Urban population growth and urbanization with its impact on urban planning require continuous research in order to address the challenges posed by transportation requirements. Identifying transportation capacity (road and railways) is an important task that can identify whether the network is capable of sustaining the present volume of traffic and whether it can handle the future intended traffic flow. A new city, XiongAn, will be built in the coming years in order to relieve the pressure of population on Beijing and disperse the economic growth, business activity, and opportunities across the country. The focus of this research is to generate a transportation model between Beijing and XiongAn, in order to increase connection and connectivity, reduce travel time, and increase transfer capacity between the two hubs (Beijing-XiongAn). The existing transportation network between two cities is analyzed and a network which can handle future demand has been proposed. The first stage has been the investigation of a variety of options using geographic information system (GIS). Planning and implementing a mass transit system requires choosing among options such as an existing intercity railway line, a new high-speed railway line, and/or motorway options. In the second phase of our analysis, we assess these options relative to multiple criteria, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The options were evaluated using various criteria responsible for selection of alternative; it is found that travel time, cost of travel, safety, reliability, accessibility, and environment are key criteria for selecting the best alternative. The GIS and multicriteria analysis suggested that the best option is to build a new high speed railway line.
The economic growth and urban development of any city depend on its transportation network. Transportation planning is a complex process involving careful forecasting of future needs and study of existing travel pattern in cities. Innovations in transportation planning and development have occurred and emerging challenges put pressure on developers and planners to update their toolkits [
China is leading the world in high-speed rail network capacity, with 16,000km of track in service, annual passenger volume of 2,122,992 million, and annual freight volume of 40.99 billion tons [
Accessibility and connectivity are the most important parameters to consider in establishing an integrated transportation network in a city. The initial step is to analyze and understand the existing transportation network and seek to utilize resources more efficiently rather than just to extend the network [
Urbanization increases the number of automobiles and mileage of road usage and increases the pressure to invest more money in the autoindustry to increase GDP [
Every one percent increase in GDP for road transportation is responsible for an increase in energy consumption of 0.33 percent and 1.26 percent of urbanization [
Various methods are available for route selection; a feasible route will be defined as one reducing the overall cost of transportation (operating cost, construction cost, minimum separation effects, and environmentally friendly) and increasing efficiency, (direct route, shortest travel distance, better accessibility, and mobility options) [
The multicriteria analysis allows assessing criteria and prioritizing alternatives for transport planning. GIS gives the opportunity to preset the real objects as transport networks on maps and to integrate network characteristics into data base. The integration of both methods could serve to make decisions of transport planning. The aim of this study is to investigate the criteria for transport planning and to elaborate methodology to choose the transportation between two cities—megapolis and satellite using GIS and multicriteria analysis. In sum, the development of a methodology for transport planning by applying both multicriteria analysis and GIS data analysis taking into account different economic, infrastructure, environmental, technological, and other factors has been insufficiently investigated. This paper offers an integrated approach to planning the transportation between two big cities by taking into account route analysis and multiple factors relevant for transport.
The research methodology comprises the following steps: Step 1: Identifying routes between cities using GIS and route analysis Step 2. Defining criteria and prioritization of the routes using the multicriteria method
The methodology developed to prioritize the variant routes and the second step of methodology involves multicriteria analysis. The present research uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty in 1980 [
The Chinese capital Beijing is one of the world's most populated megacities. For this megacity, it is necessary to solve the problem of choosing a transport connection with the newly formed city satellite XiongAn. This research is a case study of the connection between Beijing and XiongAn. The populations of Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei are 22 million, 15.5 million, and 74.3 million, respectively; and their annual growth rates have reached 16.2%, 14.4%, and 11.6%, respectively [
Urbanization in China is at a peak, and most job opportunities are to be found in new urban areas [
Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei road network map.
According to “Urban Road Engineering Design Code" (cjj37-2012), roads in china are characterized as one of four types. Type 1 has a speed of 100-120km/h and typically has four lanes. Type 2 is trunk roads connecting the districts inside the city and consisting of four or more lanes in each direction with speeds of 40-60km/h. Type 3 is secondary roads having two to four lanes with speeds of 30-50km/h. Type 4 is branch two-lane roads (community roads) with speeds of 20-40km/h. [
The Beijing transportation network is very complex and spreads across the entire city. GIS and Road network analytics suggests that available motorway in the direction of “XiongAn is the only available option. GIS data relating to motorways linking cities in China favored having a motorway route in the direction “XiongAn.” In a case study for the first phase, we subdivide the area within the 50km buffer, to determine how much road infrastructure and rail infrastructure are available in the newly developed area as shown in Figure
Using study area 1, as depicted in Figure
Distribution of Beijing city on the basis of population and ring road.
For a detailed analysis, Beijing city is divided into 4 study areas as shown in Figure
The current system has very weak connections and connectivity in study areas 2, 4, and especially study area 3. Xiongan is located in the north of the city. There is no circular radial connection which gives a short and convenient route for people. Hence Beijing is already facing a higher number of vehicle, air pollution, and environmental problems. This study will propose the construction of a new road line from study area 3, which also facilitates access to/from study areas 2 and 4. Hence the burden from study area 1 will be reduced. The inhabitants of the capital city will have a fast, easy, and convenient route from Beijing to Xiongan. From short route analytics it is measured that the travelling time is two hours each way, and this may not attract many people to work or live there in future. Furthermore, the present research proposes a new road from study area 3, along with a high-speed railroad. The existing road starts from Qianmen east road. Hence the two suggestions will increase the connection and connectivity between study area 3 and study area 1. This case study suggests a route from the second ring road to Qianmen east road which will increase the connection between the two areas.
According to Figure
Beijing to Baoding Existing Transportation Network (near XiongAn).
This study recommends the following research suggestions.
A radial railway line is proposed to connect the two cities to increase the connectivity, and to generate higher ridership, provide greater passenger convenience, reduce travel time, reduce traffic volume on parallel highways and meet passenger demand. From the Beijing second ring area in the direction “XiongAn", the available rail track length is 26km at line 4, of which the last stop is Tiangongyuan, which is located outside the 6th ring road. Since road network links in Beijing are quite widespread and complex, it is now critical to reduce traffic congestion greatly due to these issues [
The study recommends a high-speed railway line connecting the two cities. In analysis from a survey using the subway application, GIS map and city short route application demonstrates that it takes more than one hour and twenty-five minutes to arrive at Tiangongyuan (last station at Line 4). So if the distance of 26km is covered in one hour and twenty-six minutes on the only available subway line in that direction, the question arises: will it attract people to travel or make them willing to live in the newly developed area?
Another question is how to reach to the newly developing area in a way that is convenient and acceptable to passengers. The total distance between Beijing and XiongAn is around 130km. If this distance is covered within one hour, then most of the people will be willing to travel. Hence the usual travel time in Beijing from home to work is in between forty-five minutes to one hour, plus time spent in transit network (Travel time) [
A high-speed radial line is needed, one station of which is located inside each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th ring roads, and the last station lies in the newly built area “XiongAn." The new radial line will follow the major demand directions towards the newly built city. To meet required capacity the circle (beltway) Lines 2 and 10 will play a major role in the distribution of passengers across the city. Furthermore, these circle lines will be effective distributors for subway and bus lines; thereby enabling suburb-to-suburb trips to use a radial-circle-radial path. Connection and connectivity within each ring will increase passenger distribution across the city. The transfer from one line to another will be reduced through offering more connectivity through integrated transit planning. The high-speed railway line is the optimum solution to the case study. There is a huge road network, especially in Beijing. But due to problems such as traffic congestion, traffic jams, unhealthy air, higher CO2 content in the air, and many other environmental issues, the city seeks relief from all these problems [
The sole purpose of suggesting the High speed railway line (HSRL) (Figure
Inter-city railway network and proposed high-speed railway line.
The distributed terminals concept is to minimize the adverse impacts of Central and Directional Terminals and maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of public transportation. Many countries have the problem of a centrally based transportation network which increases the travel time and burden on the city centre. Every transit mode originates to and from the centre. For example, Munich (Germany) used a central terminal system, but because of a limited population of 1.5 million people [
In the case study of Beijing (as shown in Figure
Distributed terminal network concept.
Network integration with well-designed transfer stations is a very important parameter for planning the line between Beijing and “XiongAn.” Furthermore, the inconvenience of transfers can be overcome by (i) the overall perceived reduction of travel time, (ii) the functional design of lines, (iii) passenger attraction/transit attraction factors to be considered, and (iv) network operating efficiency (Figure
XiongAn satellite images.
The overall perceived reduction of travel time: Travel time with transfer must be less than travel time by the direct service. People perceive walking and waiting time 2.0 to 2.5 times longer compared to in-vehicle time [
To analyze the 50 km radius of XiongAn a satellite map was examined as shown in Figure
The criteria between two cities are evaluated as following: F1: Cost of travel: This criterion describes the cost of the trip for passengers (ticket price or price of fuel consumption of vehicles when road transport is used). F2: Travel time. This includes the time for transportation and change of transport from Beijing to XiongAn. F3: Type of infrastructure: This factor shows the category of railway lines and roads. For the railway lines that means high-speed railway or conventional railway; for road transport that means category of road (motorway or railways) F4: Connections: This criterion presents the possibilities of connecting with another mode of transport. F5: Comfort: This shows the convenience of the trip. F6: Reliability: This criterion takes into account compliance with the transport timetable, and lack of congestion on highways. F7: Level of safety. F8: Accessibility: This criterion takes into account the possibilities of passengers obtaining the appropriate mode of transport with convenient connections in transport terminals. F9: Type of terminal connection: This criterion presents the type of connection (as shown in Figure F10: Environmentally friendly transport: This means transport with minimal environmental pollution and noise impacts.
In this research five routes and different transport modes connection between Beijing and XiongAn are investigated, taking into account the results of ArcGIS analysis: V1: Existing intercity railway line. There is no direct railway line existing in the study area; the nearest line is in Baoding. V2: Metro and new railway line V3: Motorway 1 Beijing to XiongAn V4: Motorway 2 Beijing to XiongAn V5: Motorway 3 Beijing to XiongAn
The existing railway intercity line from Beijing West station passes through rural areas. This line is not specifically connected according to GIS Analytics and online Beijing traffic data. Variants with Motorways 1, 2, and 3 (V3; V4; V5) have overall weak connections because they follow the ring road, which is not integrated. The existing railway line (V1) has good integration with other types of transport, bus, road transport, and subway. Table
Characteristics of variants.
Variant | Length, km | Type of way | Time, h | Accessibility | Connection with another type of transport | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V1 | Existing intercity railway line | 157 | railway | 3h, 30 minute- 4hour | no specific connection | Bus and Subway, Road |
| ||||||
V2 | New line | 105 | Metro, railway | Should be less than 1 hour. | Metro + new railway line; connections in metro station | Subway Stations |
| ||||||
V3 | Motorway-1 | 125 | Trunk road +Motorway | 1 hour, 48 minute | 6th Ring Road+ Motorway | Overall weak connection |
| ||||||
V4 | Motorway-2 | 167 | Trunk road +Motorway | 2 hour 8 minute | 6th Ring Road+ Motorway | Overall weak connection |
| ||||||
V5 | Motorway-3 | 160 | Trunk road +Motorway | 2 hour 24 minute | 6th Ring Road+ Motorway | Overall weak connection |
The present study uses the AHP methodology to determine what weight should be given to each criterion and to compare the alternatives Super Decision software used [
Figure
AHP hierarchical model for goals, criteria, and alternatives for the study area.
Weights of criteria.
Priorities of alternatives.
Pairwise comparison is the process of comparing the relative importance of two criteria with respect to another element (for example, the goal) in the level above to establish priorities for the elements being compared. In this research a group of experts gave an overall score on the scale of Saaty. Table
Prioritization matrix of criteria and weights.
Criteria | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1: Cost for travel | 1 | 1/2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0,15 |
| |||||||||||
F2: Travel time | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0,16 |
| |||||||||||
F3: Type of infrastructure | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 0,03 |
| |||||||||||
F4: Connections | 1/3 | 1/3 | 3 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 3 | 3 | 1/2 | 0,08 |
| |||||||||||
F5: Comfort | 1/2 | 1/3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 3 | 1/2 | 0,07 |
| |||||||||||
F6: Reliability | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 3 | 1 | 0,13 |
| |||||||||||
F7: Level of safety | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0,15 |
| |||||||||||
F8:Accessibility | 1/4 | 1/2 | 3 | 1/3 | 3 | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0,10 |
| |||||||||||
F9:Type of terminal connection | 1/4 | 1/2 | 3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1 | 1 | 0,04 |
| |||||||||||
F10:Environmentaly friendly transport | 1/2 | 1/2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0,10 |
| |||||||||||
CI= 0.097 |
It is found that factors affecting prioritization of alternatives include travel time (0,16), cost of travel (0,15), level of safety (0,15), reliability (0,13), accessibility (0,10), and environmental protection (0,10) as shown in Figure
Table
Five intensity levels and their corresponding values.
Super Decisions Ratings | Excellent | Good | Above Average | Average | Below Average | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Excellent | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 0,42 |
| ||||||
Good | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0,26 |
| ||||||
Above Average | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0,16 |
| ||||||
Average | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 0,10 |
| ||||||
Below Average | 1/5 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 0,06 |
Ratings for alternatives.
Alternatives | Criteria | Weight | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | ||
V1: | AVG | B-AVG | G | A-AVG | G | Good | Good | AA | Good | Good | 0,17 |
| |||||||||||
V2: | AVG | ET | ET | ET | ET | ET | ET | ET | ET | ET | 0,27 |
| |||||||||||
V3: | G | G | A-AVG | G | G | Good | AA | G | G | B- AVG | 0,21 |
| |||||||||||
V4: | G | A-AVG | A-AVG | G | AVG | A-AVG | A-AVG | G | A- AVG | B- AVG | 0,18 |
| |||||||||||
V5: | G | A-AVG | A-AVG | G | AVG | A- AVG | A- AVG | G | A-AVG | B- AVG | 0,18 |
Saaty’s scale for pairwise comparison.
Intensely of importance | Definition |
---|---|
1 | Equal importance |
| |
3 | Moderate importance of one factor over another |
| |
5 | Strong or essential importance |
| |
7 | Very strong importance |
| |
9 | Extreme importance |
| |
2,4,6,8 | Values for intermediate comparison |
Figure
The sensitivity analysis was also carried out to create the various scenarios based on the priority of the selection criteria. Graphical Sensitivity Analysis enables the researcher to adjust priorities to see the effect of changes in judgments on the overall ranking of decision alternatives. The priority ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 on the
Graphical sensitivity analysis for criterion F1.
The developed approach could also be applied to assess other transport options. The investigated criteria and their weights could be applied to study transport planning for other megapolises. The model could also to work in the case of introducing additional criteria. In this case, the value of consistency ratio CI should be observed for the adequacy of the expert assessments. The application of GIS helps to form different variants of transport connections and their parameters. For this reason, this approach is appropriate when combined with the AHP method to make decisions. The methodology can also to be used to assess existing transport lines. In this case, GIS analysis could not be used. Furthermore, the future research recommendation may be to extend the study, while considering other important planning parameters, while using other methodologies to help the developer and planner, to understand and analyze which parameters and criteria need to be considered for planning between megapolises.
This paper presents a multicriteria-based transportation planning for satellite towns of the growing cities. The methodology incorporated an analytic hierarchy process to evaluate various criteria from a set of alternative options from among which the optimal decision was made for the study area. Based on the analysis a railway high-speed line is proposed for the study area. The selection criteria based on cost for travel, travel time, type of infrastructure, connections, comfort, reliability, safety, accessibility, type of terminal connection, and environmental friendly transport was evaluated using an analytic hierarchy process tool. It was found that travel time, cost of travel, safety, reliability, accessibility, and environment are the criteria mainly responsible for selecting the best alternative. The sensitivity analysis also supported the selection of the high-speed railway line with the metro line to cope with transportation demand of the study area. The methodology developed can be used for similar cities by varying the selection criteria factors based on the priorities of the requirements.
The study suggests that application of GIS and Analytic hierarchy process supports making the best decision for transport planning from a multitude of available different options. The results of this study demonstrate that the combination of both methods can serve as a decision support system for the route selection. The proposed methodology can be used in research on transport connections and for other cities.
The result of the pairwise comparison of n criteria can be summarized in an (n, n) evaluation matrix in which every element
Тhe matrix elements have the following relationships:
The second step in the AHP procedure is to normalize the matrix. The relative weights are given by the normalized right eigenvector
The third step calculates the consistency ratio and checks its value.
The consistency ratio is found in the following formula:
Random Consistency Index (RI).
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.9 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 | 1.51 | 1.48 | 1.56 | 1.57 | 1.59 |
The consistency index is
The largest eigenvalue
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All authors contributed equally in the preparation of this manuscript and declare no conflict of interest.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant nos. 41702371, 41572274, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grant no. 2016M591078, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China under Grant no. FRF-TP-16-014A1.