Advertisement

Methodology for Multi-criteria Selection of Transportation Technology in Transport Network

  • Svetla StoilovaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure book series (LNITI)

Abstract

The chapter presents a methodology for multi-criteria selection of transportation technologies in a transport network. The methodology consists of the following stages: development of transport alternatives; optimization the parameters of the transportation for each alternative by economical criterion, evaluation the alternatives, taking into account the uncertainty of the processes; choice of additional quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing the alternatives, and determination the weights of additional criteria by using AHP method or its fuzzy version by applying the theory of fuzzy sets FAHP; prioritization the alternatives according the additional criteria by applying PROMETHEE method; definition an complex optimization criterion for choosing the optimal alternative of transport technologies in a state of certainty and uncertainty. The methodology has been applied to develop a multi-criteria model for the optimization of the transport scheme in passenger rail transport; multi-criteria model for route selection in the transport network; multi-criteria model for assessing the efficiency of intermodal passenger and freight transport. The research objective of this chapter was to experiment the application of the developed methodology in different modes of transport.

Keywords

Optimization AHP FAHP DEAMATEL PROMETHEE Transport network Transportation Intermodal Railway Road transport 

References

  1. 1.
    Abdullah A, Mingzhou J, Clarke DB, Hoque MA (2015) Train design and routing optimization for evaluating criticality of freight railroad infrastructures. Transp Res Part B Methodol 71(1):71–84Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agarski B, Kljaji M, Budak I, Tadic B, Vukelic D, Bosak M, Hodolic J (2012) Application of multi-criteria assessment in evaluation of motor vehicles’ environmental performances. Tehnicheki vjesnik 19(2):221–226Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agarski B, Budak I, Kosec B et al (2012) An approach to multi-criteria environmental evaluation with multiple weight assignment. Environ Model Asses 17–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-011-9294-yGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aksoy A, Küçükoğlu İ, Ene S, Öztürk N (2014) Integrated emission and fuel consumption calculation model for green supply chain management. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 109:1106–1109Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alireza S, Kaboli D, Carmichael G (2014) Truck dispatching and minimum emissions earthmoving. Smart Sustain Built Environ 3(2):170–186Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alp O, Demitras N, Baracli H, Tuzkaya U (2011) Fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE methodology to select bus carage location: a case study for a firm in the urban passenger transport sector in Istanbul. In: 15th international research/expert conference TMT, Prague, pp 273–276Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Artamonov M, Ilarionov V, Morin M (1976) Motor vehicles. Fundamentals and design. Mir Publishers, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aruldoss M, Lakshmi TM, Venkatesan VP (2013) A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. Am J Inf Syst 1(1):31–43Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Athawale VM, Chakraborty S (2011) A comparative study on the ranking performance of some multi-criteria decision-making methods for industrial robot selection. Int J Ind Eng Comput 2:831–850Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Awasthi A, Chauhan SS (2012) A hybrid approach integrating affinity diagram, AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Appl Math Model 36:573–584zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    BalBeşikçi E, Kececi T, Arslan O, Turan O (2016) An application of fuzzy-AHP to ship operational energy efficiency measures. Ocean Eng 121:392–402Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berrittella M, Certa A, Enea M, Zito P (2008) Transport policy and climate change: how to decide when experts disagree. Environ Sci Policy 11:307–314Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bertolini L (1999) Spatial development patterns and public transport: the application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Plan Pract Res 14:199–210Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beynona MJ, Wells P (2008) The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: a PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis. Omega 36(3):384–394Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bulut E, Duru O, Keçeci T, Yoshida S (2012) Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: a process model for shipping asset management. Expert Syst Appl 39:1911–1923Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang D (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chang Y-H, Yeh C-H, Shen C-C (2000) A multiobjective model for passenger train services planning: application to Taiwan’s high-speed rail line. Transp Res Part B 34(2):91–106Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chanta S, Sangsawang O (2005) Application of AHP for traveling salesman problem. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer and industrial management, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Danloup N, Mirzabeiki V, Allaoui H, Goncalves G, Julien D, Mena C (2015) Reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions with collaborative distribution: a case study. Manag Res Rev 38(10):1049–1067Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davison S, Elshout S, Wester B (2008) Common information to European air integrated urban emission inventories. European Regional Development Fund Regional Initiative Project European UnionGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D’Urso MG, Masi D (2015) Multi-criteria decision-making methods and their applications for human resources. In: ISPRS Workshop of Commission VI 1–3. Advances in web-based education services, 18–19 June 2015, Berlin, Germany, pp 31–37Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ehsani M, Gao Y, Gay S, Emadi A (2005) Modern electric, hybrid electric, and fuel cell vehicles: fundamentals, theory, and design. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehsani M, Ahmadi A, Fadai D (2016) Modelling of vehicle fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emission in road transport. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53:1638–1648Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    El Amine M, Pailhes J, Perry N (2014) Comparison of different Multiple-criteria decision analysis methods in the context of conceptual design: application to the development of a solar collector structure. In: Proceedings of joint conference on mechanical, design engineering & advanced manufacturing, Toulouse, France, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erdoğan NK, Altınırmak S, Karamaşa Ç (2016) Comparison of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods with respect to performance of food firms listed in BIST. Copernic J Financ Account 5(1):67–90Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Gao Y, Yang L, Li S (2016) Uncertain models on railway transportation planning problem. Appl Math Model 40(7–8):4921–4934MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Germano S, Quadros R, Nassi CD (2015) An evaluation on the criteria to prioritize transportation infrastructure investments in Brazil. Transp Policy 4:8–16Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guzman V, Masegosa A, Pelta D, Verdegay J (2016) Fuzzy models and resolution methods for covering location problems: an annotated bibliography. Int J Unc Fuzz Knowl Based Syst 24(4):561–591.  https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218488516500276MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hergesell A (2017) Environmental commitment in holiday transport mode choice. Int J Cult Tour Hosp Res 11(1):67–80Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hickman J, Hassel D, Joumard R, Samaras Z, Sorenson S (1999) MEET methodology for calculating transport emissions and energy consumption. European Commission, DG VII, p 381. http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/meet.pdf
  32. 32.
    Hüttermann R, Rose M (1999) Modellierung eines hierarchischen graphensystems zur behandlung großer graphen in ingenieuranwendungen. https://www.irz.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/institut/dokumente/BIForum1997.pdf
  33. 33.
    Isaai M, Kanani A, Tootoonchi M, Afzali H (2011) Intelligent timetable evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 38:3718–3723Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Islam D, Zunde T, Jorna R (2013) Performance evaluation of an online benchmarking tool for European freight transport chains. Benchmarking Int J 20(2):233–250Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ivanovic I, Grujicic D, Macura D, Jovic J, Bojovic N (2013) One approach for road transport project selection. Transp Policy 25:22–29Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kabashi S, Bekteshi S, Ahmetaj S, Kabashi G, Blinc R, Zidanšek I (2011) Greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions and options for reducing from the Kosovo transportation sector dynamic modelling. Manag Environ Qual Int J 22(1):72–82Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Katarzina N, Katarzina S (2014) Aplication of AHP method for multi-criteria evaluation of variants of the integration of urban transport. In: 17th meeting of the Euro working group on transportation, EWGT2014, Seville, SpainGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaya T, Kahraman C (2011) An integrated fuzzy AHP-ELECTRE methodology for environmental impact assessment. Expert Syst Appl 38:8553–8562Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kazan H, Ciftci C (2013) Transport path selection: multi-criteria comparison. Int J Oper Logist Manag 2(4):33–48Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Keisuke S, Kei T, Norio T (2013) A MIP-based timetable rescheduling formulation and algorithm minimizing further inconvenience to passengers. J Rail Transp Plan Manag 3:38–53Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kengpol A, Tuammee S, Tuominen M (2007) The development of a framework for route selection in multimodal transportation. Int J Logist Manag 25(3):581–610Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Keshkamat S, Looijen JM, Zuidgeest MP (2009) The formulation and evaluation of transport route planning alternatives: a spatial decision support system for the Via Baltica project Poland. J Transp Geogr 17:54–60Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kevin F, Liu R, Lai JH (2009) Decision-support for environmental impact assessment: a hybrid approach using fuzzy logic and fuzzy analytic network process. Expert Syst Appl 36:5119–5136Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Khanam J, Talib F (2016) A DEMATEL approach for prioritizing the TQM enablers and IT resources in the Indian ICT industry. Int J Appl Manag Sci Eng 3(1):11–26Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim DJ, Chung SB, Song KH, Hong SY (2005) Development of an assessment model using AHP technique for railroad projects experiencing severe conflict in Korea. Proc Eastern Asia Soc Transp Stud 5:2260–2274Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Knorr W, Hüttermann R (2016) EcoPassenger. Environmental methodology and data. HaCon Ing. Gmbh Hannover. http://ecopassenger.hafas.de/hafas-res/download/Ecopassenger_Methodology_Data.pdf
  47. 47.
    Kopytov E, Abramov D (2012) Multiple-criteria analysis and choice of transportation alternatives in multimodal freight transport system. Transp Telecommun 13(2):148–158Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kopytov E, Abramov D (2013) Multiple-criteria choice of transportation alternatives in freight transport system for different types of cargo. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference reliability and statistics in transportation and communication (RelStat’13), Riga, Latvia, pp 180–187Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal RC (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69(C):596–609Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lewandowski P (2016) User charges for road infrastructure in certain European Union member states. Sci J Marit Univ Szczecin 48(120):138–145Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lidestam H, Abrahamsson M (2010) Environmental evaluation of public procurement for bus transports. Manag Environ Qual Int J 21(5):645–658Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Limbourg S, Jourquin B (2009) Optimal rail-road container terminal location on the European network. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 45(4):551–563Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Longo G, E Padoano, P Rosato (2009) Considerations on the application of AHP/ANP methodologies to decisions concerning the railway infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Longo G, Medeossi G, Strami S (2011) The approach for railway project appraisal: proposal for a specific problem structure. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Luca S (2014) Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic hierarchy process based approach. Transp Policy 33:110–124Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Maskeliūnaite L, Sivilevičius H, Podvezko V (2009) Research on the quality of passenger transportation by railway. Transport. 24(2):100–112Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Meng X, Cui B (2014) Train repathing in emergencies based on fuzzy linear programming. Sci World J 1–10Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Meng X, Cui B, Limin J (2014) Line planning in emergencies for railway networks. Kybernetes 43(1):40–52Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mergias I, Moustakas K, Papadopoulos A, Loizidou M (2007) Multi-criteria decision aid approach for the selection of the best compromise management scheme for ELVs: the case of Cyprus. J Hazard Mater 147:706–717Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mitropoulos L, Prevedouros P (2014) Multicriterion sustainability assessment in transportation private cars. Carsharing and transit buses. Transp Res Rec 2403:52–61Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mohaghar A, Khanmohammadi E, Molavi M, Moradi-Moghadam M (2013) Applying interval VIKOR and fuzzy AHP methods for supplier selection. N Y Sci J 6(3):74–85Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mohajeri N, Amin GR (2010) Railway station site selection using analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 59:107–114Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Montesinos-Valera J, Aragonés-Beltrán P, Pastor-Ferrando JP (2011) Selection of rail improvement project using the analytic network process (ANP). In: Proceedings of the international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Moradi A, Etebarian A, Shirvani A, Soltani (2014) Development of a fuzzy model for Iranian marine casualties management. J Fuzzy Set Valued Anal 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.5899/2014/jfsva-00186Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nosal K, Solecka K (2014) Application of AHP method for multi-criteria evaluation of variants of the integration of urban public transport. Transp Res Procedia 3:269–278Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Piantanakulcha M, Saengkhao N (2003) Evaluation of alternatives in transportation planning using multi-stakeholders multi-objectives AHP modelling. Proc Eastern Asia Soc Transp Stud 4:1613–1628Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Podvezko V, Sivilevius H (2013) The use of AHP and rank correlation methods for determining the significance of the interaction between the elements of a transport system having a strong influence on traffic safety. Transport 28(4):389–403Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Robenek T, Chen J, Bierlaire M (2013) Exploratory analysis of demand interaction in the planning of passenger railway service. In: Transp—OR, EPFL, 13th Swiss transport research conference, Monte Verita, Ascona, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Robenek T, Chen J, Bierlaire M (2014) the ideal train timetabling problem. In: 14th Swiss transport research conference, Monte Verita, Ascona, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Robenek T, Maknoon Y, Bierlaire M (2015) Railway passenger service timetable design. In: EPFL 15th Swiss transport research conference, Monte Verita, Ascona, Transport and Mobility Laboratory, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rodrigues FLJ, Osiro L, Carpinetti RL (2014) A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 21:194–209Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Saaty TL (1999) Rank for comparisons and from ratings in the analytic network hierarchy/network processes. Eur J Oper Res 168:557–570MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Saaty TL (1999) Fundamentals of analytic network process. In: International symposium of analytic hierarchy process, Japan, KobeGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Saaty RW (2003) The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making and the analytical network process (ANP) for decision making with dependence and feedback. Creative Decision FoundationGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sadasivuni R, O’Hara C, Nobrega RAA, Dumas J (2009) A transportation corridor case study for multi-criteria decision analysis. In: ASPRS 2009 annual conference Baltimore, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sattayaprasert W, Hanaoka S, Taneerananon P, Pradhananga R (2008) Creating a risk-based network for hazmat logistics by route prioritization with AHP: case study: gasoline logistics in Rayong. IATSS Res 32(1):74–87Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sawadogo M, Anciaux D (2010) Reducing the environmental impacts of intermodal transportation: a multi-criteria analysis based on ELECTRE and AHP methods. In: 3rd international conference on information systems, logistics and supply chain creating value through green supply chains, Casablanca, Morocco, 10 ppGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sehatpour M, Kazemi A, Sehatpour H (2012) Evaluation of alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles in Iran using a multicriteria approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:295–310Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shi F, Deng L, Huo L (2007) Bi-level programming model and algorithm of passenger train operation plan. China Railway Sci 28(3):110–116Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sogin S, Caughron B, Chadwick S (2012) Optimizing skip stop service in passenger rail transportation. In: Proceedings of the 2012 joint rail conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, pp 17–19Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Solnes J (2003) Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using AHP. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:283–303Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Soltani A, Marandi EZ, Ivaki YE (2013) Bus route evaluation using a two-stage hybrid model of fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. J Transp Lit 7(3):34–58Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Srinivasa R, Kumar D (2014) Multicriterion analysis in engineering and management. PHL Learning Private Limited, Delhi, p 266Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Stoilova S (2016) Study of the efficiency of motorail trains as a factor in transport development. In: Bk2: Political sciences, law, finance, economics and tourism conference proceedings, SGEM 2016, pp 627–634.  https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2016/b25/s07.082
  85. 85.
    Stoilova S (2018) An integrated approach for selection of intercity transport schemes on railway networks. Promet Traffic Transp 30(4):367–377.  https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v30i4.2673Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Stoilova S (2018) Evaluation efficiency of intermodal transport using multi-criteria analysis. Engineering for rural development. In: 17th international scientific conference engineering for rural development, ERD 2018, Jelgava, Latvia, vol 17, pp 2030–2039Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L (2012) Application of the mobile satellite navigation system to study the movement of the road train. Int Virtual J Mach Technol Mater 7:23–30Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L (2013) Modeling of the fuel consumption of road train using GPRS system. In: International conference on automobile and vehicle technologies AVTHEC’13, Istanbul, pp 111–125Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L (2016) Methodology for optimal transportation using a three-phase model C. R Acad Bulg Sci 69(7):903–908Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L (2016) Application of the graph theory, AHP method and cost benefits analysis for route selection of a road train. J Balk Tribol Assoc 22(2):1041–1056Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L (2017) Study of criteria for evaluation of transportation with intermodal transport. In: Proceedings of 16th international scientific conference engineering for rural development, Jelgava, Latvia, pp 349–357.  https://doi.org/10.22616/erdev2017.16.n070
  92. 92.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L (2018) Study of the efficiency of passengers’ motorcar carriage by using multicriteria methods. JSIR77(07):414–418Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Stoilova S, Kunchev L, Nedelchev K (2012) Investigation of technical and operational indices for the movement of a road train. Int Virtual J Mach Technol Mater 1:37–46Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tan P, Steinbach M, Kumar U (2006) Introduction to data mining. University of Minnesota, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Thor J, Ding SH, Kamaruddin S (2013) Comparison of multi criteria decision making methods from the maintenance alternative selection perspective. Int J Eng Sci (IJES) 2(6):2319–1805Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Tsagatakis I, Brace S, Passant N, Cooke S (2013) UK emission mapping methodology 2011. A report of the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, 49 ppGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tscheikner-Gratl F, Egger P, Rauch W, Kleidorfer M (2017) Comparison of multi-criteria decision support methods for integrated rehabilitation prioritization. Water 9(68):1–28Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Vansteenwegen P, Oudheusden D (2007) Decreasing the passenger waiting time for an intercity rail network. Transp Res Part B 41:478–492Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56–66MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Verdegay J (2015) Progress on fuzzy mathematical programming: a personal perspective. Fuzzy Sets Syst 219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2015.08.023MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Vujanovic D, Momcilovic V, Bojovic N, Papic V (2012) Evaluation of vehicle fleet maintenance management indicators by application of DEMATEL and ANP. Expert Syst Appl 39:10552–10563Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Vytautas L, Gintaras S (2014) Passenger transport by railway: evaluation of economic and social Phenomenon. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 110:549–559Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wen H, Lin S (2011) Performance evaluation of highway passenger transport enterprises’ operation based on the model of AHP-DEA. In: IEEE 18th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IE&EM), Part 2, pp 811–815Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Wendan Z, Jian L, Zhang Y (2016) Comprehensive evaluation index system of low carbon road transport based on fuzzy evaluation method. Procedia Eng 137:659–668Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Wenliang Z, Junli T, Lianbo D, Jin Q (2015) Integrated optimization of service-oriented train plan and schedule on intercity rail network with varying demand. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society Volume, Article ID 419042, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Xinfeng Y, Lanfen L, Yinzhen L, Ruichun H (2013) Route selection for railway passengers: A multi-objective model and optimization algorithm. J Transp Syst Eng Inf Technol 113(5):72–78Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Xukuo G, Qiong W (2013) Research on the mode of present transportation in China and the analysis of railway transportation. In: 6th International conference on information management, innovation management and industrial engineering, pp 414–416Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ya F, Goverde RMP (2015) Stability and robustness analysis of acyclic timetable. In: 6th international conference on railway operations modelling and analysis, Rail TokyoGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Ye J, Liu G (2009) Application of AHP model in decision of urban mass transit network scheme. In: International conference on management and service science, MASS ‘09, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Yuan J (2006) Stochastic modeling of train delays and delay propagation in stations. Delft University, DelftGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Zare R, Izadikhah M (2015) Multi-criteria decision making methods for comparing three models of aluminum ingot production through life cycle assessment. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15(3):1697–1715Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Zhao J, Deng W (2011) Multilevel fuzzy decision support model for China’s urban rail transit planning schemes. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 5:10–24Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Zhipeng H, Huimin N (2014) A bilevel programming model to optimize train operation based on satisfaction for an Intercity rail line. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, ID 432096, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    RISK & DecisionTools Suite (2018). http://www.palisade.com
  115. 115.
    www.PROMETHEE-GAIA.net (2018). http://www.promethee-gaia.net
  116. 116.
    Super Decisions CDF (2018). https://www.superdecisions.com

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of TransportTechnical University of SofiaSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations