736–3755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perveen, S.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Yigitcanlar, T. Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: A Delphi approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, P.; Wirasinghe, S.C.; Kattan, L.; de Barros, A. Monorails for sustainable transportation—A review. In Proceedings of the CSCE 2014 General Conference—Congrès Général 2014 de la SCGC, Halifax, NS, Canada, 28–31 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cavalcanti Cde, O.; Limont, M.; Dziedzic, M.; Fernandes, V. Sustainability assessment methodology of urban mobility projects. Land Use Policy 2017, 60, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perveen, S.; Kamruzzaman, M.D.; Yigitcanlar, T. What to assess to model the transport impacts of urban growth? A Delphi approach to examine the space–time suitability of transport indicators. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2018, 13, 597–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambas, M.E.L.; Giuffrida, N.; Ignaccolo, M.; Inturri, G. Comparison between Bus Rapid Transit and Light-Rail Transit Systems: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Urban Transp. 2017, 176, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamurcu, M.; Eren, T. Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yannis, G.; Kopsacheili, A.; Dragomanovits, A.; Petraki, V. State-of-the-art review on multi-criteria decision-making in the transport sector. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 7, 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.-S. Efficiency Analysis of Tramways in the Metropolitan Areas in South Korea: Focusing on the Daejeon Metropolitan Area. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 1223–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volvo Website. 2024. Available online: https://www.volvobuses.com/en-en/our-offering/bus-rapid-transit.html (accessed on 4 March 2025).
- Czerepicki, A.; Krukowicz, T.; Górka, A.; Szustek, J. Traffic Light Priority for Trams in Warsaw as a Tool for Transport Policy and Reduction of Energy Consumption. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Borhan, M.N.; Osman, M.H.; Khairuddin, F.H.; Zakaria, N.M. An Empirical Study of Passengers’ Perceived Satisfaction with Monorail Service Quality: Case of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, L.; Wittowsky, D.; Proff, H. Multi-method analysis to identify criteria interrelations for sustainability assessment of urban transportation services. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 412, 137416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermote, L.; Macharis, C.; Hollevoet, J.; Putman, K. Participatory evaluation of regional light rail scenarios: A Flemish case on sustainable mobility and land-use. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 37, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrieri, M. Catenary-Free Tramway Systems: Functional and Cost–Benefit Analysis for a Metropolitan Area. Urban Rail Transit. 2019, 5, 289–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Pan, B.; Xie, Z.; Shao, M.; Shi, M.; Tian, X. Evaluation of Different Work Zone Road-Occupation Schemes for Monorail Construction. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 13200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taillandier, C.; Dijk, M.; Vialleix, M. Back to the Future: “De-Transition” to Low-Car Cities. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 808–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broniewicz, E.; Ogrodnik, K. Multi-criteria analysis of transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part D 2020, 83, 102351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morillas, J.M.B.; Gozalo, G.R.; González, D.M.; Moraga, P.A.; Vílchez-Gómez, R. Noise Pollution and Urban Planning. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2018, 4, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papánová, Z.; Papán, D.; Ižvolt, L.; Dobeš, P. Modernization of Heavy Loaded Tram Radial Effect on Noise and Vibration. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Z.; Bai, X.; Huang, J.; Huang, J.; Wu, Z. Generation and Characteristics of Construction Noise in Rail Transit Engineering Enclosure Structures. Buildings 2024, 14, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamurcu, M.; Eren, T. An Application of Multicriteria Decision-making for the Evaluation of Alternative Monorail Routes. Mathematics 2019, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrieri, M.; Parla, G.; Khanmohamadi, M.; Neduzha, L. Asphalt Pavement Damage Detection through Deep Learning Technique and Cost-Effective Equipment: A Case Study in Urban Roads Crossed by Tramway Lines. Infrastructures 2024, 9, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, F.; Li, C.; Liao, Q.; Yan, Y.; Wu, C.; Jiang, L. Evaluation of the Dynamic Amplification Factors of a Monorail Tourism Transit System Based on Probability Statistics. Mathematics 2024, 12, 1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, X.; Schonfeld, P. Concurrent Optimization of Rail Transit Alignments and Station Locations. Urban Rail Transit. 2016, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Górka, A.; Czerepicki, A.; Krukowicz, T. The Impact of Priority in Coordinated Traffic Lights on Tram Energy Consumption. Energies 2024, 17, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, A.D.D.; Bradaschia, F.; Rech, C.; Caldeira, C.A.; Neto, R.C.; Azevedo, G.M.S. Nine-Switch Multiport Converter Applied to Battery-Powered Tramway with Reduced Leakage Current. Energies 2024, 17, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, T.; Zou, Y.; Chen, H. Evaluation of urban public transport priority performance based on the improved TOPSIS method: A case study of Wuhan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Habahbeh, O.M.; Al-Sous, H.; Al-Omari, M. Optimum Transportation System for the City of Amman; Technical Report; Mechatronics Engineering Department, The University of Jordan: Amman, Jordan, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Cyril, A.; Mulangi, R.H.; George, V. Performance Optimization of Public Transport Using Integrated AHP–GP Methodology. Urban Rail Transit. 2019, 5, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Yan, F.; Niu, R.; Xiang, N. Identification of causal scenarios and application of leading indicators in the interconnection mode of urban rail transit based on STPA. J. Rail Transp. Plan. Manag. 2021, 17, 100238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulková, Z.; Škorupa, M.; Kendra, M.; Gašparík, J.; Zitrický, V. Structure of Public Passenger Transport Lines in the Region of Prešov in Slovakia to Support the Development of an Integrated Transport System. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 7128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Z.; Hu, S.; Lin, H. Flow Pattern and Escape Hazards of People from Flood Intrusion into the Staircase of Underground Spaces with Multiple Rest Platforms. Buildings 2024, 14, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.-A.; Huang, X.-Y.; Wang, J.-F.; Ni, Y.-Q.; Ran, S.-C.; Li, J.-P.; Zhang, J. Concise Historic Overview of Rail Corrugation Studies: From Formation Mechanisms to Detection Methods. Buildings 2024, 14, 968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, M.; Ali, N.; Aslam, A.B.; Javid, M.A.; Hussain, S.A. Factors affecting the mode choice behavior before and during COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 11, 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, L.; Li, J.; Sun, J. How to promote sustainable travel behavior in the post COVID-19 period: A perspective from customized bus services. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2023, 12, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahac, M.; Ahac, S.; Majstorović, I.; Stepan, Ž. Contribution to Rail System Revitalization, Development, and Integration Projects Evaluation: A Case Study of the Zadar Urban Area. Infrastructures 2024, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamurcu MAlagas, H.M.; Eren, T. Selection of rail system projects with Analytic Hierarchy Process and goal programming. Sigma J. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2017, 8, 291–302. [Google Scholar]
- Lois, D.; Monzón, A.; Hernández, S. Analysis of satisfaction factors at urban transport interchanges: Measuring travellers’ attitudes to information, security and waiting. Transp. Policy 2018, 67, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filabadi, M.D.; Asadi, A.; Giahi, R.; Ardakani, A.T.; Azadeh, A. A New Stochastic Model for Bus Rapid Transit Scheduling with Uncertainty. Future Transp. 2022, 2, 165–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordfjærn, T.; Rundmo, T. Transport risk evaluations associated with past exposure to adverse security events in public transport. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 53, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delivopoulos, G.; Kritikos, P.; Politis, I. Problems Caused to City Operation Due to Metro Construction—Proposals; Technical Chamber of Greece, Section of Central Macedonia: Athens, Greece, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, B.; Li, W.; Lownes, N.; Zhang, C. Estimating the Impacts of Proximity to Public Transportation on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Analysis for Hartford and Stamford Areas, Connecticut. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chwiałkowski, C.; Zydroń, A. The Impact of Urban Public Transport on Residential Transaction Prices: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuppi, F.; Vignali, V.; Lantieri, C.; Rapagnà, L.; Dimola, N.; Galasso, T. High density European Rail Traffic Management System (HD-ERTMS) for urban railway nodes: The case study of Rome. J. Rail Transp. Plan. Manag. 2021, 17, 100232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, J.; Singer, M.; Merlin, L.; Grengs, J. Apples to apples: Comparing BRT and light rail while avoiding the “BRT-Lite” trap. Transp. Policy 2018, 69, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sperling, M.; Kurschilgen, T.; Schumacher, P. Concept of a Peripheral-Free Electrified Monorail System (PEMS) for Flexible Material Handling in Intralogistics. Inventions 2024, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumana, H.K.; Bolia, N.B. Improvement in direct bus services through route planning. Transp. Policy 2019, 81, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grande-Ayala, C.E. An Assessment of Accessibility from a Socially Sustainable Urban Mobility Approach in Mass Transit Projects: Contributions from the Northern Central American Triangle. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgson, P.; Potter, S.; Warren, J.; Gillingwater, D. Can bus really be the new tram? Res. Transp. Econ. 2013, 39, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambertucci, F. Archaeo-mobility. Integrating archaeological heritage with everyday life. Procedia Eng. 2016, 165, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Far East Mobility Website. 2020. Available online: https://www.fareast.mobi/en/brt/stages (accessed on 22 January 2025).
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Framework for Transit Equity: Metrobus Service Guidelines; Executive Committee: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.wmata.com/about/board/meetings/board-pdfs/upload/4A-Metrobus-Service-Guidelines-CORR.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
- von Behren, S.; Chlond, B.; Vortisch, P. Exploring the role of individuals’ attitudes in the use of on-demand mobility services for commuting—A case study in eight Chinese cities. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 11, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, T.; Li, M.; Zhou, Y. Measuring Metro Accessibility: An Exploratory Study of Wuhan Based on Multi-Source Urban Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- L’Hostis, A.; Soulas, C.; Vulturescu, B. A Multi-criteria approach for choosing a new public transport system linked to urban development: A method developed in the Bahn. Ville project for a tram-train scenario in the Saint-Étienne region. RTS Rech. Transp. Sécurité IFSTTAR 2017, 2016, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inturri, G.; Giuffrida, N.; Le Pira, M.; Fazio, M.; Ignaccolo, M. Linking Public Transport User Satisfaction with Service Accessibility for Sustainable Mobility Planning. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saputra, H.Y.; Radam, I.F. Accessibility model of BRT stop locations using Geographically Weighted regression (GWR): A case study in Banjarmasin, Indonesia. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2023, 12, 779–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- European Environmental Agency Website. Transport and Mobility. 10 February 2025. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/transport-and-mobility (accessed on 16 June 2025).
- Danilevičius, A.; Karpenko, M.; Křivánek, V. Research on the noise pollution from different vehicle categories in the urban area. Transport 2023, 38, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EUR-Lex Website. The New EU Urban Mobility Framework, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM/2021/811 Final. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0811 (accessed on 16 June 2025).
- Karpenko, M.; Prentkovskis, O.; Skačkauskas, P. Analysing the impact of electric kick-scooters on drivers: Vibration and frequency transmission during the ride on different types of urban pavements. Eksploat. Niezawodn. Maint. Reliab. 2025, 27, 199893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Mobility and Transport, Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). 2024. Available online: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/infrastructure-and-investment/trans-european-transport-network-ten-t_en (accessed on 16 June 2025).
- European Commission Website. European Bus Rapid Transit of 2030: Electrified, Automated, Connected. 2025. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101095882 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
- ZATRAN Website. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). 2025. Available online: https://www.zatran.com/en/technology/bus-rapid-transit-brt/ (accessed on 27 June 2025).
- Yang, J.; He, F.; Wang, C. Deployment of autonomous driving on bus rapid transit lanes: Synergy between autonomous vehicle speed and bus timetables. Front. Eng. Manag. 2024, 11, 633–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Categories | Criteria | Description | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental | Air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions | PMX, COVNM, NOX, CO, and CO2 emissions | [2,28,29,36,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62] |
Noise pollution | Noise generated by the operation of transport systems, disturbing citizens | [44,45,46,48,50,51,52,53,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] | |
Visual intrusion | Degradation or improvement of the landscape due to transport (e.g., tramway cables, signaling equipment, vehicles, track superstructure, etc.) | [10,35,46,52,53,67] | |
Vibrations | Vibrations generated by the operation of transport systems, harassing people and buildings | [10,65,66,68,69] | |
Energy consumption | Energy consumption of the transport system | [48,50,51,53,54,56,58,70,71,72] | |
Land take | Land consumption due to transport infrastructure | [14,35,44,45,46,48,50,59,61,73] | |
Social | Safety | Transport safety relating to traffic accidents both at frequency and at severity levels, evacuation difficulty, etc. | [2,36,44,45,46,48,49,50,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,65,67,69,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82] |
Security | Exposure of transport means users or employees are exposed to delinquent/criminal behavior (robbery, theft, terrorist attacks, etc.) | [57,74,80,83,84,85,86] | |
Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (construction phase) | Impact on residents, land use, the economy, motorized and non-motorized transport, etc., during construction phase | [10,35,46,49,66,87] | |
Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (operation phase) | Impact on residents, land use, the economy, motorized and non-motorized transport, etc., during operation phase | [10,35,36,46,49,66,68,71,88,89] | |
Public acceptance | Approval or support of the project by the community | [10,52,53] | |
Economic | Initial investment/Implementation cost | Costs relating to design, construction, rolling stock acquisition, signaling equipment, expropriation, etc. | [28,46,48,49,51,52,53,54,55,59,60,67,69,70,74,83,90,91,92] |
Operation and maintenance cost | Costs relating to the operation, management, and maintenance of the system | [28,29,35,46,48,51,52,53,54,55,58,60,68,70,74,75,90,92,93] | |
Strategic planning | Integration in terms of ground surface | Placement of the transport system with regard to the ground level (underground, elevated, or at ground level) | [35,36,61,78,92] |
Spatial and urban development of the area | Contribution of the construction and operation of the transport system to the spatial and urban development of the area | [36,44,45,47,53,54,55,59,82,88] | |
Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | Contribution of the construction and operation of the transport system to the revitalization and redesign of the area | [44,45,54,59,82,88] | |
Discouragement of private car use in the area | Contribution of the transport system to the discouragement of private car use and to the promotion of public transport in the area | [36,44,45,47,54,55,57,59,62,94] | |
Design and Construction | Track horizontal alignment difficulties | Difficulties related to track horizontal alignment with regard to the minimum curve radius | [10,14,35,70] |
Track vertical alignment difficulties | Difficulties related to vertical alignment with regard to maximum gradient | [10,14,48,70] | |
Route length | Length of the route connecting the origin and destination point | [10,48,82,95] | |
Constructability of stops/stations | Easiness of constructing stops/stations (flexibility related with geometric integration and construction) | [14,35,46,48] | |
Availability of depot facilities | Availability of required facilities for parking, servicing, system maintenance, administration buildings, staff facilities, etc. | [10,14,35,73] | |
Technology availability in the market | Easiness of finding the required technology (of infrastructure and rolling stock) in the industry market | [10,35,77] | |
Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | Barriers related to archeological findings during the construction phase | [10,87,96] | |
Implementation/construction time | Time required for the completion of the project | [53,55,67,83,87,97] | |
Flexibility in line/network expansion | Easiness of expanding the line/network in the future | [46,67] | |
Functional and Operational | Maximum transport system capacity | Maximum passenger capacity for each route during operating hours in a day | [13,14,36,46,48,51,55,67,74,75,83,85,90] |
Travel time (first/last mile time) | Door-to-door time | [2,50,52,53,55,56,59,70,74,81] | |
Commercial speed (run time) | Time required for a vehicle to make one trip along the whole length of the route | [13,14,35,36,51,57,67,69,75] | |
Service reliability | The ability of a transport system to provide consistent service over a period of time, with a comparison between real and scheduled time (this may be affected by the weather, congestion, number of passengers, etc.) | [36,46,48,54,60,74,75,77,79,85,98] | |
Difficulty with maintenance | Difficulty in maintaining the transport system (e.g., monorail may be characterized by relatively high difficulty in maintenance) | [10,48,55,82,92] | |
Travel comfort | Dynamic comfort, space comfort, and staying comfort during traveling | [2,36,46,54,57,65,67,74,77,80,81,99] | |
Accessibility | Easiness of reaching bus stops and accessibility relating to people with impairments | [2,35,46,49,52,53,54,57,60,67,75,94,100,101,102,103] | |
Frequency/headway | Frequency is the rate at which transit units pass a fixed point, usually expressed per hour; it is the inverse of headway but is usually expressed in minutes | [2,35,46,48,57,67,70,74,77,90,98] | |
Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | Complementarity degree with other means of transport, walking, cycling, park-and-ride solutions, etc. | [36,48,49,51,57,59,70,94,103] |
Category | Criteria | Performance of Each System with Regard to Each Criterion (1–10 Scale, Where 1 → Worst Rating and 10 → Best Rating) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metro | Tram | BRT | Monorail | ||
Environmental | Air pollution and GHG emissions | 9 | 7 | 2 | 7 |
Noise pollution | 9 | 3 | 7 | 5 | |
Visual intrusion | 10 | 6 | 6 | 2 | |
Vibrations | 4 | 4 | 8 | 6 | |
Energy consumption | 8 | 9 | 2 | 6 | |
Land take | 10 | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
Social | Safety | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
Security | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
Impact on residents, land use, economy, other transport modes, etc. (construction phase) | 3 | 2 | 8 | 3 | |
Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (operation phase) | 8 | 2 | 9 | 6 | |
Public acceptance | 9 | 7 | 7 | 4 | |
Economic | Initial investment/Implementation cost | 2 | 6 | 9 | 4 |
Operation and maintenance cost | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
Strategic planning | Integration in terms of ground surface | 9 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Spatial and urban development of the area | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | |
Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | 8 | 9 | 2 | 3 | |
Discouragement of private car use in the area | 8 | 9 | 7 | 4 | |
Design and Construction | Track horizontal alignment difficulties (minimum curve radius) | 3 | 9 | 8 | 7 |
Vertical alignment difficulties (maximum gradient) | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | |
Route length | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Constructability of stops/stations | 2 | 4 | 9 | 5 | |
Availability of depot facilities | 5 | 2 | 9 | 5 | |
Technology availability in the market | 10 | 10 | 9 | 6 | |
Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | 2 | 7 | 10 | 10 | |
Implementation/construction time | 2 | 7 | 10 | 7 | |
Flexibility in line/network expansion | 9 | 3 | 3 | 5 | |
Functional and Operational | Maximum transport system capacity | 10 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Travel time (first/last mile time) | 2 | 9 | 9 | 4 | |
Commercial speed (run time) | 10 | 4 | 2 | 6 | |
Service reliability | 8 | 5 | 2 | 8 | |
Difficulty in maintenance | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 | |
Travel comfort | 5 | 7 | 4 | 7 | |
Accessibility | 6 | 9 | 10 | 4 | |
Frequency/headway | 8 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |
Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 |
Criteria Category | Category Weight | Criteria | Criterion Weight | Final Criterion Weight (Category Weight × Criterion Weight) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental | 0.25 | Air pollution and GHG emissions | 0.2500 | 0.0625 |
Noise pollution | 0.2000 | 0.0500 | ||
Visual intrusion | 0.1000 | 0.0250 | ||
Vibrations | 0.1000 | 0.0250 | ||
Energy consumption | 0.2500 | 0.0625 | ||
Land take | 0.1000 | 0.0250 | ||
Social | 0.20 | Safety | 0.2500 | 0.0500 |
Security | 0.1500 | 0.0300 | ||
Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (construction phase) | 0.2000 | 0.0400 | ||
Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (operation phase) | 0.2500 | 0.0500 | ||
Public acceptance | 0.1500 | 0.0300 | ||
Economic | 0.15 | Initial investment/Implementation cost | 0.6000 | 0.0900 |
Operation and maintenance cost | 0.4000 | 0.0600 | ||
Strategic planning | 0.10 | Integration in terms of ground surface | 0.2500 | 0.0250 |
Spatial and urban development of the area | 0.2500 | 0.0250 | ||
Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | 0.2500 | 0.0250 | ||
Discouragement of private car use in the area | 0.2500 | 0.0250 | ||
Design and Construction | 0.10 | Track horizontal alignment difficulties (minimum curve radius) | 0.0500 | 0.0050 |
Vertical alignment difficulties (maximum gradient) | 0.0500 | 0.0050 | ||
Route length | 0.1000 | 0.0100 | ||
Constructability of stops/stations | 0.1000 | 0.0100 | ||
Availability of depot facilities | 0.1000 | 0.0100 | ||
Technology availability in the market | 0.1000 | 0.0100 | ||
Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | 0.1000 | 0.0100 | ||
Implementation/construction time | 0.2000 | 0.0200 | ||
Flexibility in line/network expansion | 0.2000 | 0.0200 | ||
Functional and Operational | 0.20 | Maximum transport system capacity | 0.2000 | 0.0400 |
Travel time (first/last mile time) | 0.1000 | 0.0200 | ||
Commercial speed (run time) | 0.1000 | 0.0200 | ||
Service reliability | 0.1000 | 0.0200 | ||
Difficulty in maintenance | 0.0500 | 0.0100 | ||
Travel comfort | 0.1000 | 0.0200 | ||
Accessibility | 0.1500 | 0.0300 | ||
Frequency/headway | 0.1000 | 0.0200 | ||
Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | 0.1000 | 0.0200 |
Air Pollution and GHG Emissions | Noise Pollution | Visual Intrusion | Vibrations | Energy Consumption | Land Take | Safety | Security | Impact on Residents, Land Use, the Economy, Other Transport Modes, etc. (Construction Phase) | Impact on Residents, Land Use, the Economy, Other Transport Modes, etc. (Operation Phase) | Public Acceptance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metro | 9 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 9 | |
Tram | 7 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 7 | |
BRT | 2 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | |
Monorail | 7 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 4 | |
Initial investment/Implementation cost | Operation and maintenance cost | Integration in terms of ground surface | Spatial and urban development of the area | Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | Discouragement of private car use in the area | Track horizontal alignment difficulties (minimum curve radius) | Vertical alignment difficulties (maximum gradient) | Route length | Constructability of stops/stations | Availability of depot facilities | Technology availability in the market | |
Metro | 2 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 10 |
Tram | 6 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 10 |
BRT | 9 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
Monorail | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | Implementation/construction time | Flexibility in line/network expansion | Maximum transport system capacity | Travel time (first/last mile time) | Commercial speed (run time) | Service reliability | Difficulty in maintenance | Travel comfort | Accessibility | Frequency/headway | Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | |
Metro | 2 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 |
Tram | 7 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 8 |
BRT | 10 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 8 |
Monorail | 10 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
Air Pollution and GHG Emissions | Noise Pollution | Visual Intrusion | Vibrations | Energy Consumption | Land Take | Safety | Security | Impact on Residents, Land Use, the Economy, Other Transport Modes, etc. (Construction Phase) | Impact on Residents, Land Use, the Economy, Other Transport Modes, etc. (Operation Phase) | Public Acceptance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metro | 0.6653 | 0.7028 | 0.7538 | 0.3482 | 0.5882 | 0.7581 | 0.5431 | 0.3974 | 0.3235 | 0.5882 | 0.6445 | |
Tram | 0.5175 | 0.2343 | 0.4523 | 0.3482 | 0.6617 | 0.3032 | 0.5431 | 0.5298 | 0.2157 | 0.1470 | 0.5013 | |
BRT | 0.1478 | 0.5466 | 0.4523 | 0.6963 | 0.1470 | 0.2274 | 0.5431 | 0.5298 | 0.8627 | 0.6617 | 0.5013 | |
Monorail | 0.5175 | 0.3904 | 0.1508 | 0.5222 | 0.4411 | 0.5307 | 0.3394 | 0.5298 | 0.3235 | 0.4411 | 0.2864 | |
Initial investment/Implementation cost | Operation and maintenance cost | Integration in terms of ground surface | Spatial and urban development of the area | Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | Discouragement of private car use in the area | Track horizontal alignment difficulties (minimum curve radius) | Vertical alignment difficulties (maximum gradient) | Route length | Constructability of stops/stations | Availability of depot facilities | Technology availability in the market | |
Metro | 0.1709 | 0.3086 | 0.7206 | 0.6917 | 0.6364 | 0.5521 | 0.2106 | 0.2535 | 0.6786 | 0.1782 | 0.4303 | 0.5617 |
Tram | 0.5126 | 0.3086 | 0.4003 | 0.5534 | 0.7160 | 0.6211 | 0.6317 | 0.4226 | 0.4241 | 0.3563 | 0.1721 | 0.5617 |
BRT | 0.7689 | 0.7715 | 0.4003 | 0.2075 | 0.1591 | 0.4830 | 0.5615 | 0.4226 | 0.4241 | 0.8018 | 0.7746 | 0.5055 |
Monorail | 0.3417 | 0.4629 | 0.4003 | 0.4150 | 0.2387 | 0.2760 | 0.4913 | 0.7606 | 0.4241 | 0.4454 | 0.4303 | 0.3370 |
Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | Implementation/construction time | Flexibility in line/network expansion | Maximum transport system capacity | Travel time (first/last mile time) | Commercial speed (run time) | Service reliability | Difficulty in maintenance | Travel comfort | Accessibility | Frequency/headway | Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | |
Metro | 0.1257 | 0.1407 | 0.8082 | 0.8422 | 0.1482 | 0.8006 | 0.6385 | 0.3730 | 0.4241 | 0.3931 | 0.7016 | 0.5547 |
Tram | 0.4401 | 0.4925 | 0.2694 | 0.3369 | 0.6671 | 0.3203 | 0.3990 | 0.4663 | 0.5937 | 0.5896 | 0.3508 | 0.5547 |
BRT | 0.6287 | 0.7036 | 0.2694 | 0.3369 | 0.6671 | 0.1601 | 0.1596 | 0.6528 | 0.3393 | 0.6551 | 0.4385 | 0.5547 |
Monorail | 0.6287 | 0.4925 | 0.4490 | 0.2526 | 0.2965 | 0.4804 | 0.6385 | 0.4663 | 0.5937 | 0.2620 | 0.4385 | 0.2774 |
Air Pollution and GHG Emissions | Noise Pollution | Visual Intrusion | Vibrations | Energy Consumption | Land Take | Safety | Security | Impact on Residents, Land Use, the Economy, Other Transport Modes, etc. (Construction Phase) | Impact on Residents, Land Use, the Economy, Other Transport Modes, etc. (Operation Phase) | Public Acceptance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metro | 0.0416 | 0.0351 | 0.0188 | 0.0087 | 0.0368 | 0.0190 | 0.0272 | 0.0119 | 0.0129 | 0.0294 | 0.0193 | |
Tram | 0.0323 | 0.0117 | 0.0113 | 0.0087 | 0.0414 | 0.0076 | 0.0272 | 0.0159 | 0.0086 | 0.0074 | 0.0150 | |
BRT | 0.0092 | 0.0273 | 0.0113 | 0.0174 | 0.0092 | 0.0057 | 0.0272 | 0.0159 | 0.0345 | 0.0331 | 0.0150 | |
Monorail | 0.0323 | 0.0195 | 0.0038 | 0.0131 | 0.0276 | 0.0133 | 0.0170 | 0.0159 | 0.0129 | 0.0221 | 0.0086 | |
Initial investment/Implementation cost | Operation and maintenance cost | Integration in terms of ground surface | Spatial and urban development of the area | Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | Discouragement of private car use in the area | Track horizontal alignment difficulties (minimum curve radius) | Vertical alignment difficulties (maximum gradient) | Route length | Constructability of stops/stations | Availability of depot facilities | Technology availability in the market | |
Metro | 0.0154 | 0.0185 | 0.0180 | 0.0173 | 0.0159 | 0.0138 | 0.0011 | 0.0013 | 0.0068 | 0.0018 | 0.0043 | 0.0056 |
Tram | 0.0461 | 0.0185 | 0.0100 | 0.0138 | 0.0179 | 0.0155 | 0.0032 | 0.0021 | 0.0042 | 0.0036 | 0.0017 | 0.0056 |
BRT | 0.0692 | 0.0463 | 0.0100 | 0.0052 | 0.0040 | 0.0121 | 0.0028 | 0.0021 | 0.0042 | 0.0080 | 0.0077 | 0.0051 |
Monorail | 0.0308 | 0.0278 | 0.0100 | 0.0104 | 0.0060 | 0.0069 | 0.0025 | 0.0038 | 0.0042 | 0.0045 | 0.0043 | 0.0034 |
Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | Implementation/construction time | Flexibility in line/network expansion | Maximum transport system capacity | Travel time (first/last mile time) | Commercial speed (run time) | Service reliability | Difficulty in maintenance | Travel comfort | Accessibility | Frequency/headway | Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | |
Metro | 0.0013 | 0.0028 | 0.0162 | 0.0337 | 0.0030 | 0.0160 | 0.0128 | 0.0037 | 0.0085 | 0.0118 | 0.0140 | 0.0111 |
Tram | 0.0044 | 0.0099 | 0.0054 | 0.0135 | 0.0133 | 0.0064 | 0.0080 | 0.0047 | 0.0119 | 0.0177 | 0.0070 | 0.0111 |
BRT | 0.0063 | 0.0141 | 0.0054 | 0.0135 | 0.0133 | 0.0032 | 0.0032 | 0.0065 | 0.0068 | 0.0197 | 0.0088 | 0.0111 |
Monorail | 0.0063 | 0.0099 | 0.0090 | 0.0101 | 0.0059 | 0.0096 | 0.0128 | 0.0047 | 0.0119 | 0.0079 | 0.0088 | 0.0055 |
Si+ | Si− | ci+ | Ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Metro | 0.0683 | 0.0702 | 0.5067 | 2 |
Tram | 0.0664 | 0.0588 | 0.4696 | 3 |
BRT | 0.0604 | 0.0781 | 0.5637 | 1 |
Monorail | 0.0686 | 0.0435 | 0.3880 | 4 |
Criteria Category | Category Weight | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Social | 0.20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Economic | 0.15 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Strategic planning | 0.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Design and Construction | 0.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Functional and Operational | 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Transport system | TOPSIS ci+ values and ranking | ||||||
Metro | 0.5067 (2) | 0.8422 (1) | 0.5476 (2) | 0.0000 (4) | 0.8838 (1) | 0.4423 (3) | 0.6871 (1) |
Tram | 0.4696 (3) | 0.5741 (2) | 0.2567 (4) | 0.4600 (2) | 0.6798 (2) | 0.3745 (4) | 0.4208 (2) |
BRT | 0.5637 (1) | 0.2848 (4) | 0.8999 (1) | 1.0000 (1) | 0.2023 (4) | 0.5768 (1) | 0.3925 (3) |
Monorail | 0.3880 (4) | 0.5293 (3) | 0.3580 (3) | 0.2961 (3) | 0.2346 (3) | 0.5045 (2) | 0.3095 (4) |
Transport System | Original Analysis | Environmental Criteria | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Original Analysis | Air Pollution and GHG Emissions | Noise Pollution | Visual Intrusion | Vibrations | Energy Consumption | Land Take | |||
Metro | 0.5067 (2) | 0.6703 (1) | 0.6509 (2) | 0.7000 (1) | 0.2971 (3) | 0.6308 (2) | 0.6753 (1) | ||
Tram | 0.4696 (3) | 0.5931 (2) | 0.2457 (4) | 0.4747 (3) | 0.2888 (4) | 0.6958 (1) | 0.2673 (4) | ||
BRT | 0.5637 (1) | 0.3604 (4) | 0.6725 (1) | 0.5614 (2) | 0.7633 (1) | 0.3616 (4) | 0.3551 (3) | ||
Monorail | 0.3880 (4) | 0.5719 (3) | 0.3291 (3) | 0.1542 (4) | 0.4089 (2) | 0.4874 (3) | 0.4907 (2) | ||
Transport system | Social criteria | ||||||||
Safety | Security | Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (construction phase) | Impact on residents, land use, the economy, other transport modes, etc. (operation phase) | Public acceptance | |||||
Metro | 0.5423 (3) | 0.4814 (3) | 0.3521 (2) | 0.6230 (2) | 0.5992 (1) | ||||
Tram | 0.5600 (2) | 0.5334 (2) | 0.2898 (3) | 0.3295 (4) | 0.5352 (3) | ||||
BRT | 0.5676 (1) | 0.5472 (1) | 0.7079 (1) | 0.6716 (1) | 0.5462 (2) | ||||
Monorail | 0.3521 (4) | 0.4365 (4) | 0.2692 (4) | 0.4829 (3) | 0.2990 (4) | ||||
Transport system | Economic criteria | Strategic planning criteria | |||||||
Initial investment/Implementation cost | Operation and maintenance cost | Integration in terms of ground surface | Spatial and urban development of the area | Revitalization, redesign, and upgrading of the area | Discouragement of private car use in the area | ||||
Metro | 0.4246 (3) | 0.4792 (2) | 0.5218 (2) | 0.5483 (1) | 0.5455 (1) | 0.5145 (2) | |||
Tram | 0.5143 (2) | 0.3602 (4) | 0.4326 (3) | 0.4940 (3) | 0.5450 (2) | 0.4992 (3) | |||
BRT | 0.6287 (1) | 0.5849 (1) | 0.5441 (1) | 0.5105 (2) | 0.4946 (3) | 0.5793 (1) | |||
Monorail | 0.3608 (4) | 0.3928 (3) | 0.3698 (4) | 0.4003 (4) | 0.3497 (4) | 0.3663 (4) | |||
Transport system | Design and Construction criteria | ||||||||
Track horizontal alignment difficulties (minimum curve radius) | Vertical alignment difficulties (maximum gradient) | Route length | Constructability of stops/stations | Availability of depot facilities | Technology availability in the market | Barriers related to archeological discoveries during the construction phase | Implementation/construction time | Flexibility in line/network expansion | |
Metro | 0.4673 (3) | 0.4523 (4) | 0.5249 (2) | 0.4311 (3) | 0.4959 (2) | 0.5216 (2) | 0.4531 (4) | 0.4422 (3) | 0.5679 (1) |
Tram | 0.5255 (2) | 0.4531 (3) | 0.4551 (3) | 0.4361 (2) | 0.3966 (3) | 0.4902 (3) | 0.4947 (2) | 0.4992 (2) | 0.4083 (3) |
BRT | 0.5848 (1) | 0.5344 (1) | 0.5424 (1) | 0.6245 (1) | 0.6213 (1) | 0.5679 (1) | 0.6067 (1) | 0.6154 (1) | 0.4885 (2) |
Monorail | 0.4226 (4) | 0.4930 (2) | 0.3682 (4) | 0.3947 (4) | 0.3941 (4) | 0.3714 (4) | 0.4918 (3) | 0.4361 (4) | 0.3741 (4) |
Transport system | Functional and Operational criteria | ||||||||
Maximum transport system capacity | Travel time (first/last mile time) | Commercial speed (run time) | Service reliability | Difficulty in maintenance | Travel comfort | Accessibility | Frequency/headway | Complementarity/Inter-modality with other transport means | |
Metro | 0.6676 (1) | 0.3392 (4) | 0.6810 (1) | 0.6318 (1) | 0.4208 (3) | 0.4665 (4) | 0.4465 (3) | 0.4864 (2) | 0.5572 (3) |
Tram | 0.3309 (3) | 0.6560 (2) | 0.3612 (3) | 0.4853 (3) | 0.4502 (2) | 0.5505 (1) | 0.5770 (2) | 0.4757 (3) | 0.5605 (2) |
BRT | 0.4048 (2) | 0.7038 (1) | 0.3538 (4) | 0.4090 (4) | 0.6356 (1) | 0.5060 (3) | 0.6689 (1) | 0.5843 (1) | 0.6349 (1) |
Monorail | 0.2375 (4) | 0.3453 (3) | 0.4610 (2) | 0.6269 (2) | 0.3857 (4) | 0.5139 (2) | 0.2929 (4) | 0.4005 (4) | 0.3326 (4) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Anastasiadou, K.; Gavanas, N. Evaluation and Selection of Public Transportation Projects in Terms of Urban Sustainability Through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Methodology. Future Transp. 2025, 5, 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5030090
Anastasiadou K, Gavanas N. Evaluation and Selection of Public Transportation Projects in Terms of Urban Sustainability Through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Methodology. Future Transportation. 2025; 5(3):90. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5030090
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnastasiadou, Konstantina, and Nikolaos Gavanas. 2025. "Evaluation and Selection of Public Transportation Projects in Terms of Urban Sustainability Through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Methodology" Future Transportation 5, no. 3: 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5030090
APA StyleAnastasiadou, K., & Gavanas, N. (2025). Evaluation and Selection of Public Transportation Projects in Terms of Urban Sustainability Through a Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Methodology. Future Transportation, 5(3), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5030090