Selection of Bangkok Metropolitan Feeder Systems Using Multi Attribute Utility Theory and Rank Order Centroid Methods: A Case Study of Pratunum MRTA Orange Line Station to Phasuk Intersection (On Nut Road) Section
Keywords:
Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Rank Order Centroid (ROC), Light Public Transportation System, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, Decision MakingAbstract
The objective of selection of light transit system in Bangkok by Multi Attribute Utility Theory Method and Rank Order Centroid Method: A Case Study of Pratunum MRTA Orange Line Station to Phasuk Intersection (On Nut Road) Section is to select the most appropriate type of light transit system on the target corridor. The research involves four groups of stakeholders including 1. Designers and Developers, 2. Communities, 3. Operators and 4. Transit Users. In this research, 17 representatives randomly selected from the first three groups are interviewed on how each influencing factor affect their transit mode selection (scoring) and the prioritization of those factors (weighting). Similar questionnaires are also collected from 425 randomly selected respondents. The ranking of the most appropriate type of light transit system are determined using the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and Rank Order Centroid (ROC) techniques. Consequently, the most favorable type of light transit system for each stakeholder group is revealed. Those include monorail for designers and developers, monorail, AGT and LRT for community, surface BRT for service providers, and monorail or LRT for transit users, respectively. If all stakeholder groups are equity, the most favorable type of light transit system for every stakeholder group is monorail.
References
Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (2010). The Study of Adjustment Master Plan for Rail Transportation in Bangkok and Vicinity, p.290 (In Thai).
Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (2012). The Study of Passengers Travelling from Public Transportation Part 1 Phathum Thani Province Area, p.559 (In Thai).
Nikola (2013). New Generation of Trams. Available via DIALOG. https://kojects.
com/2013/03/20/new-generation-of-trams/. Accessed 4 Jun. 2018.
Bombadier (2018). Clean. Quiet. Electric. – Moving with battery power. Available via DIALOG. https://rail.bombardier.com/en/solutions-and-technologies/urban/e-mobility-battery-technology.html. Accessed 15 May. 2019.
Bombadier (2012). INNOVIA monorail system – mass transit capabilities with iconic aesthetics. Available via DIALOG. https://rail.bombardier.com/en/solutions-and-technolo
gies/urban/monorail.html. Accessed 15 May. 2019.
Siemens Mobility (2017). Val: The latest generation of fully Automated People Mover. Available via DIALOG. https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en/portfolio/rail/rolling-stock/val-systems.html. Accessed 20 Jun. 2019.
Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (2014). MRT Pink Line Project Khae Rai – Minburi Section. Available via DIALOG. https://www.mrta.co.th/th/projectelectrictrain/bangkok-and-vicinities/pinkline/. Accessed 17 May. 2018. (In Thai).
Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (2014). MRT Yellow Line Project Ladprao – Samrong Section. Available via DIALOG.https://www.mrta.co.th/th/projectElectrictrain/bangkok-and vicinities/yellowline/. Accessed 17 May. 2018. (In Thai).
Opasanon S (2013). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Journal of Business Administration, 35(139): 4-7. (In Thai).
Opasanon S (2013). Multiple Criteria Decision Making (2). Journal of Business Administration, 36(140): 5-9. (In Thai).
Zopounudis C, and Doumpos M (2004). Multicriteria decision aid in Classification problems. Available via DIALOG. http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/pdf/OpZopounidisDoumpos.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr. 2018.
Alessio Ishizaka, and Philippe Nemery (2013). Multi – Criteria Decision Analysis Methods and Software. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, PO19 8SQ.
Keeney R, and Raiffa H (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade – offs. John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York.
Edwards W, Guttentag M, and Snapper K (1975). A decision – theoretic approach to evaluation research. Sage Publication, Beverly Hills, CA.
Edwards W, and Newman J R (1982). Multi attribute evaluation. Sage Publication, Beverly Hills, CA.
Pholmanee S (1998). An Application of The Multi - Attribute Utility Theory in Prioritizing Types of The School – Lunch Program. The Master’s Degree Dissertation, Chulalongkorn University. (In Thai).
Sirikijpanichkul A, Winyoopadit S, and Jenpanitsub A (2017). A multi – actor multi – criteria transit system selection model: A case study of Bangkok feeder system, Transportation Research Procedia, 25(2017): 3736-3755.
Kengpol A, and Salakkam T (2011). Decision Support Methodology for Recycling End of Life Parts of Vehicles: A Case Study of Automobile Tyre. The Journal of KMUTNB, 21 (1): 99-107. (In Thai).
Samstad A, Sundberg L, and Larsson A (2019). Assessing Stakeholder Preferences in Urban Planning – A Multi-Attribute Utility Approach. Proceeding of the 2019, (2019): 1417-1421.
Rohan S, Shubham J, Arpan P, Kishan F, and Jay V (2020). Multi-response Optimization of Electric Discharge Machining Using Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) and Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). 2020 7th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, 2020: 65-69.
Xiao Zhao, Jianhua Yang, and Xin Shi (2018). Multi-Criteria Decision Model for Imperfect Maintenance using Multi – Attribute Utility Theory. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 14(12): 3014-3024.
Kraujaliene L (2019). Comparative Analysis of Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods Evaluating the Efficiency of Technology Transfer. Business, Management and Education, 17: 72-93.
Roszkowska E (2013). Rank Ordering Criteria Weight Methods – a Comparative Overview. Optimum Studia Ekonomiczne, 5(65): 14-33.
Jia J, Fischer G W, and Dyer J S (1998). Attribute Weighting Methods and Decision Quality in the Presence of Response Error: A Simulation Study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(22): 85-105.
Barron F H, and Barrett B E (1996). Decision Quality using Ranked Attribute Weights. Management Science, 42(11): 1515-1523.
Sriwattananusart K, and Sureeyatanapas P (2017). Supplier Selection Using TOPSIS and ROC Methods: A Case Study of Restaurant Industry. The Journal of KMUTT, 40(30): 385-403. (In Thai).
Wang J, and Zionts S (2015). Using Ordinal Data to Estimate Cardinal Values. Journal of Multi – Criteria Decision Analysis, 22(3-4): 185-196.
Luke S, and MacDonald M (2006). Public transport mode selection: a review of international practice. The Association for European Transport Conference, 18-20 September 2006, Strasbourg, France.
Suresh J, Preeti A, Prashant K, Shaleen S, and Prateek S (2014). Identifying public preferences using multi – criteria decision making for assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study of delhi. Transportation Research Part F, 24(2014): 60-70.
Zofia B, and Lidia Z (2017). Multi – criteria evaluation of public transport interchanges. Transportation Research Procedia, 24(2017): 25-32.
Wongsiri A (2017). Evaluation of Phuket Transit System Performance and Flexible by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Master’s Degree Dissertation, Kasetsart University.
Samuel B B, Marcelo G G F, Elton M N, Jorge A C, Fernando A F, Jéssica G, and José B S O de A G (2017). Multi – criteria analysis model to evaluate transport systems: An application in Florianópolis, Brazil.Transportation Research Part A, 96(2017): 1-13.
Deok – Joo Lee (2018). A multi – criteria approach for prioritizing advanced public transport modes (APTM) considering urban types in Korea. Transportation Research Part A, 111(218): 148-161.
Rasa U, Edita Š, and Daiva Ž (2020). Multi-Criteria analysis of indicators of the public transport infrastructure. Promet – Traffic & Transportation, 32(1): 119-126.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
