Evaluation of a Sustainable Urban Transportation System in Terms of Traffic Congestion—A Case Study in Taxila, Pakistan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Method
2.2. Case Study
2.3. Study Framework
2.4. Phase-I (Simulation)
2.5. Phase-II (MCDM)
2.5.1. Fuzzy AHP
Steps of the Fuzzy AHP
2.5.2. Fuzzy TOPSIS
- Negative ideal solution
- Positive ideal solution
Steps for Fuzzy TOPSIS
2.5.3. Fuzzy VIKOR Method
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Phase-I Result
Selection of the Feasible Alternative Based on Simulations
3.2. Phase-II Result
3.3. Ranking Alternatives Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Technique
3.4. Ranking Alternatives Using the Fuzzy VIKOR Technique
3.5. Sensitivity Analysis
3.6. Impact of the Flyover
3.7. Impact of the Parking Area
3.8. Physical Site Examination
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Traffic Survey Sheet (Tally Counting) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location: West Bound toward the Taxila Intersection | ||||||||
Start Time: 07:00 a.m. | End Time: 08:00 a.m. | |||||||
Time Interval | Motorcycle | Rickshaw | Car | Van | Bus | Light Truck | Heavy Truck | Total |
07:00 a.m.–07:15 a.m. | 118 | 105 | 155 | 87 | 11 | 4 | 20 | 500 |
07:15 a.m.–07:30 a.m. | 113 | 109 | 161 | 77 | 9 | 3 | 22 | 494 |
07:30 a.m.–07:45 a.m. | 121 | 101 | 171 | 81 | 8 | 6 | 23 | 511 |
07:45 a.m.–08:00 a.m. | 126 | 110 | 167 | 79 | 14 | 3 | 16 | 515 |
Total | 478 | 425 | 654 | 324 | 42 | 16 | 81 | 2020 |
Linguistic Terms | Triangular Fuzzy Numbers | Triangular Fuzzy Numbers |
---|---|---|
(Reciprocal) | ||
Perfect | (8, 9, 10) | (0.1, 0.111, 0.125) |
Absolute | (7, 8, 9) | (0.11, 0.125, 0.142) |
Very good | (6, 7, 8) | (0.125, 0.142, 0.166) |
Fairly good | (5, 6, 7) | (0.142, 0.166, 0.2) |
Good | (4, 5, 6) | (0.166, 0.2, 0.25) |
Preferable | (3, 4, 5) | (0.2, 0.25, 0.333) |
Not Bad | (2, 3, 4) | (0.25, 0.333, 0.5) |
Weak Advantage | (1, 2, 3) | (0.333, 0.5, 1) |
Equal | (1, 1, 1) | (1, 1, 1) |
Number | Linguistic Variable | Triangular Fuzzy Number | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
l | m | u | ||
1 | Very Weak | 0 | 0 | 1 |
2 | Weak | 0 | 1 | 3 |
3 | Partly Weak | 1 | 3 | 5 |
4 | Average | 3 | 5 | 7 |
5 | Partly good | 5 | 7 | 9 |
6 | Good | 7 | 9 | 10 |
7 | Very Good | 9 | 10 | 10 |
f*j | 6.75 | 8.4 | 9.3 | 5 | 6.8 | 8.15 | 4.6 | 6.45 | 8 | 5.45 | 7.25 | 8.65 |
f-j | 3.9 | 5.7 | 7.2 | 3.85 | 5.35 | 6.8 | 3 | 4.5 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 5.35 | 7.1 |
References
- Pojani, D.; Stead, D. Sustainable Urban Transport in the Developing World: Beyond Megacities. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7784–7805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, B.C. Sustainable Transport: Analysis Frameworks. J. Transp. Geogr. 2005, 13, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banister, D. Cities, Mobility and Climate Change. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1538–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolny, A.; Ogryzek, M.; Źróbek, R. Towards Sustainable Development and Preventing Exclusions—Determining Road Accessibility at the Sub-Regional and Local Level in Rural Areas of Poland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griškevičiūtė-Gečienė, A.; Griškevičienė, D. The Influence of Transport Infrastructure Development on Sustainable Living Environment in Lithuania. Procedia Eng. 2016, 134, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maldonado Silveira Alonso Munhoz, P.A.; da Costa Dias, F.; Kowal Chinelli, C.; Azevedo Guedes, A.L.; Neves dos Santos, J.A.; da Silveira e Silva, W.; Pereira Soares, C.A. Smart Mobility: The Main Drivers for Increasing the Intelligence of Urban Mobility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noy, K.; Givoni, M. Is ‘Smart Mobility’ Sustainable? Examining the Views and Beliefs of Transport’s Technological Entrepreneurs. Sustainability 2018, 10, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadeem, M.; Azam, M.; Asim, M.; Al-Rashid, M.A.; Puan, O.C.; Campisi, T. Does Bus Rapid Transit System (Brts) Meet the Citizens’ Mobility Needs? Evaluating Performance for the Case of Multan, Pakistan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Transport, Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the Second Global Sustainable Transport Conference, Beijing, China, 14–16 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, K.; Batterman, S. Air Pollution and Health Risks Due to Vehicle Traffic. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 450, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banister, D. The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, E.; Gilpin, G.; Banister, D. Sustainable Mobility at Thirty. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, E.; Banister, D.; Gössling, S.; Gilpin, G.; Linnerud, K. Grand Narratives for Sustainable Mobility: A Conceptual Review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 65, 101454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zapolskytė, S.; Burinskienė, M.; Trépanier, M. Evaluation Criteria of Smart City Mobility System Using MCDM Method. Balt. J. Road Bridg. Eng. 2020, 15, 196–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardy, J. Smart City: A Traffic Signal Control System for Reducing the Effects of Traffic Congestion in Urban Environments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Derby, Derby, UK, 2019. Available online: https://repository.derby.ac.uk/item/943zx/smart-city-a-traffic-signal-control-system-for-reducing-the-effects-of-traffic-congestion-in-urban-environments (accessed on 1 August 2022).
- Schadschneider, A.; Klüpfel, H.; Kretz, T.; Rogsch, C.; Seyfried, A. Fundamentals of Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics. In Multi-Agent Systems for Traffic and Transportation Engineering; ResearchGate GmbH: Hershey, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelechano, N.; Malkawi, A. Evacuation Simulation Models: Challenges in Modeling High Rise Building Evacuation with Cellular Automata Approaches. Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. The Emerging Data–Driven Smart City and Its Innovative Applied Solutions for Sustainability: The Cases of London and Barcelona. Energy Inform. 2020, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aamir, M.; Masroor, S.; Ali, Z.A.; Ting, B.T. Sustainable Framework for Smart Transportation System: A Case Study of Karachi. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2019, 106, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jan, B.; Farman, H.; Khan, M.; Talha, M.; Din, I.U. Designing a Smart Transportation System: An Internet of Things and Big Data Approach. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2019, 26, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biyik, C.; Allam, Z.; Pieri, G.; Moroni, D.; O’fraifer, M.; O’connell, E.; Olariu, S.; Khalid, M. Smart Parking Systems: Reviewing the Literature, Architecture and Ways Forward. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 623–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haider, F.; Rehman, Z.U.; Khan, A.H.; Ilyas, M.; Khan, I. Performance Evaluation of Brt Standard in Decision Support System for Integrated Transportation Policy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamran, M. An Assessment of Sustainable Urban Transportation System in Pakistan. J. Mech. Contin. Math. Sci. 2019, 14, 470–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pira, M. A Novel Taxonomy of Smart Sustainable City Indicators. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 197. [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 Policy Pract. 2018, 116, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakhapov, R.L.; Nikolaeva, R. V Smart Transport Systems as a Method to Improve the Sustainability of City Transportation Network. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 666, 032004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobhani, M.G.; Imtiyaz, M.N.; Azam, M.S.; Hossain, M. A Framework for Analyzing the Competitiveness of Unconventional Modes of Transportation in Developing Cities. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 137, 504–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhao, X.; Qin, Y.; Si, H.; Zhou, L. Interval Type-2 Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach with Utility Theory for Subway Station Operational Risk Evaluation. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021, 13, 4849–4863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Guo, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, L.; Wang, M. Product Selection Based on Sentiment Analysis of Online Reviews: An Intuitionistic Fuzzy TODIM Method. Complex Intell. Syst. 2022, 8, 3349–3362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Z.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Qin, Y.; Jia, L. Energy Consumption Optimization of Tramway Operation Based on Improved PSO Algorithm. Energy 2022, 258, 124848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senousi, A.M.; Zhang, J.; Shi, W.; Liu, X. Un Marco Propuesto Para La Identificación de Indicadores Para Modelar Ciudades de Alta Frecuencia. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 30. [Google Scholar]
- Güngör, Z.; Serhadlioǧlu, G.; Kesen, S.E. A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Personnel Selection Problem. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2009, 9, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, G.K.H.; Takahashi, K.; Yokota, T.; Takenaga, H. Adaptive Route Selection for Dynamic Route Guidance System Based on Fuzzy-Neural Approaches. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 1999, 48, 2028–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, D.; Akram, T. Traffic Flow Analysis and Solutions to Ease Traffic Flow at Unsignalized Taxila Intersection. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 2018, 46, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Findley, D.J.; Cunningham, C.M.; Hummer, J.E. Comparison of Mobile and Manual Data Collection for Roadway Components. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2011, 19, 521–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebisi, O. Improving Manual Counts of Turning Traffic Volumes at Road Junctions. J. Transp. Eng. 1987, 113, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, P.; Mike, M. An Investigation on the Manual Traffic Count Accuracy. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 43, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barcelo, J.; Casas, J. Dynamic Network Simulation with Aimsun. Oper. Res. Comput. Sci. Interfaces Ser. 2005, 31, 57–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casas, J.; Ferrer, J.L.; Garcia, D.; Perarnau, J.; Torday, A. Traffic Simulation with Aimsun. In Fundamentals of Traffic Simulation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 173–232. [Google Scholar]
- Hidas, P. Modelling Individual Behaviour in Microsimulation Models. In Proceedings of the 28th Australasian Transport Research Forum, ATRF 05; ATRF: Sydney, Australia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Naji, A.J. Assessment of Different Traffic Management Scenarios Using Microscopic Simulation: A Case Study. J. Eng. Sci. 2008, 36, 1347–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moslem, S.; Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Blaschke, T.; Duleba, S. Analysing Stakeholder Consensus for a Sustainable Transport Development Decision by the Fuzzy AHP and Interval AHP. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismael, K.; Duleba, S. Investigation of the Relationship between the Perceived Public Transport Service Quality and Satisfaction: A PLS-SEM Technique. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faulin, J.; Juan, A.; Lera, F.; Grasman, S. Solving the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem with Environmental Criteria Based on Real Estimations in Road Transportation: A Case Study. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 20, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kechagias, E.P.; Gayialis, S.P.; Konstantakopoulos, G.D.; Papadopoulos, G.A. An Application of an Urban Freight Transportation System for Reduced Environmental Emissions. Systems 2020, 8, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Gurtu, A.; Singh, R.K. Selection of Sustainable Transport System: A Case Study. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J. 2021, 32, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K.; Kubik, A. Economic Aspects of Driving Various Types of Vehicles in Intelligent Urban Transport Systems, Including Car-Sharing Services and Autonomous Vehicles. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadkhodaei, M.; Shad, R. Analysis and Evaluation of Traffic Congestion Control Methods in Touristic Metropolis Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamwesigye, D.; Hlavackova, P. Analysis of Sustainable Transport for Smart Cities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ni, D. Signalized Intersections; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Swizerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-38548-4. [Google Scholar]
- Ocalir-Akunal, E.V. Using Decision Support Systems for Transportation Planning Efficiency. IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; 475p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Yin, Y.; Yang, T. Study on Evaluation Index System of Urban Traffic Improvement Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 237, 04029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, H.J. Fuzzy Set Theory. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2010, 2, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilangkumaran, M.; Kumanan, S. Selection of Maintenance Policy for Textile Industry Using Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2009, 20, 1009–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behzadian, M.; Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. A State-of the-Art Survey of TOPSIS Applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 13051–13069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumus, A.T. Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Transportation Firms by Using a Two Step Fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS Methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 4067–4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opricovic, S. Programski Paket VIKOR Za Visekriterijumsko Kompromisno Rangiranje. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Operational Research SYM-OP-IS, Belgrade, Serbia, 9–12 October 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.-H. Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 156, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opricovic, S. Fuzzy VIKOR with an Application to Water Resources Planning. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12983–12990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opricovic, S. A Fuzzy Compromise Solution for Multicriteria Problems. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 2007, 15, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayadi, M.K.; Heydari, M.; Shahanaghi, K. Extension of VIKOR Method for Decision Making Problem with Interval Numbers. Appl. Math. Model. 2009, 33, 2257–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devi, K. Extension of VIKOR Method in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment for Robot Selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 14163–14168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janjua, S. Evaluation of Water Allocation System and Reservoir Ranking for Indus River Basin: A Hydro-Economic Perspective; Capital University of Sciences and Technology: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Keeney, R.L.; Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1979, 9, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janjua, S.; Hassan, I. Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Applied to the Indus Reservoir System in Pakistan. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2020, 20, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javid, M.A.; Okamura, T.; Nakamura, F.; Tanaka, S.; Wang, R. People’s Behavioral Intentions towards Public Transport in Lahore: Role of Situational Constraints, Mobility Restrictions and Incentives. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alinezhad, A.; Amini, A.; Alinezhad, A. Sensitivity Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW): The Results of Change in the Weight of One Attribute on the Final Ranking of Alternatives. J. Ind. Eng. 2009, 4, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
- Su, M.M.; Wall, G.; Xu, K. Tourism-Induced Livelihood Changes at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China. Environ. Manage. 2016, 57, 1024–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabassi, K.; Martinis, A. Sensitivity Analysis of PROMETHEE II for the Evaluation of Environmental Websites. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdi, M. Risk Assessment Based on Novel Intuitionistic Fuzzy-Hybrid-Modified TOPSIS Approach. Saf. Sci. 2018, 110, 438–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Omrani, H.; Panahi, A. A Hybrid Approach Based on SERVQUAL and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Evaluating Transportation Service Quality. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2011, 61, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liyanage, T.U.; Ranasinghe, M.T.; Prasad, M.A. Post Impact Evaluation of Rajagiriya Flyover Evaluation for Intersection. 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359281092_Post_Impact_Evaluation_of_Rajagiriya_Flyover (accessed on 1 August 2022).
- Bedada, L.; Advani, M.; Chandra, S.; Juremalani, J. Estimating the Impact of Flyover on Vehicle Delay, Fuel Consumption, and Emissions—A Case Study. Lect. Notes Civ. Eng. 2020, 69, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taleb, A.; Majumder, S.; Rimon, M.R.I. Impact of Flyovers in Dhaka City of Bangladesh: A Study on the Affected People in the Adjacent Area. Manarat Int. Univ. Stud. 2011, 2, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martono, D.N.; Gusdini, N. Flyover Development Risk Analysis: Review of the Construction Phase Efforts to Minimize Environmental Impact. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 940, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arefin, S.; Rashid, T.; Habib, D. Infrastructural Development and Vulnerabilities: A Sociological Study of Two Selected Flyovers in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2019, 07, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taleb, M.A.; Majumder, S. Impact of Flyovers in Dhaka City of Bangladesh on the Affected People in the Adjacent Area. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2012, 4, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peiris, O. V An Examination of the Appropriateness of Flyovers as a Traffic Management Measure to the Road Intersections of Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the Transport Research Forum 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 25 July 2011; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, C. Removing Freeways—Restoring Cities from Induced Demand to Reduced Demand. Available online: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysInducedReduced.html#Note2 (accessed on 20 July 2022).
- Gössling, S. Why Cities Need to Take Road Space from Cars–and How This Could Be Done. J. Urban Des. 2020, 25, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraifer, M.; Fernström, M. Designing an IoT Smart Parking Prototype System. In Proceedings of the Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland, 11–14 December 2016; Volume 1, pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Jaller, M.; Holguín-Veras, J.; Hodge, S.D. Parking in the City: Challenges for Freight Traffic. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013, 2379, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraifer, M.; Kharel, S.; Elmangoush, A.; Ryan, A.; Elgenaidi, W. It Takes Two to Tango: Merging Science and Creativity to Support Continued Innovation in the IoT Domain. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2018, 3, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinde, S.; Bhagwat, S.; Pharate, S.; Paymode, V. Prediction of Parking Availability in Car Parks Using Sensors and IoT: SPS. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Comput. 2016, 6, 4751–4756. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, T.; Hong, Y.; Thompson, M.M.; Liu, J.; Huo, X.; Wu, L. How Does Parking Availability Interplay with the Land Use and Affect Traffic Congestion in Urban Areas? The Case Study of Xi’an, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 57, 102126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, H.E.-D. Car Parking Problem in Urban Areas, Causes and Solutions. SSRN Electron. J. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakash, P.; Bandyopadhyaya, R.; Sinha, S. Study of Effect of On-Street Parking on Traffic Capacity. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 45, pp. 409–417. ISBN 9789813290426. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability Aspect | Intent | Indicators | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|
Transport and Service Quality | To ensure the competitiveness of transport services and marked indicators of quality road transport service | Comfort and convenience Public transport availability Traffic calming Traffic control devices The willingness of citizens to use public transportation | [43,44] |
Environment | To reduce emissions and ensure minimized impact of transport vehicles on humans, flora, and fauna | Air quality Sound pollution GHG emission Reduction of high pollution vehicles | [45,46] |
Maintenance Cost | To minimize economic loss due to congestion and supplementary facility operational costs | Facility management cost Reduction in travel cost Facility maintenance cost Fuel consumption | [47,48] |
Social Wellbeing | To ensure the safety, mental comfort, and convenience of the people using various modes of transport | Reduce accidents Education Willingness Perception of passengers on safety and security | [49,50] |
No Alternatives | Parking Area | Shuttle | Flyover | Signals | Lane Separation | Unit | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delay Time | 227 | 165.02 | 179.1 | 186 | 198.2 | 209.5 | s/km |
Density | 87.31 | 86 | 91 | 96 | 101 | 93 | veh/km |
Travel time | 487.65 | 369.76 | 387.3 | 398.8 | 428.6 | 412.8 | s/km |
Average speed | 43.42 | 53.6 | 51.7 | 47.3 | 45.05 | 46.2 | km/h |
Transport and Service Quality Criteria Compared with the Criteria of the Environment | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Equivalent Triangular Fuzzy Number | Linguistic Variables | Experts | ||
l | m | u | ||
5 | 6 | 7 | Fairly Good | 1 |
4 | 5 | 6 | Good | 2 |
1 | 1 | 1 | Equal Advantage | 3 |
1 | 1 | 1 | Equal Advantage | 4 |
4 | 5 | 6 | Good | 5 |
1 | 1 | 1 | Equal Advantage | 6 |
6 | 7 | 8 | Very good | 7 |
1 | 1 | 1 | Equal Advantage | 8 |
4 | 5 | 6 | Good | 9 |
1 | 2 | 3 | Weak | 10 |
0.2 | 0.25 | 0.333 | Preferable (Reciprocal) | 11 |
5 | 6 | 7 | Fairly Good | 12 |
1 | 1 | 1 | Equal Advantage | 13 |
4 | 5 | 6 | Good | 14 |
1 | 1 | 1 | Equal Advantage | 15 |
0.33 | 0.5 | 1 | Weak (Reciprocal) | 16 |
5 | 6 | 7 | Fairly Good | 17 |
8 | 9 | 10 | Perfect | 18 |
0.2 | 0.25 | 0.333 | Preferable (Reciprocal) | 19 |
1 | 2 | 3 | Weak | 20 |
2.6865 | 3.25 | 3.8333 | Average |
Criteria | Transport and Service Quality | Environment | Maintenance Cost | Social Well Being | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
l | m | u | l | m | u | l | m | u | l | m | u | |
Transport and Service Quality | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.685 | 3.25 | 3.833 | 3.522 | 4.375 | 5.233 | 2.69 | 3.174 | 3.708 |
Environment | 0.26 | 0.307 | 0.372 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.2625 | 3.966 | 4.675 | 3.435 | 4.096 | 4.766 |
Maintenance Cost | 0.191 | 0.228 | 0.2839 | 0.2139 | 0.252 | 0.306 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.1521 | 2.7141 | 3.2849 |
Social Well Being | 0.2696 | 0.315 | 0.372 | 0.2098 | 0.244 | 0.2911 | 0.3044 | 0.368 | 0.4646 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Criteria | Transport and Service Quality | Environment | Maintenance Cost | Social Well Being | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weightage | Weightage | Weightage | Weightage | ||||||||||
Alternative | 0.6134 | 0.385 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
Shuttle Transport | 3.15901 | 4.26313 | 5.09122 | 1.925 | 2.618 | 3.13775 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Signalized Intersection | 2.63762 | 3.6804 | 4.6005 | 1.8095 | 2.40625 | 2.8875 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Lane Separation | 3.34303 | 4.23246 | 4.87653 | 1.48225 | 2.05975 | 2.618 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Parking Areas | 2.39226 | 3.49638 | 4.41648 | 1.617 | 2.2715 | 2.86825 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Flyover | 4.14045 | 5.15256 | 5.70462 | 1.8095 | 2.541 | 3.13775 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Criteria | Transport and Service Quality | Environment | Maintenance Cost | Social Well Being | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | |||||
Shuttle Transport | 0.8427 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Signalized Intersection | 1.3716 | 0.41803 | 0 | 0 | |
Lane Separation | 0.85011 | 0.50918 | 0 | 0 | |
Parking Areas | 1.5765 | 0.309 | 0 | 0 | |
Flyover | 0 | 0.080143 | 0 | 0 |
Criteria | Transport and Service Quality | Environment | Maintenance Cost | Social Well Being | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | |||||
Shuttle Transport | 0.73735 | 0.50916 | 0 | 0 | |
Signalized Intersection | 0.20591 | 0.31611 | 0 | 0 | |
Lane Separation | 0.74328 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Parking Areas | 0 | 0.2046 | 0 | 0 | |
Flyover | 1.576 | 0.4503 | 0 | 0 |
Alternative | Pi | Rank |
---|---|---|
Flyover | 0.96195 | 1 |
Shuttle Transport | 0.59664 | 2 |
Lane Separation | 0.35351 | 3 |
Signalized Intersection | 0.22582 | 4 |
Parking Areas | 0.09789 | 5 |
Alternative | ˜Sj | ˜Rj | ˜Qj | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index | Rank | Index | Rank | Index | Rank | |
A1 | 0.96588 | 2 | 0.34436 | 2 | 0.3096 | 2 |
A2 | 2.03016 | 3 | 0.54524 | 5 | 0.72776 | 4 |
A3 | 2.1699 | 4 | 0.39433 | 3 | 0.60986 | 3 |
A4 | 2.54662 | 5 | 0.6134 | 4 | 0.9021 | 5 |
A5 | 0.15354 | 1 | 0.10043 | 1 | −0.0979 | 1 |
Sensitivity Analysis | Criteria Weightage | Calculation of (Ci or Pi) | Ranking of the F-TOPSIS | ˜Q j of Each Alternative | Ranking of the F-VIKOR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | C1 = 0.6138 | 0.59664 | A5 → A1 → A3 → A2 → A4 | 0.309595254 | A5 → A1 → A3 → A2 → A4 |
C2 = 0.385 | 0.22582 | 0.727764597 | |||
C3 = 0 | 0.35351 | 0.609859475 | |||
C4 = 0 | 0.09789 | 0.902103711 | |||
0.96195 | −0.097896289 | ||||
2 | C1 = 0.25 | 0.64135 | A5 → A1 → A3 → A2 → A4 | −0.466904928 | A5 → A1 → A3 → A4 → A2 |
C2 = 0.25 | 0.27496 | 0 | |||
C3 = 0.25 | 0.309371 | −0.260021006 | |||
C4 = 0.25 | 0.083668 | −0.176686364 | |||
0.947284 | −1 | ||||
3 | C1 = 0.385 | 0.684148 | A5 → A1 → A2 → A4 → A3 | −0.033592464 | A5 → A1 → A2 → A4 → A3 |
C2 = 0.6134 | 0.29984 | 0.34844168 | |||
C3 = 0 | 0.201948 | 0.823529412 | |||
C4 = 0 | 0.220414 | 0.573594952 | |||
0.924512 | −0.176470588 | ||||
4 | C1 = 0 | 1 | A1 → A4 → A5 → A3 → A2 | 0 | A1 → A4 → A5 → A3 → A2 |
C2 = 0.385 | 0.193343 | 0.961340412 | |||
C3 = 0.6134 | 0.253272 | 0.890625 | |||
C4 = 0 | 0.588572 | 0.497828448 | |||
0.547927 | 0.567083232 | ||||
5 | C1 = 0 | 0.563122 | A1→A3 → A4 → A2 → A5 | −0.101370454 | A5 → A1 → A3 → A4 → A3 |
C2 = 0.6134 | 0.331939 | 0.320127079 | |||
C3 = 0 | 0.44418 | 0.638638729 | |||
C4 = 0.385 | 0.442087 | 0.364863717 | |||
0.263377 | −0.359745842 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Raza, A.; Ali, M.U.; Ullah, U.; Fayaz, M.; Alvi, M.J.; Kallu, K.D.; Zafar, A.; Nengroo, S.H. Evaluation of a Sustainable Urban Transportation System in Terms of Traffic Congestion—A Case Study in Taxila, Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912325
Raza A, Ali MU, Ullah U, Fayaz M, Alvi MJ, Kallu KD, Zafar A, Nengroo SH. Evaluation of a Sustainable Urban Transportation System in Terms of Traffic Congestion—A Case Study in Taxila, Pakistan. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912325
Chicago/Turabian StyleRaza, Arsalan, Muhammad Umair Ali, Ubaid Ullah, Muhammad Fayaz, Muhammad Junaid Alvi, Karam Dad Kallu, Amad Zafar, and Sarvar Hussain Nengroo. 2022. "Evaluation of a Sustainable Urban Transportation System in Terms of Traffic Congestion—A Case Study in Taxila, Pakistan" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912325